Texas to go after estates of Medicaid recipients

AUSTIN - Texas officials will launch a new program beginning Tuesday that allows the state to seize estates of dead people who had applied to Medicaid for long-term care.
...
"When an elderly parent begins to decline, many families are surprised to discover that Medicare doesn't cover custodial care," said Trudi Matthews, a health policy expert for the Council of State Governments.

Long-term care averages $40,000 a year, so even people with a hefty nest egg for retirement quickly deplete their savings and become eligible for Medicaid, she said.

Because Medicaid exempts houses and other assets when applicants sign up for benefits, "it's possible for someone with a very nice home to collect public dollars for his long-term care," Matthews said.

The thought of subsidizing seniors who still own comfortable houses has fueled support for recovering tax dollars after death, she said.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3060828

You have to be aware of the many, many wealthy families who handover all their assests to their children just before (about three year in most states) being placed into a nursing home so they can live off the state. I have worked in and have a relative in one nursing home that is like a country club for wealthy seniors but everyone of them is living off the dole of the state eventhough their families could afford to pay for their care. I'm not saying that seniors have to live in the worst conditions or are not entitled to live well in their golden years. I am saying that seniors who are wealthy should pay their own way. They are taking resources from the very needy whose families are not able to pay for healthcare or nursing home care. Some of the working poor are working two and three jobs just to be able to pay for care for their elderly and sickly parents and they are often shut out of admittance to nice nursing homes---not because Medicare or Medicaid would not pay for them but simply because the elderly poor are not deemed to be worthy of admittance into the nicer nursing homes.

Do you have any kind of source on a similar occurance.

Medicaid does not pay very much. Most people in my state that need to use it for long term care live in a crappy place with terrible help.

How do people live in palaces in your state on Medicaid?

And I would need a place on the web showing that this kind of thing is happpening.

We can't live on "personal experiences" that might be misconceived.

this has been going on for a long time. I worked in a nursing home much like that described by the poster. I saw personally, and knew personally, that the mothers (there were three) of doctors who owned the nursing home, did exactly as was described above. It was more than twenty five years ago, but this loophole in the law, selling off assets within a period of three years, or in this case, paying off the assets to your children who own the nursing home and then having the state pay thereafter, was well known by those who are clever with money and their accountants. It is legal, apparently and I am not sure anything can be done about it.

years ago with both sets of their parents who also had a lot of money.
They couldn't believe they would have to pay for nursing hime care for their parents or not inherit their parents' money and so they sold their parents'assets with their parents agreeing and then it looked like the parents were penniless, etc., so they could get federal and state monies for care.

These people were extremely greedy and self-centered. When the guy eventually lost his job he couldn't stop his wild spending and eventually went bankrupt, as by that time he went through the parents' money. He and his wife now live in a crappy apt. somewhere. But while he was living high, he screwed the system for all it was worth.

they are cracking down on this law, because of wealthy/well-off/able people that abuse the system in this way.

The U.S. should have socialized health care, but since they don't it's up to the people to pay for themselves, unless they are poor and destitute.

Poor and destitute also means that the people do not own a house or property they can sell to get $$$$$$$$ to pay for themselves.

The trouble is that, under our present health care system, the people who are able to pay for themselves while they are getting government assistance are in a sense ripping off the poor and destitute.

I see this as no different than the wealthy getting huge tax cuts. The wealthy/well-off/able can afford to pay for more health care, just like they can afford to pay for more taxes.

Some of you wealthy/well-off/able people may be pissed off at our government's present health care system of paying for yourself (and rightly so, it sucks) and try to hang on to your assetts because of it.

But in doing so, you are screwing the poor, the "little guy" who because of you ends up with nothing.

This "Fuck you I've got MINE!" attitude is no different than what Bushitler and his Capitalist minions are doing!:(

is no different than what Bushitler and his Capitalist minions are doing"

:thumbsup: and a :toast:

marshall dillon taught me.

there better be a better way.

I figured I got that one right!:toast:

I am well aware of this

In California, the same situation prevails. I have witnessed this many times over in my career.

The elderly (or their families) transfer assets to themselves, thereby allowing the parent to qualify for Medicaid. The state taxpayers then take over responsibility for the care of the old person while the "heirs" go merrily away with the cash.

In fact, this got so bad that there is now a rule that you can't transfer assets in the last two years before going on Medicaid.

I believe that Minnesota has a similar rule. I had some relatives on Medicaid there and when the last partner died the state took part of the sale of their house to reimburse itself for the years of free care.

proposal do realize that it would do nothing to curb the problems of which you speak, right? Of course you do, because once the wealthy individuals transfer their property to their heirs during their lifetimes, that property no longer is part of the *estate*. So of course the well off to wealthy who can afford the lawyers and accountants will still be able to avoid these kinds of seizures by the state. But of course you all realize that, right?

I'm sure you also realize that it's really only the middle class seniors and their families who will get hit by this, since their primary asset is their home. (the poor have already been screwed and are just taking up space by the Lege's standards)

Oh, you didn't realize that estate laws don't exactly work like you thought they did? You didn't realize that the wealthy would still be able to avoid this with trusts, in vitro transfers and basic estate planning? Please. :eyes:


People, if the Nazi controlled Lege in Austin thinks it's a good idea, it probably isn't. Just a good rule of thumb for you folks to follow.

I can understand they don't take their home, ect. while they are alive, but for crying out loud, why should my tax money pay for someones long term care so their family can inherit the estate???

the "estate" property during the senior's lifetime through in vitro transfers instead. Indeed, this proposal would actually *encourage* the very thing that so many on this thread are pissed about- at least by those who know to do it. The wealthy have access and money enough for lawyers and acountants to allow them to avoid this kind of thing. This proposal only hurts the middle class, whose estates usually consist of a home and a bank account.

You people should know by now that if the Texas Lege thinks it's a good idea, it actually isn't.

simply enable the wealthy and allow them to abuse the system for their own benefit.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

on a par with parasites, did you? Sort of puts the lie to Bush's "leave an inheritance" garbage too.

