Should Estate Recovery Be Tied to Welfare Programs?

[Publius1787]

Should Estate Recovery Be Tied to Welfare Programs?

I just got through reading about the Medicaid Estate Recovery Program. Such a program is designed to afford the state the opportunity to recover the money they paid toward your Medicaid (after the age of 55) via seizing and selling your estate. Now different states have different rules on the matter, but on the whole, I think its a great idea and I did not know it existed until today. Shouldn't all Welfare programs be subject to estate recovery regardless of what age you are when you receive the benefits?

 

[Publius1787]

Here is some reading material on the matter. It seems that Obamacare, which qualifies more people to sign up for Medicaid, is going to hit peoples children in the form of estate recovery.

ObamaCare death debt? States can seize assets to recoup Medicaid costs | Fox News
Estate Recovery and Liens | Medicaid.gov
Another ObamaCare Surprise: Estate Recovery
https://www.google.com/#q=medicaid+estate+recovery
Daily Kos: Medicaid Estate Recovery + ACA: Unintended Consequences?
Medicare for All: Estate Recovery
http://www.eldercaredirectory.org/medicaid-estate-recovery.htm

 

[Agit8r]

Well, it makes sense.

 

[baker001]

It makes sense for Medicaid, as medical care for a person can easily equal the value of one's home. A person on Medicaid runs up $150k in medical bills then passes away. The person lives in a home worth $200,000 and there is a mortgage for $150,0000. The state forces the sale of the home for $200,000, takes the $50k to help offset the medical debt. Like I said, makes sense.

I'm not sure if it makes sense for welfare benefits, especially for relatively short term assistance. Lets say a family hits hard times and over 3 years gets $60,000 in benefits (food stamps, day care assistance, help with utilities). They get back on their feet and go about their life. Same scenario, they have $150,000 of a mortgage left on a home that could sell for $200,000. The state forces the sale, takes the $50k, and leaves the family with no home, no money for a down payment on a new home. Yeah, doesn't really make sense to help a family stay off the streets, then kick them to curb!

Add into the mix that many people poor enough to need welfare likely don't own real estate or other high dollar assets, and the whole thing seems a waste of time and effort.

 

[Publius1787]

It makes sense for Medicaid, as medical care for a person can easily equal the value of one's home. A person on Medicaid runs up $150k in medical bills then passes away. The person lives in a home worth $200,000 and there is a mortgage for $150,0000. The state forces the sale of the home for $200,000, takes the $50k to help offset the medical debt. Like I said, makes sense.

I'm not sure if it makes sense for welfare benefits, especially for relatively short term assistance. Lets say a family hits hard times and over 3 years gets $60,000 in benefits (food stamps, day care assistance, help with utilities). They get back on their feet and go about their life. Same scenario, they have $150,000 of a mortgage left on a home that could sell for $200,000. The state forces the sale, takes the $50k, and leaves the family with no home, no money for a down payment on a new home. Yeah, doesn't really make sense to help a family stay off the streets, then kick them to curb!

Add into the mix that many people poor enough to need welfare likely don't own real estate or other high dollar assets, and the whole thing seems a waste of time and effort.

That's leaves but one question: how much do they need to rack up in welfare benefits and assets so as to make it worth it? I could care less about the family, undue earnings are still undue earnings.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Should Estate Recovery Be Tied to Welfare Programs?

I just got through reading about the Medicaid Estate Recovery Program. Such a program is designed to afford the state the opportunity to recover the money they paid toward your Medicaid (after the age of 55) via seizing and selling your estate. Now different states have different rules on the matter, but on the whole, I think its a great idea and I did not know it existed until today. Shouldn't all Welfare programs be subject to estate recovery?

Obamacare Alert - Medicaid Estate Recovery Obamacare Could Put Millions At Risk - Happening Now - YouTube

Medicaid is to take care of the individuals who can't take care of themselves and can only pay partly or wholly through estate recovery.

Assistance programs work generally on the concept that the citizen will eventually become enough a tax payer to pay back for those programs in their taxes.

 

[baker001]

It makes sense for Medicaid, as medical care for a person can easily equal the value of one's home. A person on Medicaid runs up $150k in medical bills then passes away. The person lives in a home worth $200,000 and there is a mortgage for $150,0000. The state forces the sale of the home for $200,000, takes the $50k to help offset the medical debt. Like I said, makes sense.

I'm not sure if it makes sense for welfare benefits, especially for relatively short term assistance. Lets say a family hits hard times and over 3 years gets $60,000 in benefits (food stamps, day care assistance, help with utilities). They get back on their feet and go about their life. Same scenario, they have $150,000 of a mortgage left on a home that could sell for $200,000. The state forces the sale, takes the $50k, and leaves the family with no home, no money for a down payment on a new home. Yeah, doesn't really make sense to help a family stay off the streets, then kick them to curb!

Add into the mix that many people poor enough to need welfare likely don't own real estate or other high dollar assets, and the whole thing seems a waste of time and effort.

That's leaves but one question: how much do they need to rack up in welfare benefits so as to make it worth it? I could care less about the family, undue earnings are still undue earning.

