It is counterproductive in a macroeconomic sense to make people liquidate their assets during an economic slump.

It is also counterproductive in a public health sense to encourage people to go without coverage, to choose between having health access and having a house.

It is also cruel from the human standpoint of citizens living in the richest country on earth.

Maybe the devil is in the details, maybe it would be reasonable if executed well and fairly.

to be worked out like:

What should the asset limit be?
How do you consider home equity? Second homes? Farms?
What about cost of living adjustments for location?
How about 401k's?
How big and intrusive would the agency that does the asset testing have to be?

Just for my own curiosity, what would you propose as an asset limit?

Let's just provide a reasonable level of care for all, it wouldn't be platinum but it ought to be damn good and on par with the top five other countries' services.

Then we wouldn't be having this conversation!

wanna go down this road?

And vacation homes and such.

It would be pretty hard to regulate, really, and I think it indicates the need for single payer universal, state by state or national.

How ya doin' CreekDog?

Well, I hope!

Remember that it's advised to save around 1 million for a single person to retire

they're busy being sick. also, assets that Americans seeking medicaid have are usually things those people need, like a house. or the money they saved for retirement. retirement accounts should especially be off-limits since very sick people might need that money in order to survive in disability.

No there shouldn't be an asset test.

And not only is it okay for anyone to retire early, it's none of mine or anyone else's business. holy crap -- it's a human right to decide whether we work or not. we're not slaves or peons.

Because I owned a 15 year old car. The lady told me that Medicaid would not pay for the ear surgery for a problem that would probably (but thankfully didn't) cause permanent deafness because I owned an old hoopty-ride POS. The same lady told me that if I WERE to go deaf, SSI would pay me for life.

While it is now not disqualifying to own a hoopty, neither would it disqualify Bill Gates if he had no income in any one year and live off his millions. I am against the asset test (partly for self serving reasons) but would like to hear other's opinions.

Real estate. Impossible to sell a house for anything near what it's allegedly worth on the tax rolls.

It's like owning a great big rock that is worth a lot on paper, but not in reality.

I don't think real estate should be counted as assets due to the illiquidity at the moment.

in non-tax deferred accounts (like CD's or a simple savings account) should they be abole to get medicaid if their yearly income is less than 133% of the poverty line?

At today's return on investment, the income from 300k could easily be below the 133% of poverty. If that is the only source of income for that person for the rest of their life, what are you suggesting? Do you want them to spend their entire life's savings on medical expenses until they are destitute and dependent on the government for medical and living expenses?

For people without a pension, retirement fund, 401k, Roth IRA, or other retirement plans that require qualification, a large savings account could be the only way they can plan for their old age. Do you really want the government to be able to take that away?

He's planning to retire in his early 40s, live off of investment income, and qualify for Medicaid so that his health care needs are met.

So you know what I think.

input and opinions.

push back from some here on DU when I posted about it was why I started this thread.

What I do want is a discussion. I was not disagreeing with you I was just trying to flesh out your arguments. Sorry if you took it as an attack and thank you for your thoughts on the matter.

There should be no asset test for the working poor, the homeless, the disabled or those that are too sick to work. Otherwise, if a person has substantial assets, they should have to demonstrate why they can't work and purchase their own healthcare, even if they do require subsidies to do so.

I think everything should be counted, down to the last penny.

again for your opinions.

I wouldn't include things such as the value of housing etc.

Medicaid is designed for people who need help, because they can not afford it otherwise. I think taking medicaid when you are able to work and make more money is not ethical.

I ask because it would basically be the same situation in that high asset/low income/low expenses people would get their health care paid for and not have to work/pay for the benefits.

I view Medicaid, food stamps, etc as programs designed to help the poor. If somebody needs them, I see nothing wrong with them using them, but we need to focus on getting more jobs, and raising their income so they no longer need to use these programs.

I view Social Security, and Medicare as programs that are designed to help everybody at a certain age point. These are programs that people pay into, and hopefully everybody will one day get to use.

After working for 48 years, even though I am still perfectly capable of working, I do not want to work. I am living on Social Security and savings. I do not own a home. My car is 8 years old.
Why should I, or anyone destitute ourselves for what is a basic human right in most of the rest of the civilized world?

