States to Seize Estates to Payback Cost of Medicaid

Over twenty years ago, the estate recovery clause was added to Medicaid.  If you are 55 or over and receive Medicaid coverage, the state you live in can seize your estate when you die to recover the costs they paid out for your health care.

By and large, a large percentage of the people receiving Medicaid have been the low income sector and poverty sector.  Once they start receiving Medicaid, there is little if any incentive for them to try to work and get off the system.  In fact, it seems that government created the system in such a way as make it more lucrative to be poor and stay poor than to try to work and make something of one’s self.  In that light, why shouldn’t the state seek repayment of what they’ve paid out for someone’s laziness?

Under Obamacare, the estate recovery may hit millions more Americans.  Before Obama could pardon the millions that would have lost their healthcare, there were millions that already had lost their policies.  Many of these people cannot afford the new policies being offered to them through the Obamacare exchange programs.

Thanks to Obamacare, the qualifications for Medicaid have been changed to allow more lower income people of all ages to apply.  Twenty-six states adopted the new Medicaid standards which means that more people will be applying and receiving Medicaid coverage than ever before.

With more people receiving Medicaid the system will quickly become drained of resources, which means that states need to find new ways to generate enough revenue to pay for them.  Enacting the estate recovery clause is one way that some states may be forced to turn.

It’s possible that if Sofia Prins of Port Townsend, Washington had not read the fine print for her fiancé’s, Gary Balhorn, Medicaid application. What she read shocked her as it said that if you’re 55 or older and receive Medicaid, the state can require your estate to pay back coverage after you die.  Prins realized that in the truest sense, Medicaid is not free insurance, rather it is a loan against a person’s estate.

The Seattle Times picked up their story and word started to spread.  In states like Washington, the lower Medicaid standards are allowing more Americans to qualify for Medicaid.  If they do, they are then not eligible for any of the federal subsidy for the purchase of healthcare.

So if you are 55 to 64 and receiving Medicaid, you had best warn your heirs that the state you live in may be coming for all or part of your estate to recover the cost of your free healthcare.  If they want to know why this is being enforced more now than in the past, remind them that Obama has always been about redistributing the wealth.  By that I meant he wants redistribute it from us to the government.  Therefore, you’re better off spending it all or giving to your family while you are still alive so there is no estate for them to seize.


Comments

comments

  • hollander

    In some ways this has always been true. My Dad was in a nursing home 18 tears ago and all the assets were put in a trusted family members name to protect the home, car, and bank account from state seizure.

    • catb55

      The problem is people are trying to sign up for Obamacare and getting kicked to Medicaid without telling them about the consequences. These are people who are younger than those who would normally prepare before that happens.

  • iamcurious

    This, friends and neighbors, is just one of a myriad of ways that the government gains power over you that it did not previously have. Wake up America. You're being reduced to a "subject" from the sovereign citizen that you were under the Constitution.

    • nannymm

      That's nonsense! The government is doing you a favor by giving you an interest free loan to pay your medical bill with payment deferred until your death.

      • AirFrank

        Who said it was interest free? Your thinking is seriously impaired.

      • iamcurious

        The only nonsense is what you've written.

      • MIKE6080

        and if you are on public aid you dont give them anything , IVe seen people on welfare for 3 generations , I guess thats their federal job

  • Michael Ritter

    As Hollander stated, nothing new here.. Been around for a long time.. = no news

    • Becca Swenson Belden

      Just because you knew it already Michael, doesn't make it old news. I'm just learning this for the first time and I'm a political activist!!!

      • Bay0Wulf

        You actually admit to being a PA? Wow ... I've come to think of them as being something lower than ... come to think of it, I can't think of anything lower!

        Perhaps you are an activist for good things?

        I'm a bit perplexed as to how to cope with the idea of the existence of "political activists" as I have never met one I didn't associate with bad stuff.

        But ... that would be MY problem.

        • Becca Swenson Belden

          Since when has caring about your country and staying informed and fighting for your freedoms a bad thing???? That's what I mean by a political activist. I keep on top of everything political as it affects me. I go to rallies, write my congressman/senators and stay abreast of things. Since when is it bad to stay educated???? One of the worst things you can be is a low information voter. That I am not! You best get involved too Bay for the sake of our country!!! You gotta be a liberal! Cause a freedom loving Conservative would not make a comment like yours!

        • Bay0Wulf

          BSB ... no ... sorry ... I was not trying to ... actually ... disparage your activism only I tend to refer to it as ... something ... anything ... else. That's why I said it was MY problem.

          I'm a Constitutional Conservative who grew up in the 60's & 70's and my "poster children" for activism are Patty Hearst and Jane Fonda ... GAG! I can't understand how she could have been so different from Henry.

          Sorry ... I had no intention to put you down ... just the epithet.

    • FrankC

      This sounds like the response of an Obama kool-aid drinker: something bad is being brought to the attention of people who were not aware of it, but we must cover this up because it did not happen yesterday. It is still FACT, it will impact MANY people, it is bad POLICY, but none of that counts because it is to the advantage of Obama to keep the population in the dark.

      • craig

        THIS POLICY CAME INTO AFFECT WAY BEFORE BUSH EVEN.

        • FrankC

          BUT, if the people are not aware of this provision in the rules, then it needs to be brought out. Or, would you prefer that no one know this?

        • craig

          SURE PEOPLE SHOULD BE AWARE ...SO THEY CAN PLAN AROUND IT.

        • nannymm

          It is clearly stated in the Medicaid application. In my years as an RN I have witnessed many caseworkers reading this to or pointing this out to applicants. It is not some closely guarded secret. Applicants are made aware. Perhaps some heirs don't know; perhaps some are just greedy and think they should get the assets rather than have them used to pay just debts.

        • FrankC

          That is my point, everyone needs to be made aware. If there are caseworkers who are not bringing this out, they need to be instructed to do so.

        • Bay0Wulf

          Yup! You're RIGHT!!! So what? Just because "it came into effect" back when Hector was a pup doesn't mean that everyone (or anyone) knows about it.

          In fact there are SO MANY THINGS that have "come into effect" since I was a kid in the 60's that even I (whom everyone considers to be a "F-n Know It All") don't know any but a tiny portion of them.

          Aside from that, the article is explaining that it may very well be used more aggressively and assiduously and has suddenly become more applicable to more people through the sudden expansion of Medicaid. A HUGE percentage of Medicaid recipients are "No/Low Information" Types to begin with.

        • nannymm

          This article alleges that it "May be used more aggressively." Of course, it may NOT be used more aggressively. We have no idea at this point.
          The fact remains that if you are 55-64 and have medical bills that are covered by Medicaid, when you are dead, the state can recoup the money it has spent on your care by attaching your estate. This is perfectly reasonable. Rather than force a person to sell assets such as his or her home, the person is free to continue using those assets/living in the home right up until death. Only then does the state recoup. In essence, it's like an interest free loan that doesn't become due till you die. What the he'll is wrong with that? Do you think taxpayers should foot the medical bills of people who have assets that they pass on? What about personal responsibility? If you can pay, you should.

        • Bay0Wulf

          Not saying its not reasonable or understandable or even undesirable however, there are many people who should at least KNOW that their actions actually DO have consequences before they jump into the pool.

          I don't see a problem with its implementation but there's a heckuva lot of folks out there who make promises to their children ... and others ... who seemingly have no idea what a total mess they've made of their lives and how it will effect their "heirs".

        • AirFrank

          So if an insurance company wrote you a policy that required you to forfeit everything upon death you would be okay with that?

      • Ted Crawford

        Exactly the same motivation for all those Drone Strikes, if these Jihadists were to be captured and interrogated, the accumulated intelligence might bring to light things Obama needs to remain unknown!
        " If a Nation expects to be ignorant and Free, in a state of Civilization, it expects what never was and never will be!" Thomas Jefferson

  • DOOM161

    Imagine that: there's a reason the administration is going people into Medicaid. To steal more.

    • Ted Crawford

      " The American Republic will endure, UNTILL (emphsis added), the Politicians realize they can bribe the People with their own money!" Alexis de Tocqueville

  • craig

    THEY HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOREVER....BUT IF YOUR SMART YOU CAN STILL GET AROUND IT.

  • toongail

    Next, if the recipient gave his/her estate to his heirs before death, then they will take it from the heirs.

    • RockyMtn1776

      It is my understand it has to be signed over 3 years before death. This may have changed recently.

      • craig

        NOT TRUE...PEOPLE BORROW MONEY AGAINST THE EQUITY IN THERE HOMES ALL THE TIME TO PAY MEDICAL BILLS...CREDITORS ARE NOT LEFT RESPONSIBLE ..THAT POLICY WILL NEVER CHANGE

        • JT

          Why are you SCREAMING?

        • craig

          AS IT IS...I'M PARTIALLY BLIND IT'S EASIER FOR ME TO SEE ....

        • Bay0Wulf

          You could easily turn up your font size or lower your screen resolution to overcome your visual handicap ... computers allow that kind of thing. I don't think it actually helps you to find the keys on the keyboard and for that there are keyboards that have enormous lettering on them available also.

    • bklynbel

      They look back 6 years, I believe it used to be less than that in the past.

    • axmickl

      The federal government unselfishly allows you to give $10,000 per year to your family before it acts to take everything you had.

  • mikeledo

    Exactly who has been kicked out of their home to pay for medicaid? No one. Compare that to the people who have lost their homes to pay for medical bills that private insurance won't cover. Clearly socialism has worked better.

    • FrankC

      And how many MILLIONS of people have died in the purges in Russia, and China, and Cambodia, and every other socialist government on this planet?

      • iamcurious

        Estimates of 135 million in the 20th century, under communist regimes.

        • Bay0Wulf

          Seems your estimates are actually quite a bit on the low side.

          More importantly, how many people have maintained their good health (or achieved a longer life with quality) under Socialistic or Communistic regimes.

          That is, looked at as an aside to the ones that lost their good health on purpose...

        • FrankC

          You should point out to Mikeledo that every one of them lost their homes... and their insurance...

        • iamcurious

          I assume he's smart enough to intuitively recognize that. It should be obvious to all. BTW, 135 million human beings being murdered by communist regimes. That's an outrageous statistic, equal to 1/3 of the current population of America. We should have hunted down and quickly dispatched every communist on earth, for that alone.