I'm sure the other states either are or will soon be fighting with the kids to strip anything that they can find.

This truly sucks!

The flesh must be freshly dead.

Tell me they're kidding...

:wow: :wow: :wow:

worth millions, to their children wait the appropriate time, I don't remember whether it is a year or two, and then qualify for Medicaid.

That doesn't seem fair while some truly destitute people do not receive care. :shrug:

just because someone has a multi-million dollar estate and a large pension doesn't mean they shouldn't get government aid. What, you thin programs designed to help the poor should be limited to the poor? what kind of socialist are you?

Why should a person with a multi-million dollar estate and large pension be given government aid???

They do not need it!!!

:wtf: I thought government aid was only for people who really need it!:shrug:

As a person on the low income scale with no inheritance to be had, I think it's very greedy and selfish for the very rich to take away the government aid (to pad their own wealthy lifestyle) that poorer people are in need of, leaving them with less!!!

So then in the process, the rich end up with more than the poor people!!!

That's fucking rude!

This actually encourages the wealthy individual to dispose of her/his assets during her/his lifetime, so that the property is no longer part of the *estate*, since that is the only property the Lege is targeting.

There are some people on this thread who simply need to use a dictionary to find the definition of *estate*.

would be for our government to change to socialized health care.

But in the meantime, it's really not fair for the wealthy/able to lean on others and take away from the needy just so they can live in comfort.

I'm sure the poor and needy would enjoy a vacation here and there, along with some comfort.

The wealthy would dispose of their assetts and hide their money anyway, regardless if this Federal Law was passed in Texas or not. That's what they do.(and thanks to good old GWB) I don't think anyone is able to control that.

It's really not about preventing the wealthy/able from disposing of their assetts, it's about making sure that the assistance is there for those who truely need it.

And if too many people abuse the system who do not need the assistance, it won't be there.:(

Now if I were an elderly person in Texas with any property I'd execute an agreement with my kid or someone else I trust for managing my care, transfer all my assets to them BEFORE my capacity was diminished, and thumb my nose at the state. This-- what Texas is doing-- is just WRONG. It is so disheartening to read stories like this. People work all their lives to have something of their own, and something to leave their children, and the state will take it away because we don't recognize any social responsibility for one another. This OP depresses the hell out of me.

something to leave their children, and the state will take it away because we don't recognize any social responsibility for one another."

Is society obligated to pay for an elderly person's long term care just so they can leave millions to their heirs? :eyes:

Regarding appointing an executor for your estate and depending upon them to provide for your care is sometimes very risky. There are cases where such an executor has used such assets for themselves leaving the original owner penniless.

The vast majority of folks are lucky indeed if they can leave a home to their children. This is the sort of tactic the RW uses routinely-- choose an extreme example and use it to undermine the usual case. So yes, I would rather overlook the occasional millionaire who is able to obtain custodial care at public expense than sieze the hard won assets of folks who've worked all their lives and are dependent upon society for help. They've contributed to society all their lives, fer christ's sake-- why can't we recognize and value that by caring for them with dignity in their old age? Why do we have to worry about whether they have the means to pay for it?

long term care for someone who has assets?

I agree there should be some threshold and I believe most states have one but Medicaid was designed for people who have essentially no other means of support.

My mother is 72. Right now she has a companion who will care for her if necessary, but that might not be the case 10 years from now. The point is that she might one day need me or one of her other sons to care for her. Now she doesn't have much, but she does have a small home. Are you suggesting that I would be justified in demanding that she sell her home before I would provide care for her? That she do so in order to pay me? Maybe under some people's world view, but not under mine.

Now before you say "But..., but, that's different. She's your mother," let me add that I don't see any difference whatsoever. I will take personal responsibility for her if necessary because she's my mother, but I believe that anyone who has grown old as a contributing member of society has earned the right to expect something back when they need elder care. That's one reason I pay taxes, and I'd damn well prefer using my taxes to support elderly people so they can keep something they've worked all their lives to pass along to their children than supporting a whole host of the other things my taxes are used for.

A direct answer to your question: "Why should society pay for long term care for someone who has assets?" Because we are not animals who turn our backs on the elderly or otherwise infirm until we've squeezed every available drop of their life's work from their veins. That's why. Because there is personal worth that cannot be tallied on a corporate balance sheet.

for her.

That's my personal belief that "some things are more important than money". Others would place their parents on Medicaid and spend their accumulated wealth on themselves.

I guess you and I are just different.

I presume you used your mother's assets with her permission. In that case she was still taking responsibility for her own long term care, and I think that is wonderful. Seniors with means who choose to use them to maintain that responsibility are continuing their lifelong contribution to society-- that's great. But not everyone can, and more to the point, not everyone should have to, IMO. Seniors who have contributed to society all their lives should not have to be made destitute in order to recieve care for that society. I guess we do disagree.

I don't understand this.. it's one thing if you truly have no assets.. but wanting to leave money or property to your kids is a luxury.. not a necessity. Having a parent pass away is not a revenue generator. If someone becomes incapacitated and needs care, THAT is what they've worked to pay for, if they did not get long term care insurance for the what-ifs in life.

And.. you're kind of deflating your own argument about personal worth being more than a corporate balance sheet... when you talk of assets vs. taxpayer care. You're willing to sacrifice the health and well-being of TRULY needy elderly, to protect YOUR assets? Is that any different than pitting personal worth and balance sheets??

to the damn nursing company to pay for her care. DIRECT. The proceeds were banking that she'd die in a few years. Didn't even get 50,000 for her small home.

I believe the law is entirely correct. We should not be subsidizing people with assets so their children can inherit something. People with assets should pay their own way.

But what I would more like to see is NATIONAL HEALTH CARE for all persons - cradle to grave.