The person wants to quit their job at age 40 (essentially then leaving the income tax pol that help to pay for these things) and go on tax payer paid insurance. Not medicare, medicaid.

As the system stands to be implemented not it will not be a fair system, which is, what I think, we all want.

All the more reason to fight for single payer.

Our divide on this topic is just to wide. I wish you and your family well.

and your posts have been thought provoking. I wish you and your family well, as well!

But choose not to...your response was to state your situation, which is totally different from the OP's.

Being able retire with the ability to support yourself and obtain your own healthcare, either by buying it utilizing Medicare, is quite different than deciding one day that you're tired of working, so you'll just quit and use a program meant for the needy.

Now I have and I agree with you. I was reading this discussion as being FOR asset testing, but that is something I would disagree with.

I'm sort of in the same place as you. I have assets enough to support use but I was not able to get insurance coverage for any price after years of running my own business. When we leased our farms, I sent my husband to get a job so we would have insurance.

He's now been working for eleven years. His insurance has paid for my two knee operations, a hysterectomy, a shoulder surgery, and this year two knee replacements (one in May, one later this month) plus all the therapy following each surgery. It also covers glasses and dental for both of us. Because of all those health problems, I have been unable to even consider applying for a job though maybe once my knees heal I might try.

He'd love to retire but since Medicare age has been increased to 65 he'll have to wait five more years. If we can get health insurance through the ACA exchanges in 2014, he could retire earlier. Except neither of us would fully retire. Maybe we'd go back to running our farm. Maybe we'd start a new business. Maybe we'd find some place we'd want to work and work fewer hours. Or volunteer at a local charity.

None of those options are feasible until we can get insurance other than through a corporate employer. I hope the ACA is in effect and functional in 2014 - though we're in Florida and will have to wait for pRick Scott to be voted out or the federal government to set up an insurance exchange for our state.

About 125% of the poverty line. My expenses are only 12K per year though.

300k is not enough to really have a comfortable lifestyle now and as time passes the value of what it earns would be reduced.

And whether $300,000 is enough investments to be comfortable depends a lot on your circumstances and where you live. At, say, a 7% rate of return, that would be plenty if you have a house that's paid off and you live in a rural area. If you have a mortgage or live in a city, even 10% ROR wouldn't be enough.

My only income is from a renthouse I own. By the time I subtract horrendous property taxes, real estate management fees, dwelling-fire insurance, and home warranty contract, and the HELOC payments on the place, I am way below the poverty line in net income.

By forcing them to pay full insurance now, it may make them indigent in their older age, and in the end be a wash.

UNLESS, that 300K is making income through stock market or interest, in which case it would be "income," but if interest rates and stocks are stagnant or declining, then it shouldn't be counted.

meaningful sense of the term. It's my sole source of income, and a meager one at that, but on paper it has substantial THEORETICAL worth. Mostly it's a millstone around my neck, lol. I would imagine there are LOTS of small business owners in the same boat in this economy. A person shouldn't have to liquidate their sole means of support to get on Medicaid under ACA.

But I take home too much to meet the 133% limit for Medicaid anyway. Anybody who can afford any sort of roof over their head in Los Angeles makes more than 133% of the poverty line.

For the many reasons listed already.

However, in my mind, there is a huge difference between someone with significant assets that becomes unable to work and therefore qualifies for Medicaid and someone that is perfectly capable of working but just doesn't want to any longer and sees Medicaid as a way to enable an early retirement.

I want a robust social safety net for those that need it, to include the homeless, the working poor, the unemployed, the disabled, etc. I'm not interested in providing it for people that could very well support themselves, including their health care needs, but choose not to because not working is more fun than working.

True, we shouldn't be slaves to our work, however, part of the social contract is that those who are able should help provide for those that can't provide for themselves.

YMMV.

that leaving a job when you no longer have to work due to asset accumulation/low cost of living opens up a job slot for those coming into the employment sector and/or those who NEED that job to pay for living expenses? Maybe I am just trying to rationalize my own situation but I think that argument may have merit. If I would continue to work just for health insurance or due to the social contract theory, am I not taking that job away from someone who may need it more?

