Medicaid's Inheritance Tax and the House Health Care Bill

[sfc_darrel]

Medicaid's Inheritance Tax and the House Health Care Bill


There is a little known section of Medicaid that allows each individual state to place on lien on the insured's personal and real property and allows those states to force sale in order to collect on bills following the insured's death. Most people likely think that Medicaid provides insurance for those that can't provide for themselves. In some sense, that's true. On the other hand, there is a plethora of medical procedures that Medicaid doesn't provide and if a patient is subject to one of them, a lien will be slapped on their property. Some of the medical procedures that aren't necessarily covered are: nursing home or other long-term institutional services, home- and community-based services, and hospital and prescription drug services provided while the recipient was receiving nursing facility or home- and community-based service.

The 1993 Medicaid Estate Recovery Mandate gives states the authority to recover from assets that pass through probate (which is governed by state law). At a maximum, states may recover any assets of the deceased recipient. As of 2003, this act produced a collection of about $330 million from estates upon which liens were placed. This act gives the states authority to send out an assessor to assess the value of a home, care, furniture, etc. of the property which the state will then mandate for sale. In fact, when an individual signs up for Medicaid, as part of their agreement, they allow the government to place a lien on their property in case the government then needs to collect.

One tragic case was described this way to me.

My mother had her medical coverage eliminated by her employer after 30 years of working in a hospital. All she owned was her house. No car. No stocks. No bonds. When she got sick and sent to the hospital, they put a lien on her house. When they put her in a nursing home, they added another one. Even though I gained custody of her, I had no decision making control in her care, even which nursing home she was sent to after release from the hospital. When she died, the state wanted the only thing she owned. A house that she bought at age 64 and paid for at age 68.

They had over $300,000 of liens on it.

The only reason she got to keep the funeral that she paid for was that the contract was irrevocable. She was already in her 60s when the hospital eliminated medical coverage for retirees. This is why she didn't retire until she was forced to at age 73.

As of the last known date, there were about 53 million people enrolled in Medicaid. That maybe all about to change. One of the arguments made by both sides is that nearly 10 million people are elgible for Medicare/Medicaid but don't sign up. That's because enrollment continues to be optional. Under the house plan enrollment in both will no longer be optional. Furthermore, those eligible for Medicaid will increase. Now, any family with an income of $80,000 and less will be eligible for medicaid. On page 102 (lines 12-18) all eligible individuals will be enrolled in Medicaid. As such, any family that makes less than $80,000, and has no private insurance, will immediately be enrolled in Medicaid. So, the enrollment will expand exponentially. As part of the enrollment, they will agree to have liens put on their properties. Page 195 of the plan will give government bureaucrats access to access to ALL Americans financial/personal records. So, it will be a short step to simply allowing the government to take from patients all uncovered expenses on the spot.

Finally, the now infamous page 425, either mandates or suggests (depending on how you interpret the very legalese language), "Advance Care Planning Consultation. Of course, nursing home care is one form of Advance Care Planning Consultation and that isn't usually covered under medicaid. So, how many millions of elderly Medicaid patients will be heading to the nursing home under the suggestion of their "consultant", only to then have the state sell their home to cover the expenses of that stay?

As such, the house health care bill is in fact a stealth inheritance tax on millions of unsuspecting poor and middle class folks. Ask your Congress person if they know this.


Posted by mike volpe

http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2009/08/medicaids-inheritance-tax-and-house.html

[sfc_darrel]

Who’s poor in America, according to ObamaCare?

posted at 5:55 pm on August 12, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama seems very confused about the poor in America. At one point in his campaign, he set the income bar for the rich as low as $75,000, promising a middle-class tax cut to those who made less than that figure. Now, the Wall Street Journal reports that Obama’s health-care reform plan proposes to subsidize medical-coverage expenses for families of four making as much as $88,000.

So are they rich or poor? It depends on how one defines … political expediency:

Most versions of the proposed overhaul floating around Capitol Hill, including the one endorsed by Mr. Obama, define “low-income” people who would be eligible for government subsidies to buy health insurance as including those with incomes almost twice the median household income.