        • FrankC

          The folks like him who are always extolling the virtues of socialism and communism never want to admit to the reality of what it does. They make the assumption that they would be perfect, and so they would never be one of the ones purged. Check this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Fields

          This is Cambodia, in a period of less than 5 years estimates are that 1.7 to 2.2 million people were executed, out of a population of about 8 million. Yeppers, socialism and communism have clearly worked.

    • iamcurious

      Regardless of consequences, in my view, socialism is never preferable to the freedom to live and die on my own!

    • iamcurious

      That's the problem with liberals. They never add up all the cons to socialistic solutions to arrive at a true and balanced perspective on why socialism is bad!

    • darylj46

      Your a moron if you actually believe what your saying. Do the research before you type and do it in depth. Yes, this has been going on for quite awhile and heirs and spouses have lost their homes because of it. Research first and then learn something. People have to know this and many, many don't know.

      • craig

        HEY ..WAIT JUST A MINUTE..IF A PERSON HAS THE ABILITY TO PAY FOR THEIR HEALTH INS. BY TAKING OUT THE EQUITY IN THERE HOME TO DO SO ..ISN'T THAT THE THING TO DO OR DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO SOCIALISM....ONCE YOU HAVE BORROWED ALL THAT YOU CAN AGAINST YOUR HOME ...YOU STILL CAN LIVE IN IT TILL YOUR DEATH...THINK ABOUT WHAT YOUR WANTING NOW ...IT'S CALLED COMMUNISM

        • victorbarney

          And, "we the people'(women alone) voted for the openly promised "fundamental transformation of government." Nothing new under the sun...

        • darylj46

          Being as most are on Social Security that they can not afford to do as you ask and a lot of people don't have enough funds to pay for their insurance. Look at people that have been injured and their funds have been depleted. If you have medicare and are put in a home then all changes and you really don't own your home as the state and or federal government does. I have met many people over the years that have lost to this ordeal. I am strongly against socialism and served our country to defend this kind of crap. Craig, I don't know where you came to your post from what I said but people had better wake up as communism is coming rapidly.

        • craig

          END OF LIFE IS NOT A PERFECT THING TO MANUVER THRU IF YOU HAVE NOT HAD THE ABILITY TO PREPARE...I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY TO YOU...YOUR HEIRS SHOULD NOT INHERIT YOUR HOME IF YOUR LIFE ACCUMULATED BILLS ....WHAT'S UNFAIR ABOUT THAT ...YOU CAN LIVE IN YOUR HOME TILL YOUR DEATH ...IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAKE OUT A LOAN ANYWAY....AND THERE IS OTHER THINGS YOU CAN AND SHOULD DO TO PREPARE...DON'T GET MAD AT THE MESSENGER ..."PREPARE"

        • darylj46

          Evidently you don't know what these situations may bring and one doesn't always have the means to prepare like you think. I am so glad you have it all together for your spouse and heirs. I agree that one must pay their bills and this article is not is not saying they shouldn't but kike I said you don't know other peoples situations. I won't have a problem myself but the government should not just go out and confiscate homes. This is also done to some vets also when they die serving and yes it isn't common but there has been times. Just remember that these so called bills run in the hundreds of thousands sometimes. God bless and be thankful that your so blessed.

        • craig

          I KNOW FROM THE WORST OF EXPERIENCES ..NOT FROM KNOWING THE LAWS BEFOREHAND....I GUESS WHAT I AM SAYING IS YOU CAN'T FIGHT A GOOD BATTLE WITHOUT KNOWING YOUR ADVERSARIES POSITION....YOU CAN'T BE AGAINST GOV. HAND OUTS AND BE MAD YOU HAD TO PAY ....BUT IF YOU HAVE THIS KNOWLEDGE GOING IN YOU CAN BE BETTER PREPARED.

        • darylj46

          I agree on the knowledge but as I have been saying for a long time that most Americans aren't paying attention nor researching what is going on. I don't agree with hand outs and I think that like it used to be many decades ago that it is families responsibility to take care of their folks and not shove them to someone else. Society doesn't want to make time for family in the real sense and most people are living in their own little utopia and don't want to be bothered. It is all sick and the elderly are in a catch 22.

    • Bay0Wulf

      Ummmm yeah Mike ... not having access at ANY price ... or the ability to pay for access ... leading to early death is a MUCH BETTER way to measure the way things work.

      Have you ever heard the phrase "comparing apples to ... oh ... I dunno ... bowling balls"?

    • AirFrank

      How many people have been left to die because medicaid didn't want to foot the bill?

  • coolercoleman

    Medicaid is welfare and it's the people's money. It should be paid back. Medicare is different and is paid by the employer and the employee and the money belongs to the individual not the government.

  • Obummer

    This would be great if they applied it to all the illegal wetbacks in this country. When they finally get their citizen card and a legal job, the state could start to collect for their fifteen births, schooling for their wastes of life and the eventual incarceration while juveniles.

    • Jeanne Stotler

      They are not on Medicaid, they come in through the ER, use bad addresses, pay nothing and hospital absorbs cost.

  • bklynbel

    From what I understand, they have raised the limit of how much income income a person can make and will really now be pushing middle class people into medicaid. Previously, you had to be really poor to get into the program and most people who qualified didn't have any meaningful assets to seize However, with middle class people now being herded into the program, the houses and other assets that people would want to leave to their children, will now be taken by the government. You have to get rid of your assets for at least 6 years before you die if you want your chillden to get anything.

  • ZACAL

    If seizing estates would be true, reverse mortgages would be in big demand. I don't think this would ever happen without an all out civil war. This country would be full of wimps for this to happen.

    • smartgranny55

      It is the law, already. And, it is being done.

      • ZACAL

        I have to be more detailed when people read my comments. I for the most part do not believe in reverse mortgages, However; I think they would be used more often to try and beat estate taxes if you like the house you live in. (for ever) because the interest piles up rather fast on top of the reverse mortgage balance. Probably the government would try and do away with this type mortgage. Reverse mortgage lenders hope you die sooner rather than later. The longer you live means less profit.

        • smartgranny55

          I am not real familiar with reverse mortgage, but since my job involved working with people on Medicaid, have been more knowledgable on it. Then, during my dad's last few days on earth, I learned a lot more about it. If he had sold his farm land for less than the going rate or rented it for less than the going rate, and gone on Medicaid, the state could go after the buyer or renter for the fair market value. Fortunately, he had enough resources to cover those expenses. The same was true for gifts of money and donations.

  • http://www.noneofyourbusiness.com Anthony Alexander

    To get Medicaid one needs to be dirt poor.In other words you show up with your pockets inside out, essentially no net worth....So after one dies...what is the State going to get !!??....Nothing! that's what!!!....I mean what the heck is the point!??

    • Glatik

      Anthony:
      They might find a different way, getting it from people who are not dirt poor YET.

    • catb55

      Not anymore ... many people are getting put into Medicaid when they try to sign up for Obamacare ... they are most likely people who have lost full time work and are now part time and have no health insurance for the first time in their lives (they may even own their homes free and clear)... unintended consequences??? or the PLAN from the commies in charge.

    • nannymm

      Anthony, there are special rules for people who are 55-64. These rules allow people to get Medicaid if their income is low enough even if they have non-liquid assets, such as a home. The Medicaid recipient signs an application that clearly states that the State may recoup the money it spends from the Medicaid recipient's estate but only AFTER the recipient dies. It is a good deal for the Medicaid recipient because the medical bills are paid, the recipient gets to keep his or her home until he or she dies, and when the State does recoup its costs it does so without charging interest.

      • Kanudawg

        There is one thing missing in this discussion. If the medicaid recipient is married the spouse can have the home or asset taken out of the recipients name and save the asset for the heirs. The recipient cannot have anymore than $2000 worth of assets. Anymore than that and the assets have to be spent below $2000. That is also another reason that the poor are poor, they are not allowed to save, if they spend their money wisely.

      • TBI

        Actually, it works better for the provider, the recipient is dead.

      • http://www.noneofyourbusiness.com Anthony Alexander

        The reality is that these people are POOR they don't have a lot of money. Their real estate assets are also in poor shape meaning the net worth of the property is near zero.....Moreover anyone with any common sense knows if your senior relatives have a home it will be put into a non-revocable trust or assets split to other relatives via real estate transfers and other creative ways that are LEGAL that the IRS tax code already has……SO…going back to the original point of that state will get everything…what is “everything”……if done properly in accordance to the IRS rules…”everything” is nothing….If the state gets it all then you deserve to have it taken away…because there are rules that a good CPA and Tax attorney when involved early on can eliminate the state from intervening.

    • mbnick

      The Obama plan is to make seniors the new poor.

  • ketrout

    I can go along with the heirs of a person's estate that was on Medicaid paying back the money they received to support their as##.

  • Schawminator

    This just proves how the government raises its uniformed dependent, useful innocent and idiot voter base. And even when they find out the truth, they will still ask who's going to give me my free stuff and cut me my check. What a sad country we have become.

  • dontdoitagain

    I think we are chasing a red herring here. The real question here is why should medical costs be so out of control as to need asset forfeiture to finance it? We keep losing sight of the real (in my opinion) problem of astronomical, unaffordable, outrageously expensive medical care. Where are the rules, regulations, fines and fees regarding informed consent breaches, transparency, price gouging and the like in an attempt to bring medical costs back under control so that what the article mentions does not happen? (crickets)

    • Bay0Wulf

      Ummm ... depends on how you count "costs" no?

      It used to be that there was a large percentage of people who got sick and died. Who got hurt and died. Who got ... and died.

      Today's medical technology allows some pretty amazing "fixes" to the problem of dying but ... it comes at a cost. Today we will apparently pay for whatever it costs if we can afford to. The problem is that there are lots of people who will happily pay for the care as long as its with someone else's money.

      Do you know how long there has been disparity between what the health care cost and the amount of people who could afford it? Probably back to when it cost a goat in order to have the shaman rattle his bones over you but you only had 2 chickens.

      The cost of medical services is what they are due completely to the Government Interference and Insurance Companies who followed on its coat tails. Hospitals and Medical Facilities have to charge in accordance with what the Gov and Insurance Companies are going to "Discount" to in terms of payment. The Provider may know that the treatment is only worth $100 and can cover their cost/profit at that level BUT they know the Major Payer (Gov or Insurance) is going to pay about 40% of the fee. So in order to stay afloat the Provider HAS to charge $250 at the retail level (you and I) to make ends meet after the discounting by the Major Payer.