If you want to rationalize that way, that's your call. I believe it's a pretty weak argument for taking something from the commons that you don't need just because you don't want to work any more, but that's just my opinion.

of if this is a good thing to do. Not so sure. Financially it makes sense but morally - it will take some more thought. I definitely have at least till 2014 till this is possible so I will have lots of time to ponder this decision.

Under single payer, everyone has coverage, no matter their income, assets, etc. It's an open system for everyone. It's completely different than the current Medicaid system, which is (or, rather should be) available only to those that truly can't provide for themselves. When people take advantage of it, as the OP plans to do, it's an abuse of the current system, IMO.

and get us to see the error of our ways and admit that single payer won't work.
Read the entire thread and see if you disagree with me.

if we had single payer (medicaid/medicare for all?) then it would be perfectly fine for me to retire and live off my assets while at the same time saying if single payer (which, basically is medicaid - much more so than medicare) is just limited to those under 133% of FPL then it is somehow unfair. Either way, those with assets will not have to work if they don't want to while those without assets will.

attitude toward someone who needs healthcare.

program will not have any asset limits when it takes effect in 2014. Should there be any asset limits?

(I am agaist asset limits, just trying to see what others think)

2. You must move everything to a blind trust with a variety of payout options.
3. No
4. I think it is a great thing. Good luck!!

from the annuity and/or who is the beneficiary of the trust?

take about 1.5 million to get 15K in interest per year.

If we were to move to a single payer system with funding via income tax and or VAT, would you still feel the same way about the asset limits? I ask because it is basically the same issue. Individuals with assets that generate income enough to meet their low cost of living/low purchasing of taxed items (say under the standard deduction amount) could not pay or pay very little while others without assets would have to work.

Thanks again for your thoughts-very interesting!

matter much if I have medicaid vs. health insurance through employment.

I do think you are correct in that there are major changes coming for the US in the next few decades. I think a slow decent into hard times is likely (the MAIN reason I have a farm, grow my own food, heat with my own wood, have solar). It certainly could be a hard crash due to internal or external situations. Hope not though as a lot of people can/will adapt if the slide is gradual.

Thanks again for your thoughts - VERY thought provoking!

I did not know there is no asset test. This is amazing news to me because I also plan to do a kind of retirement type thing as you plan to do (though a bit more high tech, buying some land, building a house, growing my own food, but will have solar panels and whatnot, so the "capital" will be somewhat high).

This is brilliant.

together with well/septic and wood heat/cooking. I have always thought about retiring early so reducing ongoing expenses was at the forefront of our plan.

...kind of like these:



Should be relatively easy to make if I machine my own parts, and I'm familiar with how to do that.

But initially I will have to have photovoltaic panels, say, a few kw worth (about $10-15k).

I've been extremely thrifty the past 10 years, to the point where my daily food consumption is about $1, and I don't even grow my own food! It's a crappy OCD style diet (beans, rice, noodles, etc), so I can't wait until I can start growing vegetables again.

But anyway, I like that they don't do asset testing because honestly I feared that I would have to do something on the side to make money in order to avoid losing my property. When I say retire I mean, for sure, retire! Basically all I want to do is chores on a regular basis (not even necessarily daily, but everyone does chores, they're unavoidable; unless you have slaves / maids or whatever).

i still see emails and facebook posts about welfare queens and their cadilacs--and still cadilacs--why not bmws or a lexus????

a person will NEVER be poor enough for some folks

what comes after that
make them pee in a cup????

if they are on chemo that test could be really interesting.....

and getting health care via Medicaid is right for you.

It wouldn't be right for me. For one thing, Medicaid isn't very good health care in my area, and in La., where my sister is on Medicaid. Second, my pride would take a hit having to take Medicaid when I can prevent it. I wouldn't hesitate to use it, if I had to. But if I don't have to, I won't.

income taxes (that and VAT are what I have heard as a funding measure) would you feel diferently? I would be in basically the same position as being on medicaid in 2014 as I will not have income high enough to pay taxes (standard deduction reduces it to 0) and do not buy many new items with living expenses less than 12k per year.