Under the proposal, slightly more than one in five of the nation’s households -– through the redistribution of income in taxes they pay –- could be subsidizing the health insurance of the other four in five families, even though many of those who would receive government largess have incomes well above the national average.

The government, under Mr. Obama’s overhaul, would help buy health insurance for families of four that earn up to $88,000 a year.

To put this in perspective, the median household income in the U.S. — the point at which half the households make more and half earn less -– is roughly $50,000.

Obama proposes to subsidize more than half of all families in the US. Who will end up paying for these subsidies? Obviously, Obama wants to argue that only the wealthiest earners in the US will pay the bill, but they don’t make enough money to do so — even if the government confiscated all of their earnings.

The ratio itself shows the ludicrous construct of ObamaCare subsidies. If ObamaCare actually controlled costs better than the present system, why would the government have to subsidize families that by any measure are earning a significant income, a level more than 60% greater than the median? And who will argue that families earning $88,000 cannot afford to find health insurance without a federal subsidy?

The real reason for that figure is simple. Peter Brown notes that 80% of the population would qualify for subsidies at that income level cutoff. It’s a vote-buying scheme, a way to mollify political rage by giving 80% of people the sense that they’ll get something for nothing. By the time the bill actually comes due, it will be far too late for the anger and opposition to effectively stop ObamaCare.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/1...-to-obamacare/

[sfc_darrel]

It is important to note, however, that those figures do

not represent a formal or complete cost estimate for the draft legislation, for reasons outlined below. Moreover, because expanded eligibility for the Medicaid program may be added at a later date, those figures are not likely to represent the impact that more comprehensive proposals—which might include a
Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Page 2

significant expansion of Medicaid or other options for subsidizing coverage for those with income below 150 percent of the federal poverty level—would have both on the federal budget and on the extent of insurance coverage.

...

Finally, although the proposal would not change federal laws regarding Medicaid and CHIP, it would affect outlays for those programs. CBO assumes that states that had expanded eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP to people with income above 150 percent of the federal poverty level would be inclined to reverse those policies, because those individuals could instead obtain subsidies through the insurance exchanges that would be financed entirely by the federal government. Reflecting those reductions in enrollment, federal outlays for Medicaid and CHIP would decline by $38 billion over 10 years.

I hope this preliminary analysis is helpful for the committee’s consideration of the Affordable Health Choices Act. If you have any questions, please contact me or CBO staff. The primary staff contacts for this analysis are Philip Ellis and Holly Harvey.

Sincerely,

Douglas W. Elmendorf

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc...ChoicesAct.pdf

And when you die, they take your estate.
Joy

[sfc_darrel]

Estimates 18% will be covered by Medicaid.

No point in being buying a house or a car if you're "poor".

[reconeil]

What else should: "We The (Schnook$)" expect?

Big Brother lawyers and/or governments (Local, State & Federal) ALWAY DO what Big Brother Self/Clique/"Connected" types ABOVE ALL ELSE...ALWAYS DO. Tough luck: "Pilgrims".

Still, typically & politically cavalierly lumping Privately Premium Paid For MEDICARE & Drug Plans with TOTALLY U.S. Taxpayer Funded MEDICAID goes beyond our standard Political Misuse of Americans' Monies. Such exposes A Grand-scale Officialdom Public Rip-off of The Greatest & Grandest Magnitude.

Recent Political Grabs are much like when President Johnson & Gang took Privately Paid For Social Security and/or F.I.C.A. Monies OUT FUND STATUS & quite lordly shifted same into The General Fund,...despicably as just another Tax Revenue to be Politically Shared, Divied-up or Toyed With. Never mind: "Audacity". OBVIOUSLY American Politicians have No Shame Whatsoever. Most currently make Madoff seem like some piker.

Realistically,...NO FUNDS from Premium Payers for ANYTHING (S.S. or MEDICARE) should ever be lumped together with TOTAL freebe recipients ON WELFARE or U.S. TAXPAYER PAID FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE. What's next? Bank Accounts? 401Ks & such?

As all our Glorious Rulers (of whatever BENT) are now bogusly doing, have done & plan doing,...is just flat-out-wrong at best (most likely illegal or un-constitutional also?).

Neil