I'm not elderly, don't own anything my heirs would want, and I don't need custodial care. I do believe that as a member of society I owe the elderly who participated in that society before me some measure of consideration and care when they can't provide it themselves any longer, and am willing to help pay for it so that they do not have to suffer destitution. I've said that I do not begrudge the elderly the social cost of their care, and for this another poster called me "SELFISH and GREEDY." Sheesh.

on edit-- oops, I think YOU were the poster who called me "SELFISH and GREEDY" See my reply below. :nuke:

you can give it to your heirs.

It is selfish and greedy.

You are responsible for paying for what services and items you may want - just like a new watch or a new car.

If you've got money, don't expect me to pay for you to keep your new car and pay for your car insurance.

Anything other than expecting US to pay for you so any heirs you may or may not have can inherit something IS selfish and greedy.

That's the truth. You may not like it or agree with it, but it's just the factual unvarnished truth.

We need an affordable national health care system that would not require someone to give up everything.

I've said repeatedly in this thread that I AM WILLING to subsidize health care for the elderly with my taxes so that they don't have to become destitute to receive adequate care. You persist in calling me selfish and greedy for saying that I WANT TO HELP THE ELDERLY PAY FOR THEIR HEALTH CARE. I don't know how to make it any plainer than that. As far as I can tell, your argument is that you don't want to help them until you've driven them to destitution first. And you're calling me selfish? Sheesh.

it is more than you think

The vast majority of "estates" in this country are not even subject to inheritance taxes, which don't even kick in until the estate is valued at more than $1 million. The IRS indicates that the number of estates subject to taxation in the US is between 1 and 2% annually.


The vast majority of people are NOT leaving millions and billions of dollars to their heirs. The vast majority of estates actually consist of a home (which may or may not be paid for) and bank accounts.


You live in Texas, Skittles. You of all people should know that if our Nazi Lege likes something, it must be bad- for the middle/working class and poor, that is.

but if they own a home and have bank accounts, then these are assetts (available money to spend) so they do not need government assistance.

Some people that need the assistance have nothing! (and I mean absolutely nothing)

lots of people with MILLIONS do it

there is a long "look back" period that examines just what you are thinking of doing, in order to claim you have "hidden assets" from the government. You had better get an attorney in your state specializing in Medicare law, other wise you could find yourself in deep water.

...it's not really an issue for me. But I agree, if I were elderly I'd figure out a way to do this. Not because I want to screw the state, but rather because I've worked hard all my life and deserve better than destitution at the hands of the state.

Is that the theme I'm sensing here tonight? Hide your money and make the State pay for your care? Why? So they can go broke providing care for people with assets to hide,and have to deny the truly needy the care they need, and the other services that have to be cut?

A greedy tactic of the wealthy.

"More, more, I want more for me!!!":evilgrin:

under a trust.
Middle and lower-class people get screwed.

Anybody who has MILLIONS in assets has long term care insurance. I can guarantee you they don't risk sub-standard Medicaid treatment in a sub-standard facility. They'll be in a facility that doesn't even ACCEPT Medicaid patients.

There are people with a home and maybe $100,000 who put what they have in a trust. Just working people who don't want to see what little they accumulated go to a medical corporation at the end of their lives.

It's about damned time someone made sense on this thread.

I don't understand why it's so hard for some people to see who really gets screwed by this.

The big "issue" - is "selling" your house to a child for significantly less then market -- and then letting them pay for it on a zero down mortgage back to the seller, with below market rate interest --- and leaving them the mortgage as an asset of the estate.

A lot of states have been going after that - even NY in the Cuomo years.

The shield - have an approved Long Term Disability plan. By law, states have to accept the existence of the LTD insurance in place of "following your assets."

Nolo Press and the AARP have good books on this very issue.

I had two sisters, both with catastrophic illness from an early age (juvenile diabetes). Both reached a point where they had to go on Medicare and Medicaid, especially since both of their husbands divorced them when things got too rough (so much for "for better or worse") Both moved to Indiana. One sister finally ended up in a nursing home, legally blind, severe circulation problems (already losing fingers/toes), and major organs failing. All she had left in the world was her little bitty two bedroom house, and the hope that she would get to return there. Medicare forced her two sons to sell the house (we didn't get it out of her name quickly enough) and turn the money over to them, or else they were going to kick her out of the nursing home. She passed away soon afterwards--I think she just gave up.
My other sister just had her second leg amputated, and is still in transistional care in a nursing home. Can't wait to see what the proposed changes in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are going to do for her.

Hey, we need the money to buy more stuff in Iraq for the insurgents to blow up.

A good friend's father in the final stages of MS was in the same position in WV. He was caught in such a Catch 22. He had been admitted to the hospital for pneumonia and a urinary infection after the woman he hired to come get him out of bed in the mornings and put him to bed in the evening -- the best health care he could afford since his time working as a teacher was too short before he had to quit to get a full state employee pension -- didn't come for three days. He doesn't have enough muscle function to move on his own. The doctor wouldn't release him until he could prove that he had a home health nurse who could take care of him. He couldn't afford that. My friend works as a flight attendant and by no means could afford to help much.

So, he ended up having to enter the long-term care wing of the hospital. To get Medicaid to pay for it, he had to sell his house and his van with a wheelchair lift.

in other states. in Wisconsin, my in-laws were essentially sued for the value of a home they bought from my MIL's Mom when said MIL's Mom moved in with them (she sold it for less than the state's idea of "fair market value").

If you read the article, you'll see that they don't go after the home if a spouse, child, etc. still lives there.

Is it fair for someone to accept 40K per year from the state AND leave a 500K house to their heirs? Y'all need to be less knee-jerk, read the article, and consider the ramifications...


Texas is one of the last states to comply with a 12-year-old congressional program grappling with soaring Medicaid costs, which required all states to implement "estate recovery."

Most people work all their lives to own something of their own. Why should corporate health care for massive profits be sufficient justification for taking it away? We have a social responsibility to care for people who have spent their lives contributing to society, and anyone who has worked, paid taxes, raised kids, and participated in their local economies for a lifetime has probably earned that care, IMO.