Under single payer, publicly funded healthcare would be there for everyone, regardless of means. The purpose of Medicaid is to provide healthcare for the needy.

afford to purchase healthcare as required by the ACA. So the purpose has changed. There are subsidies at higher income levels. Should those people also have their assets factored in?


I view it as an expansion of single payer, and as such I insist that we should all support it. We will get to single payer incrementally if we resist the effort to repeal ACA and push for lowering the eligibility age for Medicare on one side while increasing the eligibility limits for Medicaid on the other.

Oh and the bill gates example is nonsense. Anyone with 10s of millions in assets is going to have income from those assets well over the ridiculously low eligibility limit.

First, you need to read everything I've written - I'm not in favor of asset tests for people that truly need Medicaid - those in poverty, the working poor, the unemployed (not to include those that choose to be unemploye, like the OP), the disabled, the elderly, etc. In other words, no asset tests for people that aren't able to provide for themselves, to include healthcare.

But I don't believe that the expansion should be used to provide free healthcare to people that are fully capable of working and providing it for themselves, but simply don't want to. There is a huge difference between people that are poor through no fault of their own and people that purposely make themselves poor in order to obtain free healthcare, as the OP plans to do.

I'm not against the expansion of Medicaid,I'm against people purposely putting themselves below the poverty line so that they can obtain services that are intended for the truly needy.

As to the Bill Gates example, I didn't post that, so perhaps you can let that poster know your feelings.

However I qualify for subsidized purchase of insurance. Are you opposed to that subsidy too?

Because you're still paying part of your insurance costs, you aren't taking money meant for the truly needy, as the OP plans to do with Medicaid.

How is the op "taking money from the truly needy"? That makes no sense at all.

He's young, able to work but just doesn't want to work any more, so his plan is to purposely put himself into poverty so that he can obtain free medical care through Medicaid.

Medicaid is there to help the truly needy, those that CAN'T provide for themselves, not for those that CHOOSE not to provide for themselves.

In my opinion, that's wrong and an abuse of the system - YMMV.

That is nonsense. You support subsidies it seems, even under identical conditions, until the subsidy is 100%, then you oppose it. You make an unsupportable claim that somehow this Medicaid recipient denies some other more morally correct recipient from receiving their benefit as justification. Do you see why I am dubious about the merits of your position?

The Medicaid expansion and the subsidies for purchase through the exchanges, while both under ACA, are two completely different programs. One is federal/state partnership to fully fund healthcare for people that, through no fault of their own, are unable to contribute anything towards their healthcare. The other is a federal program to help those that are are able to contribute something, but not everything towards the purchase of insurance from an exchange. There is a huge difference between someone that can't , through no fault of their own, contribute towards their own care and someone that just doesn't want to contribute, so chooses to put themselves in a position where they won't have to.

And frankly, I couldn't care less about your opinon regarding the merits of my position. You're free to think that it's perfectly fine to game the system because you just don't want to work any more and I'm free to think that it's not OK.

"Because you're still paying part of your insurance costs, you aren't taking money meant for the truly needy, as the OP plans to do with Medicaid."

You made exactly that claim.

Not for truly lazy.

Do you disagree?

That isn't the same at all as saying that the OP taking it means that someone else won't get what they need. People that are receiving Medicaid will still get their healthcare needs met, no matter how much it costs. But when people receive it that don't need it, such as the OP plans to do, then program costs go up, meaning that we're all paying for people, such as the OP, that could be providing for themselves.

Let's try this scenario (and it's only a scenario, as I'm not rich, wouldn't be able to do this for my kids, and wouldn't if I could)

Say I'm a multi-millionaire, and I buy my kid a house, put it in her name, and give her $50,000 a year to live on. She has assets (the house) and plenty of money to cover her living expenses, but no taxable income. She could work, but prefers to sit around the house all day, reading Facebook, watching Discovery ID and playing Angry Birds. Would you be OK with her going on Medicaid in order to receive her health care? The fact that she received benefits wouldn't prevent anyone else from receiving benefts, but it would add costs to the Medicaid program, costs that all of us would bear.

Yes, this is an extreme example, and I'm not saying it would ever happen, but the principle is the same, i.e. someone that could work and provide for themselves but chooses not to, thereby increasing the costs of a program that is meant for the truly needy.