      • FlamingFury

        You make good points, Bay, and I'd like to add another. I have bemoaned for many decades the practice of having providers send their bills directly to insurance providers, so that the patient never sees the costs charged for the services. Thus, the providers can then charge whatever the [insurance co] traffic will bear. Because the patients don't read the bills, this also sets the stage for fraud.

        If the bills went first to the patient or person responsible for the bills, who could then see what's being charged, valid questions could be raised about a) the actual charges and b) the necessity of providing all the services, e.g., some tests that are totally unnecessary and in some cases harmful in themselves. (Such as mammograms, where the patient is subjected to harmful xrays instead of non-invasive and more effective---and cheaper---breast thermography.)

        • dontdoitagain

          It's like pulling teeth to get an itemized statement. I do. My insurance company likes it because I catch things like a $300 charge from the crna for "electronic transmittal of data". The bills are full of padding like this.

      • Jeanne Stotler

        Here is another angle, WE RUN TO THE DOCTOR TOO MUCH, in the early yeas, prior to 1975 or so, YOU PAID when you went to the doctor for routine visits, kids well check ups, etc., we carried HOSPITALIZATION, Doctors only one or 2 employees, a Nurse and maybe a receptionist, then everyone wanted all expenses paid, now Doctors as well as hospitals need more employees to keep track and bill all these Insurance companies, there are a lot more Cos. today all want a piece of the pie.

        • Bay0Wulf

          While I agree with you generally, the hospitals and doctors are forced into carrying all these clerks due to Government pricing interference, and an out of control tort system.

          For instance, my mother (an RN) was basically the neighborhood health care person. Every time something happened to any of the neighbors, they showed up on our doorstep. She didn't mind and was happy to help (mostly) but a lot of people began to take advantage. My brother (an MD) would be willing to help similarly. the PROBLEM is that the insurance companies actually threatened both of these people in that, if there was any liability arising from this kind of help, they would be on their own.

          Our homeowners insurance company threatened to discontinue our house insurance. My brother was told under no uncertain circumstances that if any sort of suit arose from helping anyone in a "Good Samaritan" situation that they would not help but would immediately pull his professional insurance even if it were a life and death at the scene of a car accident type of assistance.

          FYI, my brother, the MD, over the past several years has had to spend an ever increasing percentage of his time on the paperwork involved in a patient visit to the point where almost 50% of the time used to see the patient is being spent fulfilling the paperwork requirements so a 15 minute visit becomes 22 minutes by the time the paperwork is finished. He's a very fast typist and uses the computer to do the EMR's (?) and it still eats at his time with the patient and it is almost uncompensated time.

        • Jeanne Stotler

          I quit hospital nursing, to much paper work and not enough patient time, I went to private duty, FYI, EMR stands for Electronic Medical Records, my doctor quit the clinic she built, time allowed per patient 15 min. incl. time for vitals

        • Bay0Wulf

          Thanks JS I knew the meaning of EMR but the reason for the acronym slipped my mind at the time ... E in medi-speak usually stands for Emergency and I knew it was Patient but I also knew it wasn't PMR ...

          Merry Christmas! (Past) A Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year.

      • FlamingFury

        There's a story that's been in the news quite a bit lately about a young girl who went into a coma following a simple tonsillectomy. She is on life support, and the hospital wants to pull the plug. The family petitioned in the court to have her kept on life support through Christmas. Now I can support that---after all, who wants a beloved family member to die during one of the year's most emotional holidays---and to have to live with that anniversary for the rest of your life? But now the family has found some long-term care facility to keep their little brain-dead girl on machines indefinitely. I noted the race of the child. Take a guess. One of those who likely has everything paid for by the taxpayers.

        While the death of a loved one is a burdensome event, and that of a child particularly sad and tragic, death is a natural part of the scheme of things. For man to continually play God by artificially prolonging life in a vegetative state is almost as obscene as the deliberate taking of life. And when it has to be paid for by those of us not directly involved, it becomes a form of theft.

        • Bay0Wulf

          There are several versions of this that I am aware of. Preemie children born the size of a kitten and nurtured to the tune of millions of dollars which the family cannot pay. People on various types of life support that the families cannot afford. People taking massive amounts of expensive medications or getting transplants that will only prolong their lives for a very short while which they cannot afford.

          The US Citizenry continues to struggle to save each one regardless of the cost.

          The "Human Factor" I understand and "feel" for these people.

          The "Reality Factor" In almost every culture there is a point beyond which they do not go. Not in the USA. The US Native American Indians used to walk out into the forest when their time came.

          Its sad but even with those who profess to have very strong faith, the US Citizenry have lost touch with the fact that; "There is a Time to be Born and there is a Time to Die."

    • FlamingFury

      For one thing, the conventional medical establishment teaches (in the med schools) and fosters the philosophy of "drugs and surgery for everything and nothing but drugs or surgery for anything." Anyone who promotes less costly, more natural alternative medicine is subject to loss of license and other persecution. So we get titanium hip and knee surgeries instead of prolotherapy injections, or we're brainwashed to slather sunscreen and take useless flu shots instead of Vitamin D (from either inexpensive capsules or sunshine). We are pushed into "comprehensive" screening deals where it costs thousands for tests that may or may not relate to the complaint. They keep changing the standards to increase the numbers of people who "need" drugs such as statins (which do more harm than good) or BP meds. Finally, they continue to promote theories that have been totally discredited (it's not cholesterol, which is brain food, that causes heart problems; it's inflammation, nor does fluoride, which is rat poison, help the teeth, but they have no better use for the gunk scrubbed from chimneys of pesticide factories, so they put it in drinking water). That's why medical "care" costs so much.

    • Annegelinas

      Everyone wants bigger pays and unions to give them astronomical pensions. That is your answer. All us. Greedy folks . Looters, embezzled, free loaders. We together have caused this out of proportion costs. Blame ourselves for this mess.

    • Constance

      Blame the insurance industry and ambulance chasing lawyers (and their equally guilty clients) for the high medical expenses. Add in the low amount Medicare and HMOs pay against the costs, forcing the doctors and hospitals to eat the balance, and you have the reason. BTW, the insurance industry lost their fannies in the stock markets back in the 70s so they felt forced to raise malpractice insurance up to 500% in order to build up their bank accounts again. It wasn't the pay outs for malpractice that was the cause, it was the companies heavily investing in stocks (and losing their shirts) behind it all.

      • bossysheryl

        Insurance didn't invent the Medicare reimbursement gap.

        Lyndon Johnson and the "GREAT SOCIETY" Democrats invented that as part and parcel of Medicare. It was always intended to low-pay everyone.

    • mbnick

      55% of current US Medical costs come from obesity, smoking, and litigation. The $3+ Trillion anti seniors, anti middle class Obamacaid welfare and takeover scam addresses none of them.

      • dontdoitagain

        I think 55% of medical costs come from freebies. You know, the people who get everything from the government. What is your solution to all this obesity, smoking, and litigation? Forced diets, in a jail maybe or gastro operations? You want to lock up smokers like any other druggie in the "for profit" prisons? People are getting pot legalized, shall we keep locking them up too? For smoking? You want to have no lawyers keeping medical practitioners on their toes? Who is going to force the hospitals et al to follow the law? There is no accountability in medical care.

        I agree that Obama is anti-workers. Anybody who works or has worked is in the crosshairs of this administration.

        • mbnick

          Punishment never works, which is why we have repeat offenders. Hitting the wallet does. Cut their food stamps, jack their premiums, make the Medicaid moochers pay a co-pay or ignore them and cut off their welfare. Won't stop it but will slow it down. Litigation expense is the easy one. Cut % the lawyers get to 10-15% and cap the settlements.

        • dontdoitagain

          Cutting their food stamps will probably impact their children (who are probably fat themselves, but some aren't) not themselves. They pay their premiums with what? Their subsidy because they are too fat to get a job? Or they get free medical care through our taxes. Medicaid moochers will pay a co-pay out of their taxpayer beneifit check. Both come out of OUR pocket. I'm assuming you work, as I do. The problem with cutting off lawyers is it allows medical care to become more expensive. It removes an obstacle, apparently the only one, to preventing hospitals and other medical minions forcing medical care upon us, and doing sloppy work. There are zero means to hold medical care accountable to the patient. Yes there are laws pertaining to this, but they are not followed, nor enforced. Lawyers are keeping that DOWN! If there is no way to stop medical people from giving us way more treatment than we need, want or give permission for, then costs go up. I have not heard that medical insurance or the cost of care has gone down in tort reform states. It won't happen.

        • mbnick

          If they care about their kids they will do something about their foodstamps including teaching the kids not top pursue a life of dependency. They can take their premiums out of their junk purchases. Nothing wrong with the career Medicaid moochers giving some of their welfare back and learning about responsibility. Capping the amount lawyers get and the maximum does not increase costs. Historically it has increased them which is why it is part of the 55%. It does discourage frivolous lawsuits which brings down insurance costs. Bottom line is that Medicaid pays for services but does little or nothing about improving health. The obese remain obese, etc.

    • bossysheryl

      You cannot be serious.

      INSURANCE is the reason "costs" are out of control!

      All those billing clerks, government functionaries, etc., HAVE TO BE PAID. That's where the cash is going--not to paying for medical care, but paying for people to shuffle paper!!!

      Hospital and doctor REIMBURSEMENT DOLLARS--what doctors and hospitals themselves actually get paid, when corrected for inflation, is less than it's ever been.

      • Laurence Almand

        And keep in mind that the government is overstaffed with 3 or 4 times as many employees as are necessary. Do-nothing "administrators" are paid $300,000 a year for just sitting and talking on the phone all day.

      • dontdoitagain

        I agree with you on the insurance problem. Having the government come in and add yet more layers of people involved in health care is NOT going to bring down the cost. Look up "chargemaster" before you feel sorry for the hospitals. You might want to look at what "informed" CONSENT has become as well. There are lots fo ways to bring down the cost of medical care. It shouldn't be so expensive that you lose your damn house over it.

  • RicC

    Face it the government owns everything now, more freedoms and liberties lost, thanks to all the freeloaders out there. OF, BY, AND FOR THE GOVERNMENT, which has declared itself our new god. Socialism has never worked, even our pilgrims tried it, to many freeloaders, it stop. You worked and contributed or you starved.