Most people that this affects are NOT leaving 500K houses behind. They are people like my sister, or my parents, where the house is worth less than 50K, but is their own little piece of earth, and usually all they have. Why is the government entitled to that just because these people have catastrophic (we're talking millions here, in my 2 sisters' cases) illnesses? 40-50K is just a drop in the bucket against their medical care. I'm sure Ebenezer Bush thinks they should all just die and decrease the excess population.
We have to implement universal healthcare, and it can't be some token program that pays practically nothing. If you look at World Health Organization's statistics, the U.S. pays more than any other civilized country for healthcare, but is ranked--last time I looked--at like 20th in standard of care among progressive countries.
That is just outrageous.

and you have no money. Obviously you were unable to work for years. Then you get older. So are you saying in a case like this that you haven't "contributed to society" and "earned that care"?

I don't think the issue here is about "corporate health care for massive profits" it's about:

If you have assetts to pay for your own health care, do it! Do not take money from others who need it while you sit on your assetts!!!

Unfortunately, we do not live in a country with Government Socialized Healthcare which pays for everything, so the government will not pay for everyone's healthcare, only those who truely need it.

You can't have it half and half!
You can't "have your cake and eat it too"!

Sorry, but it sounds like you are more interested in massive corporate profits for yourself.:evilfrown:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the knee-jerk reactions annoyed me also.

In Eastern Massachusetts housing prices are very,very high.

I am a senior myself and have many friends my age and we all live in homes that are paid for and worth from $700,000 up to over a million.(We aren't rich,just lucky)

Why should the taxpayer pay for our medical care,so our kids,who are doing just fine,can inherit some money?

...considerations before simple human compassion. As I said in my responses above, as a taxpayer, I do not begrudge the money needed to pay for your custodial care because I assume you've been a contributing member of society-- and that I have benefitted thereby-- for your entire life. You've worked for what you have-- why shouldn't you be able to leave it for your children? If you choose not to, and choose instead to sell your home so that you can continue to take responsibility for your own care, I applaud you. You're still contributing to the common good. But I also think you've earned the right to some of my tax money, and I don't begrudge it for a second.

I consider myself fortunate for having good health and a decent job with a pension plan. I believe it is my moral duty to help others less fortunate.

With the redistribution of wealth under Bush, Robin Hood in reverse, we can buy insurance coverage to protect everything we have or we can make a mortgage payment. Bush's plan puts the needy and the middle class in a Catch 22 situation.

but don't expect a capitalistic government to pay for your health care when you can afford to pay for it yourself.

and you've made some really good points in this thread. But let's face it, there are always going to be people who abuse the system. I'm not so sure that the problem of abuse is so terrible on this issue that it requires this fix, tho.

And, I also believe that healthcare is (or should be) a RIGHT, which means its costs -- all its costs -- should be borne by society. That would mean that it wouldn't matter how much a person owned or had accumulated or not for them all to get the same basic treatment, the rich along with the poor. Apparently, there are a lot of posters to this thread who disagree with that.

"Is it fair for someone to accept 40K per year from the state AND leave a 500K house to their heirs? Y'all need to be less knee-jerk, read the article, and consider the ramifications..."

Yes, it is fair. It is fair if we choose to insure eachother against such catastrophies. Why can't we architect collectivist solutions, such as this form of social insurance (Medicaid), so that no one in our society needs to be humiliated, rendered destitute, and stripped of all dignity just because they grow weak and infirmed?

My choice, however, would be generous universal healthcare (single payor) that protects each and everyone of us from the cold calculating constructions of social darwinism.

From each according to their ability; to each according to their need. And we will be judged by how we treat the least amongst us. Cheers.

and home care would be best for the majority of these folks anyway (plus cheaper...)but today, in this world, letting Joe Millionaire spend 40 K per year of our tax $ while sitting on millions of assets is silly, and you know it.

When the poor & homeless have access to health and dental care, THEN I'll worry about house-rich Reeps.

What I mean is that, of the pool of of final care recipients dependent on Medicaid, it's only a very very small percent that hide a million+ dollar estate.

You've read here several posts where people of very modest means had to relinquish small 2-bedroom homes. I suspect that this is the more usual case.

You do realize that the million-dollar plus estate, few in number, has likely long ago engaged an expensive estate lawyer and long ago successfully (and legally) hid assets from consideration. So those that suffer from this legislation are those with less means, who never heard of an "estate lawyer".

So if we're being "practical", what is more practical? Preserving the assets and dignity of the many though tolerating the abuse of the few? Or punishing the abuse of the few (ineffectively) at the cost of the many? Could always reform the legislation to allow asset retention up to a maximum -- would that prevent the baby being thrown out with the bathwater?

I guess I curdle whenever I hear arguments about what is "deserved" or not, whether made explicit or implicit. Ringing behind such arguments are the Calvinist myths about the Righteousness of the "haves" versus the iniquity of the "have nots", all nonsense of course.

HOWEVER, I thought I made clear that repeal of this nit in the Medicaid legislation is not something I would fight for. Instead, I would fight for -- I already actively fight for -- single payor universal healthcare that makes this issue a moot point.

And i'm shocked that employers are not lobbyng relentlesly for it. It's as much in their interest as in ours. Any business owner--from 10 employees to 10 Thousand, would prefer to dump the patriarchal, unworkable system of employment-based health insurance.

SPHC would end age discrimination in hiring virtually overnight.

But there is a motive for big business to resist single payor universal healthcare. It's the same reason that elements of the owning class would like to dismantle social security. Some in that class view it as in their interest to force the rest of us away from collectivist solutions, and toward the cash nexus, to the largesse of the corporation, for all our social needs. It's the Company Town writ large.

You and I are less likely to chafe at the bit on the job if we're worried about access to doctors and hospitals (because our insurance is tied to our job).