My guess (and if I'm wrong, then please correct me, and I'll acknowledge) is that you would be appalled at my lazy daughter receiving Medicaid benefits, yet you have no problem with the OP basically doing the same thing.

as 'truly lazy' is to me revolting. No I do not agree.

But we digress. You claimed specifically that this 'lazy' person would be taking medicaid away from a 'truly deserving' person. You used that claim to justify your support for subsidies to an identical 'lazy' person who did not qualify for medicaid under the ACA but did qualify for subsidies. Your claim is nonsense and you refuse to address that point. Your position of supporting subsidies but opposing medicaid is not supported by your factually wrong assertion that a truly needy person is being denied coverage by a 'lazy' person.

But I can't help you with that. I never said that the OP would be taking anything away from anyone...I said that he would be taking money that was meant for the truly needy, and he would be. Medicaid recipients will get their healthcare, as well they should, no matter how many people take benefits that they don't need. They are taking money that is meant for another purpose - that doesn't mean they are taking it away from anyone else.

You've also misstated that I support subsidies but oppose Medicaid - untrue. I support Medicaid 100% for those that truly need it, not for those that don't need it, but just don't want to work.

How is my example of my lazy daughter and the OP any different? Two people that don't want to work, and expect taxpayers to foot the bill for their medical care? You support one, do you support the other as well?

you make good points and it is very interesting discussion. I do see the point that Warren Stupidity is making about the subsidies. If instead of making 17k per year I was to make 20k per year and have my health insurance paid 90% by the government, Sickof the 1% does not seem to have a problem with that. However, if his/her medicaid argument (taking from the pool for the needy so increasing costs for everyone) should be equally valid for taking a 90% subsidy.

Again, thanks for the lively back and forth.

you make good points and it is very interesting discussion. I do see the point that Warren Stupidity is making about the subsidies. If instead of making 17k per year I was to make 20k per year and have my health insurance paid 90% by the government, Sickof the 1% does not seem to have a problem with that. However, if his/her medicaid argument (taking from the pool for the needy so increasing costs for everyone) should be equally valid for taking a 90% subsidy.

Again, thanks for the lively back and forth.

The OP is actually a year or two younger then I am (42)

I am a working single mother, no assets, I live paycheck to paycheck. One in college, another entering college. I just had to quit my second job (part time min wage) so that I can re-qualify for commonwealth care in MA. It's basically medicaid, with a few less benefits that you pay in for according to your income ( I was paying 113 a month). My medicine costs more then what I was making at the second job.

What will happen is people who can retire at age 40 with assets and money will be receiving care that people who are working and struggling don't qualify for.

Yes- it strikes me as incredibly unfair.

The only answer is single payer, but until we have that, we should try to keep things somewhat equal instead of making things hardest for those who can least afford it.

And I agree with you 100% - single payer would eliminate the entire issue.

People here would be outraged, and rightfully so, if a trust fund baby, living on gift money from Mommy and Daddy, utilized Medicaid for their healthcare needs because they didn't want to get off their butts and work. But somehow with the OP, it's OK.

A single payer system would be funded by either an increased FICA payroll tax or a VAT or both. People struggling to get by would be paying the tax while those lazy no good early retires would be paying either nothing or far less. But we don't have single payer and we won't in the near future. Instead we have the ACA, and it extends medicaid to anyone with income below 133% of the poverty level, and I'm fine with that, it will pull in a lot of the working poor, and a small number of early retirees. Good. The more people on "gummint health insurance" the better, even if there are small inequities. The more who are in the public system, the closer single payer gets to viability.

The OP is not living high in the hog, he is trying to live on an extremely limited income. This is not a rich person abusing the system. It is a person of modest means hoping that ACA offers him a chance get out of the wage economy. Good for him.

And again, unless you are also against any subsidees at all for people who are not working, then your argument against this example seems to be rather weak and inconsistent.

1) in 2012 move all his assets to a non-dividend paying stock and keep 5 million in a non interest bearing account for living expenses.
2) in 2013 do not sell any of the stock (no sale = no taxable income, even if the stock goes up). Live off the 5 million.
3) IN 2014 he would qualify for medicaid as his income for 2013 was 0.

