Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

antigop

(12,778 posts)
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 11:34 AM Jun 2014

Obamacare wrinkle: California bill seeks to reduce state's seizure of Medi-Cal recipients' assets

http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci_25947244/obamacare-wrinkle-california-bill-seeks-reduce-states-seizure

California politicians and federal bureaucrats are scrambling to iron out an unexpected wrinkle in the nation's health care law that is forcing many Americans to choose between health coverage and depriving heirs of much of their inheritance.

California is one of 10 states that recover a broad array of costs from recipients of Medicaid, the health program for the poor that is called Medi-Cal in California. The policy applies to recipients 55 and older -- and only after they die.

The seizure of assets has been going on for years but has suddenly become a heated issue since millions of low-income American adults began enrolling in the expanded Medicaid program created by the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as "Obamacare."

A bill in the California Legislature is aimed at reducing the amount of assets that can be "recovered" from recipients' estates. But the proposal faces resistance from the administration of Gov. Jerry Brown, which says the state needs the millions of dollars it collects every year to help fund Medi-Cal.

The federal government, concerned that the issue is deterring many from signing up for Medicaid, is essentially telling states to back off and stop trying to recover much of the money.
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Obamacare wrinkle: California bill seeks to reduce state's seizure of Medi-Cal recipients' assets (Original Post) antigop Jun 2014 OP
Related. proverbialwisdom Jun 2014 #1
"Depriving heirs of much of their inheritance?" Geoff R. Casavant Jun 2014 #2
None of this is a surprise yeoman6987 Jun 2014 #3
How is this okay? Rainforestgoddess Jun 2014 #4
Why should you pay nothing? yeoman6987 Jun 2014 #5
Because my taxes pay for health care in Canada Rainforestgoddess Jun 2014 #6

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
1. Related.
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 11:50 AM
Jun 2014
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-le-0206-thursday-medi-cal-obamacare-20140206,0,163251.story#ixzz2sYyLcelP

Letters: Obamacare's Medicaid expasion is no victory
Re "State aid is relief, burden," Feb. 3

Feb 6, 2014


Let me get this straight: The expansion of Medicaid is being touted as "one of the great successes of the Affordable Care Act." Medicaid is a second-tier program of inferior quality for poor people of all races, especially blacks and Latinos.

While some may see the cementing of the Medicaid program deeper into the structure of the U.S. healthcare system as one of the Affordable Care Act's positive effects, others are likely to see it as an indicator of an increased level of healthcare inequality (based on income inequality) in this country.

Reginald Clark
Claremont

*************

Your article on Obamacare and Medi-Cal described people forced to accept Medi-Cal assistance in paying for health insurance.

The article failed to mention that both California and federal laws impose estate recovery: that is, on the death of a recipient and his or her surviving spouse, the state is required to make a claim on the estate for the cost of aid provided, up to the amount of the estate.

Although those eligible for Medi-Cal may not have substantial estates, and allowances are made for certain dependents, people should not be forced to accept Medi-Cal and have their estates subject to recovery.

Gordon Gerson
Pacific Palisades

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-new-medi-cal-patients-20140203,0,6224799.story#axzz2sYy77fz5

Medi-Cal seen as relief for some, confusing burden for others
Many Californians now qualify for Medi-Cal under Obamacare, but for some embarrassment and complex sign-ups overshadow the aid.
By Eryn Brown
February 2, 2014, 7:33 p.m.


Business owner Lori Golden wasn't looking for charity.

But the 62-year-old Northridge resident said that's what it felt like when she tried to buy an Obamacare health insurance policy through the Covered California exchange — and instead learned that her income was so low it qualified her to receive benefits through California's healthcare program for the poor.

"I'm upset. I sort of feel like I'm being forced to go into Medi-Cal," Golden said.

Supporters of national healthcare reform tout the expansion of Medicaid — called Medi-Cal in California — as one of the great successes of the Affordable Care Act.

<>

The low-income insurance program, once mainly for women with children and people with disabilities, is now open to any adult earning less than 138% of the federal poverty level (in California, $32,499 a year for a family of four and $15,856 for a household of one.)

Also newly eligible are children in households earning up to 266% of the poverty line. That means a family of four making a little more $60,000 a year can be split in two, with parents able to buy subsidized coverage but children receiving theirs through Medi-Cal.

Martin Gross, a self-employed lawyer and Obamacare proponent in Mar Vista, bought Kaiser Permanente policies for himself and his wife through Covered California.

But when his 16-year-old son qualified for Medi-Cal, it gave him pause.

"I said, 'Wait a minute — I'm not that poor. Why is my son on Medi-Cal?' " he recalled. "I wasn't crazy about it. It was a hit to my ego."

Gross said he would have liked to have had the option of paying what he used to for his son's coverage.

<>

Geoff R. Casavant

(2,381 posts)
2. "Depriving heirs of much of their inheritance?"
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 11:54 AM
Jun 2014

Why is this even an issue? Wouldn't the heirs have their inheritances reduced anyway, if the estate had to pay off the medical bills?

I have dealt with the estate recovery process. I can't speak for California, but here in Texas there are very generous exclusions and exemptions, far more generous than regular medical bills.

 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
3. None of this is a surprise
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 12:32 PM
Jun 2014

We have had many discussions here on this very subject. I think that the peace of mind of the living is much better than having to split up the estate by how every many it needs too. At least the LIVING person is cared for. Estates should barely be allowed in the first place.

Rainforestgoddess

(436 posts)
4. How is this okay?
Sat Jun 14, 2014, 09:38 AM
Jun 2014

Still a long way from universal health. If I have a major illness or injury, that costs hundreds of thousands, I pay NOTHING. No copays, no deductible. And after I die, my family home doesn't get sold off to reimburse the system. Yes there would be taxes that needed paying but that just seems ridiculous.

I know it's better than nothing, but Americans need to aim higher on this one.

 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
5. Why should you pay nothing?
Sat Jun 14, 2014, 09:57 AM
Jun 2014

Somebody is paying. Nothing is free in this World. And selling homes of those that were treated in a hospital is fine. The estate can have the money left over.

Rainforestgoddess

(436 posts)
6. Because my taxes pay for health care in Canada
Sun Jun 15, 2014, 09:15 PM
Jun 2014

That's why I pay nothing. And my family home can stay in the family. Or my sister in law's family farm.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Obamacare wrinkle: Califo...