The thing about declaring an "ownership society" now is that this means that we all get to own our current state of advantage -- or disadvantage -- under the guise of some "compassionate conservative" moral rubric. And the advantaged would talk us out of collectivist solutions that increase our welfare in hope of maintaining their distinct advantage.

At least not in this scenario. This only hurts the middle and working class people who need government help at the end of their lives.

Like Skittles, since you also live in Texas, you should know better than to support anything that our current Lege wants to do.

We've been worried since my mom died. Just because of something my mom signed when she was very ill, which she didn't tell us until a few days before she died. It could take away the land that has belonged to my family since my grandfathers days.

Whatever your mother signed is, in my quick (uninvolved) opinion, probably not worth the paper it's printed on, and whatever it meant can be dissolved with very little trouble or expense to you and your family.

Just get this matter to a lawyer as quickly as possible.

Good luck to you.

Thanks. It's just one of those nagging worry type things. Especially the way the country is heading right now.

have a right to your 'private account'? If you file bankruptcy can they attach the 'private' part of your social security account? Can the hospice attach your 'annuity insurance' policy? These are questions not answered by bush** an his minions.

red staters

Bush has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to control health care costs. In fact he's in bed with the pharmaceutical, medical, and insurance industry.

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE NOW FOR EVERYONE!

I was just an observer but my mom and her two sisters had to sell their mother's (my grandmother's) little house when she became ill and needed to be in a "resident care facility."

They had to turn the sale proceeds over to the nursing home (which covered about a year's worth of care) and then she could get Medicaid. Then she died.

Unless you die at home and healthy, forget about leaving ANYTHING to your children.

Horrible!!!

Trust me when I tell you many of them are scraping to get by. Medicaid doesn't pay that much toward the care of their patients. It's only a portion of what is needed to see that they have any quality of life at all.

and your story is almost exactly the same as mine. My mother and her two sister (and three brothers) had to auction off all of my grandmother's personal items and sell her house when she needed long term care following a stroke. Any sentimental heirlooms had to be purchased at auction (my sister pay for my mother's high school graduation portrait).

OH currently looks back 5 yrs for property transfers. I worked for subsidized housing a few yrs ago and the management would prorate the value of the property transfered or sold until the 5 yr mark was reached. They used a formula provided by the state.
My daughter recently told me that OH is going to change this to 10 yrs. We are in our 50's and we are considering transferring our assets to our children, provided it doesn't cause them to pay more taxes, etc. We have paid taxes for close to 40 yrs, and paid into SS with the idea that a pension, the SS and Medicare would take care of our needs in our golden yrs. Hah-- the company my husband retired from is in bankruptcy court trying to get the pension and benefits changed. Between that and Bush screwing SS, I imagine our lifework and plans are close to meaningless. I don't want my kids to take care of me and I want to leave them the profits of our work.
I'm all for paying taxes with the idea of covering the cost of care for those who can't afford it. I'm also for the system continuing so that this generation who reared children and now care for their elderly do have the same options for assistance.
Yeah, I'm blue in a red state and this is the truth--we are all paying for ignorance and stupidity.

Would this happen. Only in America would a party set out to destroy a system that helps provide dignity for the elderly who are not so lucky.

Only in America would this even come up. Most places have health care that won't break people and bankrupt them.

serves em right for voting RETHUGLICAN!

for the middle class.

in large numbers, just to have something to leave to their kids. This is pretty low, even for Republicans. I wonder how Jesus and the Christianist Right "feel" about this...

which includes medigap and long-term care insurance. Trouble is that many have their assets locked up in their home equity- and don't have a lot retirement income coming in.

Even so, these means tested programs can't cover all of the eligible elderly unless people are willing to fund them- someone has to pay.

thats the way!!!

the rich will have the attorneys to avoid this.

Feb. 28, 2005, 11:17PM

Estates can be seized to repay Medicaid
Program allows the state to recoup some of the costs of long-term care
Associated Press

AUSTIN - Texas will launch a program today that allows the state to seize estates of dead people who applied to Medicaid for long-term care.

Texas is one of the last states to comply with a 12-year-old congressional program to address soaring Medicaid costs, which required all states to implement "estate recovery."

The program pits people who think the law promotes taxpayer fairness against critics who fear it will deny heirs their rightful inheritances.

Experts characterize the Texas Health and Human Services Commission's rules as among the most lenient in the nation, but the program could affect tens of thousands of families that forgo estate planning.
(snip/...)

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3061888
(Free registration is required)

n/t

include SS, Medicare/Medicaid, and Fair Housing.

The * way is the piecemeal, half-assed way.

And the MSM calls that leadership!!!

That's all they are.

It wasn't a week after my mother died that they tried to collect for her medicare. My father owns a farm and was advised to take mom's name off of it and he did. I think this was terrible and another thing to worry about during that hard time.

peoples votes...they have machines they can rigs and they'll continue winning the election.

I put nothing past them people posing as representatives of the U.S. government.

After all just look at the combined historical track record of all of it :shrug:

So.....

parents who have trustworthy, grown kids would be wise to "sell" their property to them well before they actually start the inevitable decline they face as they age. If parents "sold" their homes, for example" to their grown children (as an investment), they could then "rent" from the children, without fear of being evicted in a forced sale when one of them became incapacitated.

If super rich are allowed to transfer wealth from generation to generation without taxation on said property, why not protect the one and only asset (for most) by preserving a home for the "left behind" spouse?

Most people would fall well within the allowable "oone time sale of home" profit, and could "nest egg" that money in order to "pay rent" to the kids. The grown kids who could use the extra deduction would have Mom & Dad's "rent" to pay the mortgage they were paying for the home, and Mom & Dad would never have to scramble for a place to live. When Mom & Dad are both gone, the home could/would be sold to pay off the remainder owed, and the profit spilt between the kids who "purchased" the home.