Again, not a plausible scenario but theoretically possible.

yikes

and face no penalty but my governor said 'full steam ahead' (it helps that he wants to run for President in 2016 - O'Malley)

I might have to watch the repeat to get what this is all about but it looks like a kind of trojan horse -- I know there is an issue in CA but I'm not finding it yet googling..

When push comes to shove, and they have thousands of their citizens at their doorstep calling for their heads, they'll change their minds fast than you can shake a stick. It will be just like the stimulus, where many said they wouldn't take the money, but then they turned around and took the money after everyone had fits about it.

the more the merrier. this program is best served by universal participation.

Are we so worried that a 'rich' person would get cheap health care? How much would such a test save?
I am frankly sick and tired of policies in this country that require you to become destitute before you get any care. Or take whatever assets away from your heirs to pay for care. We are all in this together.

the social contract by being able to live off investments and having low enough income to qualify for medicaid. It does seem a bit odd that with no asset test Bill Gates could qualify for medicaid by limiting his realised income in any given year and just living off his assets. I think the above discussion has been informative about the differing thoughts on this matter.

the problem.

Or personal items.

I would rather help a few that don't really need it than to refuse help to one who does.

I am in my 40s and just learning about these issues. It would seem that we could eventually fashion universal health care like SS - which is a program that has been very successful. We'd have 2 deductions from the time we start working - Social Security and Health Care (medicaid/medicare - no age restrictions).

I don't think there are asset restrictions to SS.

That is under the 133% of poverty line limit. My non health care living expenses are just under 12K per year due to having a paid for farm, solar panels, no debt, etc. Some here have said that me leaving the off farm workforce and having my health care expenses paid through medicaid would be violating the social contract since I could continue to work. Since I would be 43 when this provision takes effect I think people think I should continue to work longer just for health care benefits.

me a little queasy to think that someone who can work would choose not to and then take advantage of Medicaid. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I started working when I was 12 and I plan to work until they shovel dirt in my face. I'll qualify for SS in a few months, but I don't have to take it for another 7 years or so. Just my opinion.

the situation would be basically the same. Those with assets that generate income lower than the tax liability rate (standard deduction) and/or buy very little in taxable products (assuming a VAT tax for single payer funding) would have their health care covered even though they could work but choose not to.

Thanks for your thoughts. I am really interested in others opinions on this.

Again, I'm probably the oddball but in my opinion those that can work should. It's through work that we contribute to the larger society and support those that can't through no fault of their own. Look, I get a lot satisfaction from my work. I love every minute of it so take it for what it's worth.

maybe that is why I want to bail so soon. I love working the homestead though so that is what I want to do for the next few decades. Maybe I can do some volunteer work (VITA) or step up my donations to the food bank (wee give excess produce eggs now).

That would be a very productive use for your talents. Years ago a friend and I considered the idea of chucking our careers and buying a commercial/charter fishing boat. After a brief analysis, using our own fishing skills as the baseline, we determined that we would both starve to death in about two weeks.

On reflection, there are plenty of non-conforming ways to contribute to society.

My son is a very talented artist. If he wanted to pursue a serious career in the arts I would support him for life. Of course, I haven't told him that. I'm not willing to support sleeping all day and playing computer games all night.

returns. They provide training and locations where volunteers set up to fill out the forms (technically help people fill out their own forms). Very active in senior citizen centers etc.

Your thoughts about the artist son are interesting. I guess my problem with those who want me to keep working is that it seems they believe that everyone is obligated to pursue the most monetarily rewarding jobs on the theory that one should produce as much as possible for the common good. Should a person who wants to produce art be a banker because s/he owes it to society if they have the skill set for both?

writers, plumbers, electricians... and yes... even a few lawyers.

My own belief is that no one is obligated to do anything. There are way too many people in this world who believe they have the right and the responsibility to tell me how to live my life.

My formula for happiness: Find what you love and what you're good at and do it. For me, making enough money to keep home and hearth together is essential, but that's just me. How much is enough? It's a moving target.

I discovered when I was young that I loved to write and I was fairly good at it. Then, by dint of pure dumb luck I found a way to make a good living, keep my own hours and pursue my passion with virtually no interference from anyone. I'm 61 now and my goal is to keep working until I'm 110.