  • richo345

    Actually it is a lot worse than that.

    1. If you are below a certain point in income, it automatically puts you into medicaid.

    The income point at which this automatically happens is 133 percent of the federal poverty level, which, for a family of 4 is over $30,000.

    2. Asset test. They will tell you that the asset test was dropped for medicaid, but that is not actually true. The asset test was dropped except for certain groups such as the elderly and people on Social Security Disability "

    What this means is that for those in these categories, you are required to spend down all your liquid assets. It varies by state, but the most common requirement is that you get to keep your primary residence and one car, but all other assets must be liquidated down to the level of $2,000. They essentially confiscate all your retirement assets.

    They do not just take it from your estate. They confiscate all you current retirement assets.

    • mbnick

      Meanwhile the Obamacaid subsidies go to families up to 400% of the poverty level. Why? To buy votes.

      • jime1

        That's how the fool operates. Hey it's been working very well for him and his kool-aid drinking, brain dead, and low IQ, supporters now hasn't it? Wait until Hillary begins to make her promises, those same fools will think it's just more manna from heaven!

        • blondejustice1

          Once again Jime1, you have it dead on. Heaven help us if Hillary is voted in. You know the Dumbocratic machine will convince the low info/IQ folks that we need the first woman president to "make history". Just like they did with Obama. Only thing is, it will kill whatever is left of our great Republic if she gets in. I would love to move to another country but I don't have the money to do so.

      • Laurence Almand

        And what about the billionaire bailouts - using OUR tax money to subsidize the fat cat executives?

  • Constance

    Not only Medicaid but also HUD housing assistance. Funny how the young can live off the system forever without paying back (and obtaining assistance in a heartbeat, while the elderly who are living on Social Security alone have to jump thru' hoops and then wait approximately 8 years before their number comes up for the HUD aspect). Something is really wrong in how this works especially when the elderly have, for the most part, worked their entire adult life but were never able to get ahead sufficiently to put away enough to supplement S.S. - or they have spent it all on medical expenses.

    • mbnick

      NEVER forget that the 4 things Obama despises are our Military, Fox News, small business and our Seniors.

      • TBI

        He is working on killing them all!

      • MrLogical

        You forgot:
        People who work and actually pay taxes
        People who defend their Judeo-Christian heritage
        People who cherish our God-given, natural freedoms
        People who respect and defend the Constitution
        People who eschew government assistance
        People who abide by the law of the land
        People who despise those who usurp power

      • DontTreadOnMe11

        To add to MrLogical:

        The USA (period).

    • Laurence Almand

      When I lived in San Francisco in the mid-70s I drove a taxi 6 days a week in order to pay for my schooling. People on welfare who did nothing got better medical and dental benefits than I did!

  • carolrhill814

    I wonder how many people really and truely understand what is truely going on and everyone who voted this person back in only have themselves to thank.

    • FlamingFury

      You make a good point, Carol. Too many people vote on short sound bites and get caught up in the emotion of a teleprompted speech instead of seriously studying the issues.

      • TBI

        Or lured by taxpayer funded handouts.

      • Golf4me

        Flame, these folks are called the BS believers, and the free stuff receivers.

    • jimbo124816

      The people who voted this guy back in can not share the blame. We can not thank them.

      People who voted for Romney had their electronic ballots changed by a push of a button to register their votes for Obama. People who have been dead and buried decades ago all voted for Obama. Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and Dick Tracy among others, all voted for Obama. 100,000 people in St Lucie County in Florida cast 135,000 votes, mostly for Obama. Many precincts in Pennsylvania and Ohio recorded 100% of the votes for Obama even though thousands of people said they voted for Romney.

      We only have the Democrat Party to "thank". Don't blame your Great Great Grandmother. Even though she was a lifelong Republican, since she died she now votes strictly Democrat.
      .

      • blondejustice1

        Yes and nobody does a thing to investigate the incredibly obvious messed up machines. The Dems will do anything to push their agenda through. Can't wait to hear what Sheriff Joe's investigator has found. They said they will have all info revealed in March. That's only if someone else doesn't turn up dead that is involved in this crime.

      • DontTreadOnMe11

        No, we have more than just the democrat party to "thank". We also have the republicans, who either refuse to do anything about it or are flat out complicit. I vote for the latter.

    • John

      The problem is they DON'T CARE AT ALL as long as they don't have to work & have a free phone etc. NOW! They don't care about anyone's future including their own! That's called a Meat Head...Dead from the neck up!

  • Kenyan Mocker

    This will also encourage people not to marry or at as many seniors have found out it's not worth getting married again. Already the Govt has programs that cut the Social Security payout for those that re-marry.
    Now add to the mix what the FED has done to reduce assets of seniors by artificially keeping interest rates low so people use up their savings. The only alternative is to go into the stock market and even though it's done fantastic this year when the FED quits their QE program it may bottom out.

  • jwright673

    This is why it is necessary to put your property in an irrevocable trust. Once in a trust, there is a five year lookback period (you have to stay healthy for those five years). After that, the commies can't take your property and whoever is named in your trust inherits your property.

    • bossysheryl

      Until they change the "look back" to 10 years, then 15, then 25...

  • HDMania

    This is all BS..we all pay into Medicare and such and in Cali we have to pay Medical too..
    so you give them the money all your working life and when you finally have to use it you have to pay it back ?? such BS

    • TBI

      Medicaid is separate from Medicare. Using Medicare is all right because you have paid into it and will pay premiums out of SS, they will not attach property in these cases, because it is covered.

      • Lowell

        You left out the operative word. The sentence should have read "they will not attach property YET in these cases".

      • catb55

        But many people younger than 55 are on Medicaid and they lose NOTHING ... they have to pay back Nothing .. doesn't seem fair to me .. they are going after the people who have something NOW .. not in the future (of course they way things are going .. they may never have anything).

    • Philip Snide Snyder

      didn't say medicare, it said Medicaid.

    • Golf4me

      HD they are talking about Medicaid, and in most states you have to be busted to get on Medicaid, and if you are receiving any income they can use it to pay for your Medicaid bills.

      • oleinwi

        True, BUT the scary part is that they are broadening the group covered by MediCaid, no doubt to include some folks that actually have some assets, so they can eventually seize them. Careful what you wish for entitlement people! It will be free, until the Gov't comes to take ALL of it at the end.

        • DontTreadOnMe11

          Hey, they won't care, the selfish "gimme's" will be dead. Why would they care about their heirs when they're dead, they don't care about them when they're alive?

    • Laurence Almand

      What about all the politicians and other political bums who get free medical care for life? How much will THEY have to pay back out of their offshore accounts?

      • John

        -0 $ That's how much!

  • TBI

    Will that mean the states will seize the Federal Housing projects as well.

    • Clint

      For the time being, only personal estates qualify. Stay tuned.

  • MrLogical

    The state owns you, as well as everything you may think that you own. Everything - lock, stock and barrel.

    Just ask Obama, or any of the Communists now running our country.
    .

    • iamcurious

      Don't laugh. The Brookings Institute told the US govt. that in the '80's.

  • James

    Yes, this is part of Obama’s plan to distribute the wealth.
    The problem is the same welfare bums are getting all wealth and the workers are losing it all. The
    welfare take more from the government in their life time than you make. Now
    they want to take what should go to your family and give it to the welfare
    bums. http://safeshare.tv/w/csrqsTAmSx

    • Laurence Almand

      Obama's "distribution" plan in nothing more than a Communist scheme for stealing from the productive and favoring the non-productive in order to garner votes.

  • John

    Just stop paying for life ins. homeowners ins. etc & spend that money on you & family! When you die you're dead,let the damn state plant you somewhere! They're gonna dig up all those expensive grave markers,tombs etc anyway! Live for today & run the ins. co. into the damn ground. If you have a mortgage,you have to carry ins. I know but it still won't be left to your family so get the cheapest cost ins. they have! Bare minimum,even on the cars! There are millions out there driving with no Lic. No Ins. nothing so get the bone dry minimum & have the money at the end of every month! They want a play games,lets play! Face it your children will most likely be dressed in uniforms anyway & brainwashed,so putting away college money is a total waste! If they want more schooling than a H.S. Diploma let em get it themselves! I have 5 kids & they'll be on their own at 18 no matter what happens,they're leaving this nest!

    • blondejustice1

      I agree with most of what you say. Where does it say that parents are responsible for paying for the college education of their children? If you have the money, no problem here. Only that it won't teach little Johnny how to be a responsible taxpayer. Entitlement mentality going on there. Our parents did not and could not help us with our college. We worked and paid for it ourselves. No school loans either. My parents raised 10 children on just my father's income. Blue collar worker. They made sacrifices that most parents would not do today for their 2 children. Glad they did and do you know why? None of us has been in trouble with the law. None of us smoke. No druggies either. We all have good jobs and more than half of us have side businesses or own their own business that they grew with their own sweat. We all own our homes and pay our bills. No welfare handouts. No bankruptcies either. We live within our means and do we pay taxes...through the nose when you're a small business owner. When I see able-bodied people picking up their steaks, etc. at the food store with their food stamps, I want to puke. Lazy ass blood-suckers!

    • Laurence Almand

      The Neptune Society has an excellent prepaid cremation plan for less than $2,000 - so sign up and avoid wasting a fortune on a useless funeral.

  • monacall

    But if you have an estate, of any size. I think it should go for your health care. That's what it is for. For you to use as you so wish..... if you need it for health care or for taking care of you. Wouldn't that be better than to tax me for paying for someone I don't even know. Like we are doing all the time. I say if you have it use it. Sell the estate before you die and pay for your own health care..... what's wrong with that. BUT..........
    I think everyone not just the ones with an estate should pay also. How? With their SSN checks automatically going to that care center.
    People need to plan not depend on someone else taking care of them....
    That's one reason we are in this mess. Because we take care of everyone. We should have a plan like Japan has..... NO WELFARE. You don't work you don't eat. End of story. I am tired of taking care of everyone EVERYWHERE.
    Is this right? I don't know....... but not to tell them what is going on is wrong.....

    • Stagea

      We should have a plan like Japan has..... NO WELFARE. You don't work
      you don't eat. End of story. I am tired of taking care of everyone
      EVERYWHERE--------------------------------------

      Japan is no shining example. There are homeless people living in all the parks, under bridges and underpasses. Their homes are cardboard boxes. These people are not lazy, they are people who were once employed and can no longer get work. Many owned businesses that have gone bankrupt.