The "windfall" from the sale of the home could be used for upgrades to the home to make it more saleable when the time comes, and for the retired Mom & Dad to travel and enjoy their time together while they are still healthy.It's very like the "reverse mortgages" that banks sometimes offer, only when you die, your home does not go to a bankl...it goes where you always wanted it to go... to your kids..

And , if and when one gets too ill to stay in the home, they do not have that cash-cow for the government to take away from the remaining spouse who is not ill..

Don't wait until one parent is already ill though.. There are time limits in most states.. 4 years comes to mind..

A lawyer would certainly be in order to set this up.. You can also give away $11K per child per year tax free..The money gleaned from the "sale" of the home could be put in an account in the child's name, but Mom & Dad would have the ATM, so they could withdraw whatever money they needed to live on.. example:
3 grown kids = $33K a year..

This would only work if the "kids" were reliable :)

A Mom & Dad who had $100K profit from the home sale could in 3 year's time have protected their home from predators ahead, and have enough mooney to live on.

Ownership of homes can be a burden in later years if one parent gets a serious illness.

Her house went up for sale one day before she died of an infection. Her nursing home had a different wing for Medicaid patients too. After her insurance and savings ran out, she was moved to the Medicaid wing. Then we had so many days before the house had to be on the market.

Something else to remember is that nursing homes also take the patients Social Security income as well. If I remember correctly, my Mom was allowed about $30 per month for personal expenses. Not much money to pay for personal care items or new clothing if they lose weight.

by many of the posts on the issue in this thread!

DUer's who claim to be Democratic/Socialist, but on the contrary act as if their beliefs are Capitalist instead.

People getting handouts from Medicare/Medicade, which was meant for people who are near destitute, and then whining and whimpering about it when the government comes to ask for payback knowing you already had and presently have the assetts, when you should have paid for yourselves in the first place! Some of you are even very wealthy when it comes to assetts!

The underlying problem here is that we don't have Socialized Health Care where the government pays for everyone's care. I wish we did. So because we don't, everyone has to pay for their own. And the people who can't even afford to do this? Well then that government assistance was meant for them and them only!

If you own a house this is considered "assetts" i.e. money to burn.

Do any of you know how many older people on Medicare have nothing??? Meaning, they do not even own a place to live! Do you really want to take away needed money from them just for your own greedy selfishness?

So you own a home? Sell the damn thing, use the money for your own healthcare and RENT a place for Krissesakes!!! It's not going to kill you! You will still be alive to tell about!

Well WAAAAAAAA!!!:cry: you say? I worked so hard all of my life for this!!! :nopity:

Welcome to the game of life, my friend.

Keep in mind that, nobody is telling you to pay for somebody elses healthcare, they are telling you to pay for yourselves if you can (obviously!) afford it.

I can hardly sympathize with people who own a home to sell$$$$$$$$:nopity: and some an expensive one at that! And many of you have stocks, investments, money market accounts etc. etc. on top of that GOOD GOD!!! My heart bleeds for you!

Just think of it as a self-compassionate way of redistributing the wealth.

If you own a home, you've got money to spend!!! And you ought to consider yourself very lucky if you do!
So use it!

End of Rant.

EMOTIONAL OUTBURST ATTACK DISCLAIMER: "That's my opinion, but I could be wrong":silly:

:thumbsup:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I hope you're joking!

At least the middle class have something, the poor have nothing!

The poor are not invisible on this one!:think:

I bought it twenty years ago for less than forty thousand. Four and a half acres of land, mostly forest and a twohundred year old house with a stone foundation and a dug well, as was common back then

I worked , along with my husband to fix it up, as it was really in need, although still quite square.(they knew how to build houses back then) We revamped the electrical system and the heating system, I tore out walls and as much as ten layers if old wallpaper all by mysself. We formed a bathroom with a shower and I tiled it myself, even though I never did that in my entire life. I also put down the flooring in the bathroom, even though I never did that in my life. There was only ten feet of cleared land around thuis house, and I worked with a scthye to clear it, and pulled up vines and wild roses and wild blackberry vines in order that we could put in a garden.

There were only three rooms in this little home with an attic that had beams still covered with bark. There are huge beams in the corners of my living room--the result of someone who had to hew those beams in order to build the house.

We loved forming our little house and still do. It is our cozy home, filled with memories and filled with the fruits of our labor to make a home for ourselves. I can never give it up to live in a nursing home and will kill myself first before handing it over to some corporation, or corporate hospital owned by the doctors in the area so that my life will be run by administrators out to make money off my disability should I ever be in that position. I consider I have more dignity than that and wish to die in my own home.

I will never ever submit to being ousted out of my beloved home, ever.

two centuries and I'm part of it.

To a kindred spirit. :toast:

and how hard you worked for it,:hug: and how you feel but remember, some people have never even had the chance to own a home like this. What about people who sincerely need help that have nothing?

Really, it's all material, you can't take it with you.

The poor and destitute are the people who suffer under Capitalist government.
I truely wish I could make the U.S. give everyone socialized health care. If I could I would! Then these problems would not exsist.

What can you do? Well, I definitely would not hand over my house to some bogus corporation. I would sell the home, be in control of my own money, and rent. If you need a health care worker or a nurse, they can take care of you at home. This is what they do a lot in Canada, but of course the difference is, Canada has socialized health care which is what the U.S. should have!

Otherwise, with the way this nazi administration is running things, the wealthy always win and the poor lose. Look at the subject of this thread. The wealthy are winning, the poor are losing with our present health care system!

Capitalism breeds greed and unfortunately causes everyone to be greedy. The wealthy hang on tighter to their assetts, and the poor are screwed in the process:(

This country needs socialized healthcare and a new Administration.

Somebody kick the Son of a Bush out!!!

"What about people who sincerely need help that have nothing?"
Don't worry...society will find a way. Maybe then we will find a
WAY TO GET THE PRICE OF PRESCRIPTIONS DOWN! When corporations and RX company's have to pay more taxes you can count on costs going down.

and we should all have socialized health care too, but since we don't, then all of the wealthy and able (meaning middle-class posessing any assetts) people should pay for themselves.