Good luck in your journey.

But I do think that those that are capable of providing for themselves should do so, rather than relying on others to provide for them, and under our current system, that includes healthcare.

As I said previously, under a single payer system, I wouldn't see the same way, since single payer would be for everyone, not just the needy. Single payer would free people from the worry about healthcare and enable them to pursue what they love. But under the current system, Medicaid is in place to help those that truly can't help themselves.

You don't fall into that category.

An income limit with no asset test in the current system would not be fair.

as you have pointed out upthread.

So anyone who wants to move in the direction of single payer should not favor an asset test.

Maybe the rules have changed but I saw quite a bit of family disruption when one partner in the marriage required skilled care in a facility. Was not unusual to see a couple married 50 years get divorced to avoid impoverishing the other spouse. I think it sucks to have to be divorced and abandoned to get help especially if you are suffering dementia.

the ACA has no asset limit. Could you imagine the same situation multiplied 10 fold with the upcoming expansion? Additionally, the current asset limits are so low as to ensure a life of abject poverty for decades (instead at only at the end of life) if it were to be applied to those who would now qualify.

Thanks for your input!

If you have a struggling family who makes more then 133% of the poverty level....which you can't live on in most places anyway... they would not get free healthcare. They have no assets.

Then you have someone with alot of assets, who get's their earned income below 133% and then qualifies for free healthcare.

That is a problem.

We need single payer and we need it yesterday.

funding mechanisms that are seriously being discussed are income tax and/or VAT tax based . A person with lots of assets but little income would still be able to 0 out their income for tax purposes and by having a low cost of living (I am at just under 12k per year in living expenses) would have no/little VAT tax.

Seems like the same situation for high asset/low income/low expense individuals.

I'm never going to agree with what you are planning to do under the current system. I just don't agree that it is fair. You are obviously going to do it. Not sure why you need DU to validate it. Obviously some here agree and some don't.

I believe. Why should this be different? You can also paint a picture of a responsible person who has savings vs. an irresponsible person or family that lives paycheck to paycheck and buys big screen tvs, etc. Why should the responsible person get hammered when perhaps they can't find employment?

Funny- I don't have a big screen tv, I have a cheap tv that I bought second hand. Instead I work paycheck to paycheck to feed and house my children. No where in my post were TVs mentioned.

Secondly, the person is employed, well employed and is intending to quit at age 40 and go on medicaid (not medicare). Your post just made up things I never said.

I've tried to stay polite and on point with this discussion.
.

We can scapegoat any subclass of beneficiaries. It is so easy, and the propaganda machine will help us too, as dividing us up and getting us fighting each other is their primary mechanism of control.

and saying that there are a lot of scenarios

Someone who qualifies for Medicaid based on the income test is fine by me. Not that many people are going to intentionally cheat the system to make it worth trying to appraise property and those with the means who do cheat the system are not going to find it worth it for Medicaid. The 500k home could be a multi-generational home that is owned free and clear, should they lose their home, I think not.

This is not a knock on Medicaid it needs to be expanded and improved but face it if you have better insurance you get better care and easier access to doctors. If it were up to me everyone would be eligible for what is offered to all federal employees along with expanded Medicare and Medicaid. Plus price controls on meds.

Parts of California and the Northeast come to mind. I can see where people bought such a house right out of college, when it was worth less, and paid for most or all of it, and then got laid off. Should they be denied Medicaid because their home is worth a lot of money now? I think not. An assets test could screw over a whole lot of people who are too you for Medicare, but are at an age where a lot of prospective employers consider them to be "too old" to hire. Except for the 500K house, I am in that boat.

We argue about whether desperate people are desperate enough.

While there are millions of us who want the large percentage of our taxes that go to military spending to be cut first. We could cut our military spending by 50% and still be outspending our nearest competitors.

When New Democrats in the 90's talked about cutting welfare and got all righteous about the 5 or 10% that might collect fraudulently, I kept thinking-- But what about the NINETY percent that really need the help?

And what about all the military contractors that have been convicted of fraud and still receive our tax dollars? http://www.contractormisconduct.org/