      I am a believer in welfare to those who are in need. Why ?, because the governments rob people by way of income tax, thereby stealing one's labour. It is only fair that the government should help people out of the tax take instead of squandering it and wasting it on anything they desire. I know that there are people not deserving of handouts but most in Japan are really in need.

      The hourly wage rate in Japan is so low that a person is unable to even rent a decent place to live let alone pay for electricity, gas, water, pension etc. However, there is one unusual type of welfare. If you are a homeless beggar collecting drink cans to live, hospital treatment is free.

      • monacall

        You thoughts are very valid. But we take care of the world. This country has way to many takers and not enough givers. I saying I'm tired for paying for those that can work and don't. Those that live in boxes choose that life.

        • Stagea

          I understand what you are saying and I know that the USA is different from Japan in that you have so many takers. Japanese people are mostly too proud to even take any welfare but the government here just don't help those in need. One thing is for sure in Japan. Those that live in boxes don't choose to live that way at all. It is pitiful to watch the homeless here collect cardboard and aluminium cans to eke out a living.Japan is not the great place that Westerners imagine it to be.

        • monacall

          I'm going to say your right cause I've not been there just reading and tv. So I trust your judgement.

    • Laurence Almand

      Welfare rules in thriving China are also simple: No work, no eat. And no more than ONE child for each family.

  • jime1

    The author of this article must be a liberal at heart. If you take money from the government in any form WHY shouldn't you be required to pay it back? Medicaid NOT Medicare is the subject here and they are two different things altogether. If the government (the American taxpayer) needs to assist you by placing you on medicaid they and We the People who footed those bills have ever right to expect repayment. Many of the comments below must have come from those who have been habituated to entitlement as a way of life.
    The only thing you or anyone else is entitled to is Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness! ANYTHING else needs to be earned and if borrowed in the form of medicaid, welfare, gov subsidy of any kind needs to be repaid. You and I as taxpayers have every right to expect repayment. I have no issue with helping those in need, none what-so-ever, but those who get that help have a moral obligation to stand on their own two feet whenever and as soon as possible, and while in need incur a debt that needs to be repaid! If that requires seizure of their estate....Oh well!!

    We the People (the taxpaying majority) are burdened with more and more debt by increasing millions who truly believe they are owed something by the society in which they exist. To that notion I say Bull Pucky. As an American taxpayer I'm sick and tired of paying for the shiftless, lazy, refuse to work crowd that is growing like a malignant cancer all across this nation. I am happy to help you out but I owe you absolutely NOTHING AT ALL !!

    • blondejustice1

      Jime, I couldn't have said it better than you. Thank God I don't have to rely on the bogus of Obamacare. My insurance did go up about $16.00 a month but then that's it. I've been working to support my family since I was 13. Still working in my fifties and only had to rely on Medicare after a bad car accident as I couldn't work for 6 months. Hated getting food stamps but I was a single mother at the time and was getting no child support. Now that I'm getting an arrearage of child support, the state I live in gets to take some of it to pay back the $1,800 I got over a 6 month period. I have absolutely no problem with that.
      If we all get advanced directives (living wills) we will be doing our loved ones a big favor by allowing us to die with dignity and then my insurance money and/or estate will not be "taxed" by our state or federal government, because you know they will find a way to get some for themselves as well.

    • chellethesouthernbelle

      I tend to agree jime...Sadly many, many Americans of all races, creeds etc, are trying to get any entitlement, or hand out that they can get and then try and get away with not paying it back.....For instance I know a doctor that went to the health dept and got his vasectomy free...Told me so him self...said they asked for his insurance and the told them no...Said he wanted it free like everybody else...and he got it free...I see the logic, but not the morality...and that is the issue here...those who work and pay taxes are tired of paying for freeriders, and they are in turn milking the system if they can...But that does not make it morally right!

  • jimbo124816

    I haven't seen anyone address the major problem at all.

    20 million illegal aliens are currently on welfare using forged papers. They are also getting free Medicaid, EBT cards, food stamps, cheaper tuition for college, housing assistance, transportation help, Toys-for-Tots for Christmas, etc. When they retire, they will use their stolen identities to collect Social Security. California has a budget shortfall that almost matches what they spend on illegals. If they didn't have the illegals, they would be breaking even.

    Most of those people contribute nothing to society, and are constant users of services, never contributing as much as a single dollar in taxes, and because of the way the tax system works, they pay no taxes in, but get a "refund".

    In Massachusetts, the typical welfare family receives over $50,000.00 in benefits per year. I worked in the High tech sector in a highly skilled position for over 40 years, and that was more than my base pay. Now I have my retirement in a 401(k) account which is considered a liquid asset. If Obama wants to take that away, I will live on Soc. Sec. (if I'm lucky).

    • Laurence Almand

      Obama wants the votes of the welfare cheats. Why do you suppose he eliminated the work requirement right before the election? Illegals and welfare cheats are a large and growing voting block, so don't expect it to change.

      • Apolloone

        The Communist/Democrat party and the RINO party also want those votes, their Top Communist has lived off the taxpayer all his sorry life and as it stands now he will continue to do so, with a security force after he retires all paid for by the taxpayers.

    • Backgammon

      And all we really do is talk about it. We have to work hard in 14 to take the Senate!
      If we lose the House and D's keep the Senate, America as we know it is done!

    • James P Jr Bettes

      That is why you should check your credit score once a year. It can show if someone else is using your credentials.I check mine, and my kids every year (it's free to do once a year), and caught someone in Kalifornia using my daughter's SSN.

    • Pclages

      The Welfare State, including Illegals, certainty is a huge expense which we can no longer afford. I would argue that the underlaying problem is the professional political class, which has spent the country into bankruptcy guaranteeing the perpetual re-election of each other. This is why both parties are so hostile to the TEA Party movement, which threatens to upset their cozy arrangements.

  • Joe

    Don't forget the death tax for those of who have some bucks. who have money. It should be made well known that if your on medicare your estate will be seized. A loan against your home and stuff. Obama acts like it is free.

    • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

      I don't think medicare has the same policy, Joe, just medicaid.

      • Joe

        That was to say medicaid, sorry. thanks for the correction. My intention was to show that they people should be informed that the state will take your estate and may be some would understand there is no free lunch.

  • daveveselenak

    Let me repeat myself for the umpteenth time: All communists destroy the middle class while saying that they are helping them, this communist regime is no exception! There is no private property permitted either and as you can see by this latest communist plan they are working on that! They knew people would not be able to afford this state run death care and that is why it was implemented so that they could confiscate private property! A revolution is the solution! WAKE UP, WISE UP, RISE UP!

  • Greg Harmon

    The government (us taxpayers) should be reimbursed whenever possible. Lottery winnings, liability awards, estates, everything. We the taxpayers are "entitled" to the money!

    • dontdoitagain

      Sure, but it isn't we the taxpayers who get any of it. The GOVERNMENT gets it. Like they don't have enough money already. Nancy Pelosi says that there are 11 million illegal immigrants that need our help to live the American dream. The government has a lot more really wonderful legislation just waiting for more money. Get the picture?

    • James P Jr Bettes

      In this state, if I were to win a small amount prize (up to $500) they take that right out of my assistance (you're screwed if you win, and don't report it). If you win more than that, they make you pay back any assistance you've received, up to the amount you've received, or the winnings, which ever is lower.

  • Pendy1

    Is not Medicaid supposed to be for the indigent? If so, what do such people have that qualifies as an "estate"? If they have one, it would seem to be evidence that they didn't qualify in the first place.

    • Tom Brian

      Most of us will when turning 65 be forced off our employers insurance and on to SS and Medicare . at this point you will be receiving a loan from the state to pay your medical bills at this point your savings and property belong to the state or the extended care facility ..... so take that cruise while you still can.

      • ed357

        SS and Medicare are different than Medicaid.......

        You've paid for SS and Medicare.......

        Medicaid not so much.....

        You land in an extended care facility.....you'd better have extended care insurance.....otherwise the government will spend (or take liens on) down your estate until you have the above mentioned $2000.....then the government will pay for your long term care (Medicare or Medicaid....I don't know which one is used) and make sure you only keep a $2000 balance.

        If you're on Medicaid (young or old) now.........they're going to come after your estate for money.

        AND IT IS A FIVE (5) YEAR LOOK BACK IN GEORGIA,

    • Crowes1

      Not so. I signed my grandmother up for Mass Health 2 years ago at 95 years old. Her house was in a trust for more than 5 years (so the State couldn't touch it) and we had spent down the last of her Investments that had held her over since 1985.

      They didn't care about her car or any sum of money in her bank account as long as it was under a 2K balance.

      She was receiving $741.00 a month from Social security and paid $181.00 a month for her health Insurance.

      Upon approval to Mass Health, she kept her insurance and the Nursing Home got her Social Security check less the $181.00 a month for Health Ins. and a $72.00 a month allowance allotted to her.

      So, she was basically getting her nursing home care for about $488 a month. Basically, you are indigent at this time and need family to add to your accounts for any extras because $72.00 doesn't go far even in a nursing home. (She was only in the Nursing Home 3 months and needed more care than we could provide at home)

      I know people who were forced to sell deceased family members homes within 9 months of a death to repay the State and Nursing Homes.

      It's a racquet and if you want to preserve your estate for future generations consult an elder care attorney and start planning today.

  • Dorothy Newzell

    At $17,000.00 per month for services my brother in law can only pay for 9 months of his wife's long term medical care. State of California had him sign an irrevocable trust so that he cannot sell any of his or his wife's property. When they are both gone, the State of California will step in and take what it deems is due the State. Heirs? What's that?

    • Crowes1

      Just went through this with my Grandmother 2 years ago here in Massachusetts. Luckily, 12 years ago we put her house and assets into a trust. She died peacefully knowing that her estate was intact.

    • opelske

      He's borrowing money from the state for her care after 9 months, and upon his death, his estate will pay back to the state the cost of her care. This means he can keep his residence without becoming homeless and penniless. Sounds reasonable. Why should taxpayers foot the bill? And, more important, why is care so prohibitively expensive? If change is needed in this country, it is in encouraging people to become responsible, self-sufficient citizens less dependent upon the government. And, change in the health care systems to bring the costs down.