I've seen some middle-class people who are pretty well off living a very cush lifestyle.
They have the house, cars, the toys, the vacations! Some of them live extravagantly off of credit.
If you were to ask them if they had money, you will hear the excuse "but it's all tied up!" Then they whine about how "poor" they are HA! That's funny.:7

Does any of this sound familiar to you?

Under the present health care system which all of us are stuck with, I don't think a poor person's taxes should go towards subsidzing a wealthy/able person's house, toys, vacations, inheritance money etc. which is what their uneeded goverment assistance would subsidize for them!

By the sound of some of the posts on this thread, many people are abusing (or planning to) the present system by expecting the government (the people's taxes) to support your comfy lifestyle!

Well fuck that!

"Untie" your money, sell your toys and shit and pay for your own ass!!!

"Oh but I've worked SO HARD to get all of this!":nopity:

That's great! So use THAT money/assetts to pay for your own ass!

Some people work hard all their lives and lose everything through no fault of their own. It happens all the time. So does that mean their taxes should support your already comfy ass?

I think not!

People abusing the system in this way are no different than the Enron CEO who ripped everybody off!

So HEY PEOPLE!

Now hurry up and get those lawyers!!! (After all, you can afford them)

Hide your money deep, pad your fat asses and fuck everybody else because YOU'VE GOT YOURS!!!

EMOTIONAL OUTBURST ATTACK DISCLAIMER:
"That's my opinion, I could be wrong":silly:

So - the poor should subsidize YOUR (not you - the other posters who whine that we should subsidize THEM with OUR TAXES) inheritence so you can spend YOUR PARENTS' money?! I don't think so!

in order to be eligible to obtain medicaid, a person does have to be destitute. There can be no life insurance other than a prepaid funeral, no savings, no property or other assets.

I agree, it seems those with more money don't wish to use it to pay for their own care. Just from my Mom's experience, I was questioned quite nastily about why she still had her home several months after entering the nursing home. I explained she had insurance that covered the first 120 days and she had used her savings..but that she'd just recently applied for medicaid and had so many days before the house went up for sale. I later discovered that the person questioning me had a relative who had to sell her home upon entering a nursing home ..why? Because she'd given hundreds of thousands of dollars to her daughter instead of paying for her own care.

I'm honestly surprised Texas is so far behind on this. Our experience happened in 1996.

Europeans do when their elderly need long term health care? Do they force them to turn over all their assets?

Just wondering.....America, land of the barbaric.

for killing brown people who are holding our oil hostage under their sand; plenty of money for a weapons intercept system that literally cannot get off the ground, plenty of money to pay interest to banks and foreign investors on a $7 trillion dollar debt; plenty of money to investigate a blow job in the Oval Office; plenty of money to promote the destruction of Social Security, but when it comes to taking care of people who have worked their whole lives (whether for pay or not - anyone who thinks a stay-home mom hasn't worked is too stupid to reply to), then it has to be a self-funding enterprise!

Fuck that.

When the airlines are funding themselves, instead of being provided tax-payer built airports, tax-payer paid traffic controllers, huge cash subsidies, and when their CEOs who rake in millions a year are actually able to run a business that's self-funding, then come back and see me!

The fucking US Constitution (remember it?) and even the damned Ten Commandments say to provide for the general welfare and to honor your mother and father. Doesn't really say that Carlyle and their ilk are the #1 reason for our existence.

the elderly,the weak,the sick,the poor...I guess * was too busy NOT reading the Bible, just like he doesnt read newspapers, magazines, ect and even brags about it.

What a moron !!!

what kind of world?

i know, reality vs. dreams.

way lot bigger.,,bless

We shouldn't have to have a lawyer on retainer to navigate regulations nor to survive in this country. Policies and practices which instill fear = terror. We do it to our own people.


"In 1993 Congress passed PL103-66 §13612 that requires all 50 states to recover properties of Medicaid recipients to reimburse the State for expenditures made on their behalf."
http://www.wellsjenkins.com/reports/longtermcare/longtermcare.htm


seems it was rolled into the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993


Sponsor: Rep Sabo, Martin Olav - Democratic-Farmer-Labor (introduced 5/25/1993)
Cosponsors (None)

5/27/1993 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 219 - 213 (Roll no. 199)

6/25/1993 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate in lieu of S. 1134 with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 50-49. Record Vote No: 190.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 103rd Congress - 1st Session

Vote Counts: YEAs 49
NAYs 49
Not Voting 2
Vice President Voted Yea - That would be Al Gore
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00190

8/4/1993 Conference report H. Rept. 103-213 filed.

8/5/1993 Conference report agreed to in House: On agreeing to the conference report Agreed to by recorded vote: 218 - 216 (Roll no. 406).

8/6/1993 Conference report agreed to in Senate: Senate agreed to conference report by Yea-Nay Vote. 51-50. Record Vote No: 247.

8/10/1993 Signed by President. That would be Bill Clinton.

8/10/1993 Became Public Law No: 103-66.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HR02264:@@@L&summ2=m&#titles

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:H.R.2264:
or link via http://makeashorterlink.com/?T1032169A


P.L. 103-66, Approved August 10, 1993 (107 Stat. 312)
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993

CHAPTER 2—HEALTH CARE, HUMAN RESOURCES, INCOME SECURITY, AND CUSTOMS AND TRADE PROVISIONS

~snip~

Sec. 13612. MEDICAID ESTATE RECOVERIES.

* * * * * * *

(d) <42 U.S.C. 1396p note> Effective Dates.—(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the amendments made by this section shall apply to payments under title XIX of the Social Security Act for calendar quarters beginning on or after October 1, 1993, without regard to whether or not final regulations to carry out such amendments have been promulgated by such date.