  • Laurence Almand

    This is an example of why people should set up irrevocable trusts for their heirs while they are still living, and transfer the money before they die. The state can take a dead person's assets, but not the money in the children's trusts.

    • Crowes1

      I know that in the State of Massachusetts there is a 5 year look back period. So, estate planning needs to be done way before you die or it could be way too late.

      • smartgranny55

        I am not sure how long the look back period is in Minnesota, land of 10,000 taxes. It used to be 5 years, but is now longer.

    • oldtimered

      Crooked politicians and judges have been know to easily break trusts and steal what they want. If you live in a state with one judge per county watch out.

    • genann59

      People who are low income enough to be on Medicaid likely do not have enough assets to have any reason to establish trusts for their children.

      • smartgranny55

        The state can go over after donations made to non-profit organizations , including churches, and go after small gifts of money given to grandchildren as birthday gifts.

    • Krazeehors

      This is also an example of why you should keep all of your available money in precious metals.

      • DontTreadOnMe11

        Yep, buried in the ground where only the ones you trust know where it is.

        • Krazeehors

          I agree 1000%. During the depression years, people did just that, burying their cash in mason jars. My mom worked at a bank in the early 60's. She still remembers when people started bringing in all of that musty money to be replaced with new bills.

          They did that after FDR signed an EO seizing ALL gold people had in storage, and sending sheriff's deputies to make sure they turned it all in.

          Everyone was afraid the government would take their money as well. I think we all have reason to be afraid of the very same thing today.

        • Krazeehors

          My grandparents lost their farm during the depression because they weren't Democrats and couldn't get any government help.

    • John OMalia

      Good advice.

  • jorgaone

    Margaret Thatcher had it right--the problem with Liberals is that sooner or later, they run out of other people's money. And what happens then? Those that WILL NOT work will riot for those of us who WILL--to take care of them right on...or loot and steal it from us.

    • beelp

      jorg, you should have thousands of "up" arrows.

    • Pclages

      That is why gun sales have been soaring during Obie's tenure, in anticipation of that day.

  • ConnieJ

    Since when is this 'news'? Since Medicaid (welfare) is for the indigent, the state has always taken the assets of the recipient, including any assets that the person had in the past few years. If someone had transferred assets to another in the past 3 (or 5) years, those assets must be recovered. That stopped some relatives from taking the assets before sticking one in a nursing home for the rest of us to support. After all, it's 'inconvenient' for the family to take care of Grandma after she's older. One exception is for a spouse. The home cannot be taken while the living spouse occupies the residence. However, after the spouse no longer lives there, the state steps in and confiscates the property. Is this cruel? Maybe. But so is it cruel for the rest of us to be stuck with the bills.

    • genann59

      This is news because the income levels for Medicaid participation have been raised considerably, and the rules now include people who actually try to return to work after a period of disability, and discourages them from doing so, because if they return to work, they are forced to repay the amount that was paid for their medical care, or their homes can be taken out from under them to be sold or their cars can be taken to pay the debts leaving them with no means to go to work. It is to discourage people trying to get back on their feet, and encouraging them to remain dependent on the government in order to stay alive.

      • Krazeehors

        My mom lives in an independent living facility and receives something like $1500 a month. She qualifies for HUD low income rules for her rent. She is still "unqualified for Medicaid" because she allegedly "makes too much a month."

    • John OMalia

      You are right on.

  • Mr_DAA

    When and what will it take for people to understand that our government has morphed into a giant pair of hands wringing the life from America?

    Where is the resurgence of self reliance and the presentation of our collective middle finger to the tyranny?

    • smartgranny55

      After to listening to the opinions of millennials recently, I don't have a lot of hope that Americans will wake up.

      • Pclages

        Do you expect the people who elected Obama to suddenly turn around and say " Yes, we were idiots " ?

        • smartgranny55

          One could only hope.

        • Pclages

          I did not realize, until today, that it is a struggle between Good and Evil. It really is that simple.

        • smartgranny55

          If we want to win this battle, we need to pray, repent, and have a massive spiritual awakening.

        • Pclages

          Agreed

  • MIKE6080

    are they going to seize your food stamps and section 8 apartment ?

    • dontdoitagain

      I doubt it. They aren't going to take away the FREE health care from these people either. The government is only going after the middle class. You know all those selfish working people. If you work hard and try to get ahead, own a home, that kind of thing, then the government has a plan to bring you back down to size. The nerve of trying to be self sufficient.

    • Krazeehors

      Of course not. And I have a Section 8 horror story. After my husband died in 2002, and he was an invalid -- we lived in a home that needed thousands of dollars of work -- I spent over $6000 to get my home ready for rent, to include updating the electrical, replacing ceiling fans, painting the whole house, removing all of the shrubs from the front of the house, etc.

      I was unable to rent the house under conventional means so I applied to section 8. I had to spend an additional $2,000 just to qualify under Section 8 rules.

      Then, the person who rented my home got a pit bull (I said no pets), put a trampoline in the backyard, almost causing me to lose my homeowner's insurance, and allowing at least 6 of her relatives to move in. They then painted a solid maple cabinet that could have been stripped and refinished white, ruining the cabinet. I sent her money every single month to change the a/c filters, and wound up making a 360 mile round trip each and every month to check on my property and change the filters. The government paid $725 of the house payment and she paid the remaining $75. She paid NOTHING for insurance, even though she had agreed to perform basic maintenance if I paid for it.

      When she moved out a year later, she backed a moving truck up in the front yard, hit the overhanging roof and damaged it, left stove racks in the backyard to rust, destroyed an almost new glasstop stove that I had to sell for scrap for $25, burned a hole in the new carpet in the laundry room because she hooked a gas dryer up wrong, and brand new carpeting was stained with dog urine stains. There were crayon marks on fresh paint, and a water leak in the kitchen that she failed to tell me about. There were two brand new fruit trees that I provided her with the equipment to keep the branches trimmed. BOTH trees had been allowed to revert to bush status and were destroyed and stripped of fruit. There was dog crap all over the front and the back yard.

      When I saw that house, I sat down on the floor and cried. I had tried to make her abide by the lease she signed several times, even consulting a lawyer and was told that I had NO RIGHT to "violate her rights to due process." MY RIGHTS didn't matter -- I didn't have any.

      Needless to say, I did NOT pay back her security deposit. She left her trampoline behind, and I asked the police if I could seize it to help pay for the damage and was told she could charge me with theft if I took it.

      This woman tried to sue me in small claims court for return of her "security deposit," claiming that it was a SECURITY deposit and NOT a DAMAGE DEPOSIT.

      I ended up filing bankruptcy and lost my home. She did over $7,000 in damage to my home. All of that will FINALLY drop off of my credit report in January, and I will purchase another home.

      I will NEVER rent another home to anyone as long as I live.

      A woman who belonged in jail for malicious destruction of property now owns a home and the GOVERNMENT pays more than HALF of the mortgage payment.

      • Fred_K

        I used to rent to section 8 tenants, and if they damaged an apartment, section 8 paid to have at least some of the repairs done. The security deposit is a deposit against possible future damage where I came from. The rule you did not get when you decided to become a landlord is the 5 minute or 5 mile rule: If you are going to rent a unit to someone (as a private individual) live within 5 minutes or 5 miles of it. If you do not, it will overwhelm you in short order.
        I was a landlord for 25 years, and have since determined that I do not want to be a landlord any more, I would consider flipping houses, but I no longer want the problems that come with tenants.

        • Krazeehors

          Wow. I was in Muncie, Indiana. They refused to pay for ANY of the damage, saying that I had to absorb all of the cost.

          Being a landlord just isn't worth it. Between the tax liability and the headache, someone else can have it.

          AND, my late husband's ex wife tried to place a lien on my home -- in my name -- to collect "past due child support." She tried to do the same thing to my truck, also in my name. Didn't matter that she was overpaid to the tune of $15,000. Her daughter STILL thinks I should be paying for "delinquent child support." My son told her to pound sand.

        • John OMalia

          All the section 8 stories are typical. People who rent that way are pigs and don't give a crap about other's property. They don't have much skin in the game with the government paying most of the cost. They'll stay until the place turns into a pig stye or they are kicked out. That one incident with the trampoline, it could have been used to sell of and make repairs. Again, the police are not lawyers, the property was abandoned.

        • Mona

          Not true. There are decent section 8 people who find those kind of tenants despicable. I won't live in another apartment because the landlord refused to enforce landlord tenant law. They could have served a 3 day eviction notice on problem tenants and I'd have testified for them. What a nightmare.

        • Krazeehors

          That, I agree with. I moved out of a "premier apartment" almost a year ago after they refused to do anything about the roaches the building was infested with, the hallways were stained with pet urine and crap, and dog crap was left in the hallway and not cleaned up -- even began turning white. The SECOND I got off of the elevator, I began having asthma attacks. I also developed a severe e.Coli infection after surgery -- caused by roach infestation in my apartment.

          The "managers" kept the property looking great. It was their "loss leader."

        • Mona

          I'm so sorry about your infection and asthma attack - that's beyond horrible :(

        • smartgranny55

          I have friends in section 8 housing who have been threatened by other tenants, including an ex-con. The landlord does nothing about it. Both of these people are disabled, so their income is low.

        • Krazeehors

          You are absolutely right. Thank you. Trust me, had I known I could have taken the trampoline, I would have.

          Like I said, I am done renting property. They all think that once you are out of the picture, they can do whatever they want and that the property belongs to them.

        • Krazeehors

          Perhaps that is why the UN buildings are in such bad shape. From what I hear and have seen on the news, both building towers are irreparable and they expect the US to pay for all of the maintenance.

        • John OMalia

          The delegates treat it like section 8 housing.

        • Krazeehors

          Yep. Time to evict.

      • MIKE6080

        a lot of them are animals yet the government takes our tax money and gives it to them , bet she was also getting welfare , food stamps and medicaid all paid for by taxpayers .

        • Krazeehors

          Yes, they are.

      • frawgeyz

        krazee, I am so sorry. Although I have never rented, because I know what people are, I can feel your pain. Seems that criminals have more rights than those who respect and keep the laws. I have always said that I would never rent any property I owned for this very reason. One can no longer seek remedy through the injustice system. To bad you are not able to now take this sub human to small claims against her present ill gotten gains which the American tax payers now subsidize.
        God Bless you and may He see fit to prosper you and give you the "peace that passes
        all understanding:.