(B) In the case of a State plan for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act which the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines requires State legislation (other than legislation appropriating funds) in order for the plan to meet the additional requirements imposed by the amendments made by this section, the State plan shall not be regarded as failing to comply with the requirements imposed by such amendments solely on the basis of its failure to meet these additional requirements before the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning after the close of the first regular session of the State legislature that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act. For purposes of the preceding sentence, in the case of a State that has a 2-year legislative session, each year of such session shall be deemed to be a separate regular session of the State legislature.

(2) The amendments made by this section shall not apply to individuals who died before October 1, 1993.

~snip~

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/comp2/F103-066.html

I guess we have him to thank.
Al Gore broke the tie and Clinton signed into law.

This seems more of a Rethuglian initiative than a Democratic one.

and Welfare Reform.

This is "Compassionate Conservatism" in action, folks.

"Rats? Cockroachs? Holes in the roof? Cat-piss soaked into the floors? Naw, you can keep it, we don't want it. We'd have to pay to have it bulldozed...."

What about paying high prices for substandard care while a few mega companies (Beverly just to name one) reap the benefits. I haven't seen any nursing palaces in the state where I live.

cheapest and nastiest to the indigence.

We've been fighting this for YEARS here. Ask around, our law is one of the most lenient on the books in the 50 states.

It ain't just Texas, so hold your bashing for when it's deserved.

Spelling edit.

Shameful, Really

how very ridiculous... instead of providing everyone with health care regardless of income or wealth while taxing progressively on income during a person's working life to pay for it, we now have posthumous taxation/payment of the living for services rendered to the newly dead. A bueraucratic perversity of the first order.

at some of the pro capitalist replies. C'mon people! We are talking about peoples homes-the majority of them modest homes-some who have worked hard as Malva Zebrina to fix up and keep that home! Why shouldn't people leave that home to their kids?!

This whole thing is nothing but a SCAM to rob the middle class of any bit of inheritance. So that people will forever be forced to work for nothing and to have nothing. No doubt it's part of the bigger plan along with robbing everyone of Social Securtiy-all in order keep all of us lesser beings under the thumb of corporate america and the government! Think about it! Who gets that money when the house is sold? Oh just the corporations that own the nursing homes that charge OUTRAGEOUS fees to begin with! Don't think they aren't making money hand over fist to begin with! But of course it ain't enough and they want it all!

I am absolutely disgusted by this crap! :puke:

this is about the truely needy getting help under the present healthcare system (which sucks by the way)

So you are willing to defraud the present system just to hang on to your own inheritance/assetts...
mind you, no one is asking you to pay for someone else, just for YOUR OWN SELF
... and in the process send yet another person in dire need out on the streets to become homeless??? Just so you can have your luxuries when you are completely able to pay for yourself and go rent a home like other people are forced to do???

How truely self-centered is that???

Talk about the needy "being forced to work for nothing and have nothing"!!!

Either some people on this thread are not getting it, or they just don't give a shit.

Wow, some people's true colors really come out on this thread!

I guess it's every man/woman for themselves!:(

Ah, the American way!!!:evilgrin:

Sorry, but YOU are the one that doesn't "get it"!

So, I'll say it again:

These senior care places are SCAM artists!

They are RIPPING OFF people from start to finish!

How is it fair for people to PAY INTO social security/medicare and have NOTHING when push comes to shove and they need to use their insurance?! Why should they throw everything-even the family photos as someone else mentioned-into the pot to further support these f-in money grubbers?!

Selfishness has nothing to do with it. You are pointing that finger at the wrong people. Try pointing it at the government and the corporations who want to own every one: body and soul!

Now that's utter piggishness! :puke:

"this is about the truely needy getting help under the present healthcare system"

If you believe that the Texas Lege has the interests of the truly needy in mind, then I have a bridge to sell you.

It *is* a class war, though. And I'm glad to see that you and some of the others on this thread have taken the bait in the war of the Have a Little vs. the Have a Little Less. The top 2% thanks you for focusing your wrath on other wage earners, on others who are solidly middle class (even if they make more/have more than you), and on your fellow progressives. They're happy because as long as your wrath is directed at the proverbial little old lady who has to sell her $200,000 home to get crappy care in a Medicaid accepted home, the top 2% is absconding with the wealth of this country and the world. And if they ever have to have long term care like that discussed in this thread, the truly wealthy will be in private, non-Medicaid accepted homes or will be receiving personal care from around the clock nursing in their home.

But again, that top 2% thanks you and others for not being able to see the forest for the trees. And call me about that bridge, won't you?

...I've seen expressed in this thread. One of the posters above keeps calling me "SELFISH and GREEDY" for advocating the notion that we all have a responsibility to help provide care for the elderly and infirm without driving them to destitution first.

You can't take it with you, folks, so would you rather leave some to your kids or just give it all to the government and the corporations?

technically you can't receive Medicaid or Welfare if you have property. I know a woman who had a lien placed on her house while she went to school while receiving welfare...she paid it back after she got her degree....

some here are concerned that the wealthy are getting away with defrauding taxpayers... but I don't see how this law will affect those wealthy individuals. They have the supplemental long term care insurance and the lawyers to find the loopholes. The only ones affected by this will be the middle class and low class. I understand the fear of being taken advantage of, but there will always be a few parasites that take advantage, doesn't mean we should stop helping those who need help.

Now, suppose you needed to go to a nursing home to recover from a disease or accident for medium-long term care. Medicaid was your only means to pay. You recover moderately, enough to live on your own again, and voila! you have no home.

This is what happened to a former client of the shelter I worked at. She had no children to care for her. So when she had a stroke, she needed extensive care and rehabilitation. Her partial paralysis meant that she needed round the clock care. When she was finally (about 4 months after intensive, terrific rehabilitative care from the staff of the home) she had nowhere to go. Her house had been sold.

She couldn't afford to start again, nor was she healthy enough to find employment. She was screwed by the system. She bounced around a bit from her few relatives and friends but eventually died homeless by jumping off a bridge.

So yes, there will always be some who take advantage, but people like Sandy don't deserve the consequences of some people's paranoias.