        • Krazeehors

          Thank you, and He has. I work every single day at forgiveness. Forgetting, however, is quite another matter.

        • frawgeyz

          I understand that too. It takes much time and can only come by the grace of God through the Holy Ghost.

  • genann59

    I have a friend on Medicare and Medicaid due to low income and bad health, heart failure and diabetes. When I had seen this first a week or two ago, I called her since she, some of her adult children and some of her grandchildren were living in a house her ex was letting them stay in and she had been trying to get him to put the house in her name. I warned her not to have the house put into her name or it would have a lien put against it when she died, and if the survivors could not pay the lien, the house would be seized by the gov't and sold to pay her Medicaid bills. This can be done with any real property, such a home, land or vehicles. She is 60 years old, so this would apply to her. And for any who go on Medicaid during a period of disability and try to go back to work, their tab is being kept, according to an article in HuffPo, of any costs to Medicaid, plus a monthly fee to maintain that tab, and if they go back to work, the money becomes due at that time, for all effects, discouraging people from trying to return to work. If you are low income, used Medicaid and try to return to work, you could lose your home or vehicle or any other real property you own - Obama et al do not want people to try to become contributing members of society again. Just to continue to drain the system.

    • John OMalia

      Basically what you said is true except the part about returning to work. Good advise about not getting the house in her name.

  • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

    This should not be a surprise to anyone (who bothered to actually read about these things). I firmly believe that this is just the first step. Do you know what comes after this? The government will enact other legislation (already on the books) which gives them the legal authority to seize ALL retirement accounts. If anyone doesn't understand the validity and possibility this will happen probably deserves the things that will happen to them.
    Too bad, so sad, sucks to be you - but that's the way big government operates...

    • Linda Dawson

      possible yes, valid no. Congress has no valid reason to seize all retirement accounts. Yes, I saw this coming some time about around 2008 when Obozo was elected. I am hoping there will be a sucessful legal battle against it under the 4th Amendment. Unlawful seizure. However even if the Surpreme Court says no this is unconstitutional Congress might say sorry too late the money has already been put into the system we can't give it back

      • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

        Hi Linda,
        Unfortunately the precedent is already being laid, which is related in the title of the piece we're referencing. It is only a small step from assuming control of Medicaid victims' (I mean, citizens) assets and jumping strait to collectively seizing retirement assets cart blanche.
        Without going into too much detail, all it would take for this to happen is for the prime interest rates to consistently top 7%. It would take a couple months after that for the government to realize it can't repay it's debts on a month by month basis (not just the yearly debacle they call a budget). There is a price to pay for all this 'quantitative easing' people talk about.
        Just remember my friend, desperate governments do desperate things...

        • Pclages

          Reportedly, Dodd-Frank allows the Feds seize part or all of private bank accounts.... get around the 4th by giving something of ' equal value '....just as the Feds did when they looted the Social Security Trust Fund, and replaced the $$ with special Treasury Bonds, drawn on a bankrupt government.

        • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

          There are actually a couple individual pieces of legislation which 'allows' the assimilation of retirement accounts by the government. However, here is a very interesting interview from, as they say, 'the horse's mouth';

          http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-18/retirement-savings-accounts-draw-u-s-consumer-bureau-attention.html

          I wonder if the CFPB is going to 'help' manage our retirement accounts in the same stellar fashion as they are 'helping' to manage the health care system?

  • Beydmosky

    There may be some provision in Obamacare for the government to recover any subsidies they provide. Anyone have any info on this?

    • Mona

      Good question - they do that with housing loans...

  • deseartu

    Or you properly with a specialist as myself to learn you options on how to avoid the 5 year Medicaid penalty. The Ponzi scheme is you get to keep 1 house (Michigan pricing) $250,000 in value! Cash around $90,000 but it all depends on the state you live in, there are different levels/caps? Then if a spouse is in the picture they only get to keep around $2,000 in monthly income so if you have two pension checks two ssi checks say goodbye to the rest of the money! Unless you were smart and got a Long Term Care Insurance Plan from me, then it won't matter, you smartly saved your estate $$ and 1 car! Not a Mercedes or the Porsche! In summary, you need to know they ways around the system. Let's talk soon?

    • Krazeehors

      Why only the elderly? What about the millions of young people who abuse the Medicaid laws even when the ex husband or wife is charged with providing and paying for insurance?

    • John OMalia

      Why talk? 1/2 of your information is wrong. I'll take the better odds talking to an estate attorney. States have look back rules, 3 to 5 years if you give away assets to your children. If the spouse is in the picture, you get to keep $30.00 a month in income if on SSI. If there is other income the amount the spouse gets to keep depends on combined income and expenses. Long term care insurance is expensive and does not last long and has nothing to do with 1 car.. Remember the insurance company makes a profit on this. Ponzi has nothing to do with this and your Michigan figures are totally wrong. I'd advise people to avoid folks like you. Please proofread what you said, it makes no sense and is further evidence to avoid you.

      Incidentally, the States as the article says, have been recovering payouts from estates for over 20 years, nothing new here and nothing to do with Obama except the more he's put on medicaid the more estates might be seized. Also, remember most on Medicaid have no estate to begin with.

      • Mona

        Most on Medicaid are on medically needy - they may call it medicaid, but it's not medicaid. It has huge spenddowns.

        • John OMalia

          Yes, the spendowns are high, the higher the income, the higher the amount. The Medicaid program is needs based welfare for which the qualifications have been expanded under Obamacare so more might be subject to seizures after death..

        • Mona

          I think you're missing the point that those who have spenddowns never get to the medicaid part because they have such high out of pocket costs before they get there. I stopped registering every two months because it was pointless. The one time I did meet the requirements, it was in the "wrong" two month period so I didn't qualify. Here in Iowa you have to spend down to half of the poverty level in order to qualify. What the Obama program did was shift people who were on Iowa cares to the medically needy program. One lady, who had no expenses on Iowa Cares, now has a spend down on so it's actually going to cost the government less. They are real good at making it sound good, but I think those who get stuck on the medically needy part of medicaid are going to find themselves in huge financial trouble.

        • John OMalia

          I did not mis-understand. having processed hundreds of claims. I realize that it might be fruitless to try to meet the spend down requirements. Under usual circumstances with a month of normal expenses there are many times it can't be met. In a month that is catastrophic, it would help. But when you think of it most of the Obamacare plans will only help the indigent and are catastrophic plans with high deductibles and co-payments for others. Frequently state plans are better or at least were.

          All in all, I agree with you. There are exceptions if one is on a maintenance program which would make them eligible but the spend down takes a middle class person into poverty.

  • Denise

    Obama will take everything that is within his slimey grasp. His entire life has been subsidized by other peoples money.

    • pbsambo

      He is a leach.

  • fwiw

    So declaring bankruptcy over medical bills is a bad thing. Having everything taken from your estate given to the government who then sells it to whomever (no possibility for corruption or cronyism there) is acceptable.

  • Mona

    They've been doing this to the poor for a long time. What bugs me is why don't we know how much they're recouping? They only tell us what it costs to run these programs, but when do we ever find out how much they get back from peoples' estates? And why hasn't the media been all over this since they started doing it?

    • 1baronrichsnot1

      Like ACA it is poorly thought out! But it should be what they scammed from it when they didn't have to. It's payback just like SSA, you make too much and continue to work while on SSA and you have to give it back! EAsy to find out how much you owe!

    • pbsambo

      The Media, The media are on it too, they are with Mr. O.

    • minni

      In the pass you could NOT get medicaid if your ASSETS were above a certain amount including your house or a car n how new was it. Now they only go by income. so it is possible that b4 obamacare u might never have to go to medicaid just living proudly just living making do with what u already have. Now that same person can get thrown into medicaid because they cannot even afford the least expensive bronze plan in obamacare. Now the obamacare is really for the rich, because they will be able to afford a expensive healthcare. n have the money paying cash. All the specialist doctors that refuses to work under obamacare, will travel. Can you say CASH doctor WILL TRAVEL tHE RICH WILL GET RICH N HEALTHY the poor will always be poor WITHOUT A REAL SAFETY NET. It will not protect your home either. while screwing your own.

  • gnafuasusual

    Medicaid is a "Set-Up" for failure. People on Medicaid use this government fall back to help them survive. Some work part time jobs but earn just enough to keep them on Medicaid - get their government freebies at worker's cost. Medicaid people must know going into "Medicaid" what the repercussions are for doing so. Medicaid recipients live for today and hell to tomorrow until their assets are absconded and they end up with absolutely nothing but a few schillings from government.

    • bonnieblue2A

      I think this mostly affects the elderly who have found themselves in hard times due to the death of a spouse or devastating medical bills. These elderly may still own a home they have lived in x 60 yrs, own a car, etc... . Most should distribute the assets of their estates prior to becoming Medicaid dependents. Those who are younger and have lived off Medicaid rarely have an estate worth seizing.

    • John OMalia

      Younger people unless disabled can't get on Medicaid. In fact you must be either aged or disabled. People working no more than they have to in order to remain eligible suggests they are not disabled.

      • Worship Dancer

        not true - you're thinking of MediCARE - this is mediCAID.

  • CelticDenise

    Americans - your country has been stolen right underneath your feet.

    • pbsambo

      Correct!

  • graybuffalo

    So, let me see if I understand this...Obama instituted The Unaffordable Care Act to get 30 million uninsured Americans insured. Correct? O.K., now those 30 million uninsured cannot afford Obamacare any more than they could afford private insurance before. Correct? O.K., so now he puts those 30 million (and millions more) on Medicaid. So now we are right back to where we started...the 30 million are STILL uninsured, but rather taken care of by the Nanny State. Same as they were before. Hmmm. In the meantime, Obama now has total cradle to grave control over the rest of us who COULD afford insurance before. Makes perfect sense. Tear down the house and rebuild just to replace the windows.

    • John OMalia

      You've got a handle on this. The ACA application process also registers people to vote and if they think their getting something free, who do you think they'll vote for?

      • A concerned american

        That's exactly correct, they could care less if the Chinese had a flotilla of ships readied to attack us as long as they receive what they want.

        • pbsambo

          What you expect from them, most of these people are foreigners, they never have it so good.

        • minni

          Correct, this foregners send their income or half of it bk to their own country, they travel bk n forth twice a year, they build their house over their, while earning income her n not paying taxes, while receiving food stamps etc. They will not lose their estate cause it is in another country tax free. One day they will go bk to their precious land. Its only Americans so now what? Americans are worse off now than in 2007 or 2008. When going from B to A to start over remember not to vote democrat, give the candidates that want to repeal Husseinshealthcare. There is a difference between Health Insurance and healthcare. If you have health Insurance you can keep your house n make your children heirs to your estate. With democrat control Husseincare the democrats keep your estate How come obama is not telling you that.

        • Worship Dancer

          AND when things get tough they scurry back to mexico or where ever just like cockroaches scurry back to dark hiding places.

        • frawgeyz

          Now you are getting to the real problem my friend! At least one of them anyway.

        • A concerned american

          Yes but we as well as these foreigner that take our tax dollars are going to be vaporized as well. they just refuse to believe and they don't care. As a matter of fact, Obama doesn't care either.

      • alio

        Just gimme my dam obama phone and I'm happy!

        I remember the stories my mom told about her dad's farm. The gov't paid people to not grow some crops.
        My grandpa thought that was obscene, and refused to take any money, (everyone else took it) he just didn't grow those crops. That, folks is integrity.

        • graybuffalo

          You make me feel old. I remember the programs in the early 60's - called "The Soil Bank Program" "CRP" "Set Aside" - went by many names over the years.
          One good thing came out of the Soil Bank Program.. the South Dakota pheasant population went through the roof - up to 13 million! Lots of nesting and cover area. Now, the population is about 3-4 million.

      • graybuffalo

        Santa Claus Democrat.

      • graybuffalo

        Santa every time. I don't refer to it as ACA, rather UCA - as in "Unaffordable Care Act."

        • John OMalia

          Another Bingo!

    • alio

      BINGO! A fraud from the beginning.

    • Worship Dancer

      more like rebuild just to replace the carpets.

      • graybuffalo

        That could be and for good reason - Obama has swept so much dirt under the WH carpets that he could qualify for the CRP program.

  • jong

    Actually if you look at it this might be just another way to take ole jug ears to court and get rid of his supposed "care"

  • MsMoomMist

    Yes, this could happen. My DH took care of his deceased wife's mother for 10 yrs. When she was put into a nursing home, her pensions, insurance, Medicare and SS wasn't enough to pay for it. Her house had to be sold because it was worth more than $8000. so she could go on Medicaid. When she passed, the state came back to my DH and wanted us to pay back another $25,000.00. We had to have our lawyer jump through hoops to keep us from losing that money, (as if a middle income, retired family has $25K just lying around for this).

  • 1baronrichsnot1

    Well if these folks are able to pay their way, and scammed medicaid, then shouldn't they pay it back? It is the producers(taxpayers money) who paid for their laziness and non productivity! The medicare people have to wait until 65 to collect their benefits they paid on for 45 or so years, they paid through the nose, medicaid and ACA has robbed medicare of over 500 billion, time to pay it back if they have it! I see nothing wrong with that! It's not supposed to be free!

    • Tony Donaldson

      Medicaid recipients don't have estates. You can't get blood from a turnip.

    • frawgeyz

      The things you say are true. However, tell me this, do you think that those on Medicaid have anything to seize? I seriously doubt that they do unless they are scamming the system.
      Makes no sense to me. As for medicare the politicians have robbed it for years and given it to those who have never paid into it. Had it been invested wisely it would not be on the edge of bankruptcy. Ah, but then the politicians would not have had their private cash cow available!

    • Marge Billings

      I'm on medicaid and I worked and paid my house off myself ! Why should the state come and take it from my kids ?? They did not pay for it I think it's time the government gets their greedy hands out of the money that has been paid into by so many AND live by the same means they expect us to . They also need to stop sending billions over to other countries . Especially those who hate us . There would be plenty of money then .

  • WhiteFalcon

    Redistribution of wealth can be summed up in one word which means exactly the same thing, and that word is theft. This Government is fast becomming a criminal enterprise, and we are going to have to take it down and restart the whole thing at some point in time, and that point in time is not far off.

    • pbsambo

      Democraps are the scum of the earth, a bunch of thieves!

      • A concerned american

        Remember that during the next election!

        • pbsambo

          Is cler on my mind. I did not vote DEMOCRAP last election.

    • Tony Donaldson

      Voting is not working. Permanently getting rid of some of them might help. Hanging a few will definitely bring the rest to heel. No one should be above the law. The law shouldn't be for sale. Outlaw political correctness.

  • homer1057

    It is better to trust in "The Lord" than to put your confidence in man. Psalms 118:8 NEVER TRUST the govt or man! He will let you down every time, especially the ones who work in the govt!

  • Dianna Zerbe

    Lord help us JESUS!

  • ONTIME

    Do biz with the devil and lose your fingers......Of course the government is going to take your property, you agreed to it..

  • AD_Rtr_OS

    Get a Reverse Mortgage, or drain that HELOC for all you can. Let the state seize an empty shell.

  • $2398599

    Better still, go down to Mehiko, come back with some boot polish on your face,. no speaka de inglish, and all is then given to you at the US taxpayers' expense.

  • Anthony

    Obumble care was never about health care or health insurance. It was always about what liberals are ALWAYS about...power.

    • Jack Manning

      It's what Obama sees as ending inequality and wealth re-distribution. He is like all socialists, it is using whatever means no matter how disruptive to justify the ends that always stays far beyond its reach. .

    • johnsnare

      An old, but accurate statement. "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH."

  • Jack Manning

    I wonder how applies if you have a spouse. I don't want to assume, but I don't think they can move against the spouse for any recovery. As Pelosi said, "We don't know what is in ACA because we haven't read it."

    • Worship Dancer

      if it's in your estate it doesn't belong to your spouse. state can seize estate and leave your spouse with nothing.

  • Upaces

    What about signing the title to your house over to your children long before death?

    • Worship Dancer

      it has to be done more than five YEARS prior to your getting ANY medicaid. i work with someone who has been going through this. his dad has refused to sign over the house so they don't dare put him into a home where medicare would cover the payments - his house would be taken to cover the costs.

      • Upaces

        Oh! Thank you. I didn't know how it worked. Well, you gave me the answer.
        In other words,...and I want to MAKE SURE I understand you. Let's say, I get realllly sick...but my daughter "could" take care of me in her home. Then If I die, she gets the "paid for house" I DID live in and all of the paintings, etc.?

        • Worship Dancer

          no clue. i just know that he and his siblings can't put their dad in a home because medicare would then be needed and the state would take dad's house.

        • Upaces

          Thank you for the information you gave me! It gives me a start.

        • gomurr

          My parents put their estate (basically their home and contents) in a type of living trust where it automatically becomes the property of the children upon their death. There is no probate or anything like that. You need to consult an estate lawyer.

        • Upaces

          Thank you. I did forget all above the Living Trust. I am familiar with it.

        • Upaces

          I just remembered something. When my dad was going down hill...first my mother put him in a "nursing home"...then suddenly moved him to the home of a private nurse.
          In other words, I don't think this is new. It just hasn't been advertised.

        • Worship Dancer

          yea probably.

    • Marge Billings

      I heard that does not work !!

      • Upaces

        Do you know why? Is there a specific time it has to be done prior to a senior citizen becoming ill?

        • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

          3 years I believe is the timeframe before death or serious illness. How are you supposed to know WHEN you're going to die or become fatally ill? That's why it is a sham.

        • bob machaffy

          use to be 3 yrs now its 5 yrs, under obma it made be a life time
          and then if the gov thinks your screwing them they can and will go after your children to recoup any hidden assets.

        • Upaces

          Without saying, THAT IS SO WRONG TO GO AFTER YOUR CHILDREN.....good grief!
          He doesn't stop! He JUST DOES NOT STOP!

      • Anthony

        It does work. The asset owner must either distribute the assets as gifts (a certain amount is permitted each month) or put the assets into an irrevocable trust.

      • bob machaffy

        see an "elder law attorney" who specializes in protecting your family assets.

  • Marge Billings

    This pisses me off because I was not LAZY as this article says ! I worked and struggled to pay my house off myself . The state did NOT pay for it . Why should they be able to come in and take it from my kids when I die ?? So they are paying for my medical ...I worked and paid into SS

    • Bay0Wulf

      Marge ... this is about MEDICAID not MEDICARE. Medicaid is charity. Medicare so far is a part of what we have paid for all of our working lives.

      • Combat Veteran Seabee

        And exactly whom pays for that charity? The TAXPAYERS!!!!!!

        • Bay0Wulf

          CVS ... hey ... I am not disagreeing with you here ...

          Medicaid IS charity and should be recompensed ASAP or when possible. My only point was that people keep scrambling up the two items.

          MediCare IS NOT charity ... we (and you) PAID for that and using it should cause no financial backlash.

          MedicAid IS charity and should be repaid out of a person's estate (if any).

          As far as I can tell, Marge is referring to her MediCare as MedicAid as she refers to having "paid into SS" and getting herself all worked up over the difference. If Marge bought and paid for a house and worked all her life there is no reason that she would be on MedicAid. As my family owns a Home Health Care & Visiting Nurse Agency, I have seen many instances of older people using the terms interchangeably ... they are often confused as to which one they are using.

    • extyrequeen

      this is what liberalism is...we have 3 classes of people in America...one the producers, two the
      looters and third the moochers and what I mean by this is the govt. I call the looters by taking from the producers and giving what they steal to the moochers and there fore buying votes....

    • GQ4U

      Check into a Family-Limited-Partnership or Trust or other legal vehicle to create an entity to own what you have while you maintain control until your death. Lawyers are advisable to make sure it is done properly.

      • bob machaffy

        see an elder law attorney who can advise you on how to protect any of your property assets

    • Combat Veteran Seabee

      And I'm assuming that you didn't want oblowhole care either! I'm on your side!

  • bob machaffy

    Marge signing up for medicaid under obamacare will be your early death panel
    & you wonder if they will go after your children if you left them anything & make them pay...yes you can bet on it, use to be a 3 to 5 year look back, now it will be a lifetime look back on your financial situation. Your home will be the government's home to sell & recover your medical expenses, anything you have left you can't leave your children if the government can make a buck off it by selling. Remember pelosi promise we have to pass obamacare to see what's in it. SO NOW YOU KNOW.

  • kkc003

    Obamacare does the same.