Well as I stated, the first issue is that most people that need welfare assistance likely don't have high dollar assets to begin with. So even if we did have a law that allowed it, I don't see it getting used all that often.

That aside, what's the point in giving someone assistance so they can keep their home (and if someone that owns a home hits hard financial times, often their main concern is keeping the home) if you're just going to force them to sell it to recover what you spent on assistance? The easier thing to do is to factor in their home equity when they apply for assistance, and if they have too much equity deny them benefits at the get-go. I'm not advocating that we do that, I'm just saying that IF you're going to do it, that it makes more sense to do it on the front end, not the back end.

 

[The Rabbi]

People need to pay for what they've gotten. If all they have is the house then when they are done using it, the state should get the house. I dont see an issue with it. Screw the heirs.

 

[Publius1787]

Should Estate Recovery Be Tied to Welfare Programs?

I just got through reading about the Medicaid Estate Recovery Program. Such a program is designed to afford the state the opportunity to recover the money they paid toward your Medicaid (after the age of 55) via seizing and selling your estate. Now different states have different rules on the matter, but on the whole, I think its a great idea and I did not know it existed until today. Shouldn't all Welfare programs be subject to estate recovery?

Obamacare Alert - Medicaid Estate Recovery Obamacare Could Put Millions At Risk - Happening Now - YouTube

Medicaid is to take care of the individuals who can't take care of themselves and can only pay partly or wholly through estate recovery.

Assistance programs work generally on the concept that the citizen will eventually become enough a tax payer to pay back for those programs in their taxes.

I would venture as to say the feeding from the public trough at the expense of others requires that you pay them back above a certain amount. The government funds many services, welfare among them. If we are to speak about "fairness," as all liberals claim to be about, then why treat those at the trough the same as those who have never tasted the public cheese? The taxpayer gave them an unearned boost, why not require them to pay it forward? They'll be dead anyway, they wont mind. It's a win win situation except for the heirs who likewise shouldn't be entitled to unearned increase. Call it a reverse mortgage on your life.

They should pay it back adjusted for inflation and accounting for resources used to sell the property of course. Who else could boast such a high risk interest free loan? The taxpayer is still getting screwed, however, certainly not as much as he was before. With that kind of money coming in you can either reduce the deficit or further increase benefits to those who need them. I vote for the former.

 

[Publius1787]

It makes sense for Medicaid, as medical care for a person can easily equal the value of one's home. A person on Medicaid runs up $150k in medical bills then passes away. The person lives in a home worth $200,000 and there is a mortgage for $150,0000. The state forces the sale of the home for $200,000, takes the $50k to help offset the medical debt. Like I said, makes sense.

I'm not sure if it makes sense for welfare benefits, especially for relatively short term assistance. Lets say a family hits hard times and over 3 years gets $60,000 in benefits (food stamps, day care assistance, help with utilities). They get back on their feet and go about their life. Same scenario, they have $150,000 of a mortgage left on a home that could sell for $200,000. The state forces the sale, takes the $50k, and leaves the family with no home, no money for a down payment on a new home. Yeah, doesn't really make sense to help a family stay off the streets, then kick them to curb!

Add into the mix that many people poor enough to need welfare likely don't own real estate or other high dollar assets, and the whole thing seems a waste of time and effort.

That's leaves but one question: how much do they need to rack up in welfare benefits so as to make it worth it? I could care less about the family, undue earnings are still undue earning.

Well as I stated, the first issue is that most people that need welfare assistance likely don't have high dollar assets to begin with. So even if we did have a law that allowed it, I don't see it getting used all that often.

That aside, what's the point in giving someone assistance so they can keep their home (and if someone that owns a home hits hard financial times, often their main concern is keeping the home) if you're just going to force them to sell it to recover what you spent on assistance? The easier thing to do is to factor in their home equity when they apply for assistance, and if they have too much equity deny them benefits at the get-go. I'm not advocating that we do that, I'm just saying that IF you're going to do it, that it makes more sense to do it on the front end, not the back end.

I thought the purpose of welfare was to get people on their feet? Nevertheless, there are indeed many of those who spend a lifetime on welfare, but not all. The taxpayer is still getting screwed, you are correct, but just not as much as before.

Force who to sell the home? Dead people don't need homes. But I see where this could get sticky. I would certainly encourage people to sell their assets at the end of their life. Nonetheless, they could always make laws to mitigate such circumstances.

 

[Publius1787]

People need to pay for what they've gotten. If all they have is the house then when they are done using it, the state should get the house. I dont see an issue with it. Screw the heirs.

Paula once wrote a song about you.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7aShcmEksw]Paula Abdul - Cold Hearted - YouTube[/ame]

 

[hazlnut]

Should Estate Recovery Be Tied to Welfare Programs?

I just got through reading about the Medicaid Estate Recovery Program. Such a program is designed to afford the state the opportunity to recover the money they paid toward your Medicaid (after the age of 55) via seizing and selling your estate. Now different states have different rules on the matter, but on the whole, I think its a great idea and I did not know it existed until today. Shouldn't all Welfare programs be subject to estate recovery?

Obamacare Alert - Medicaid Estate Recovery Obamacare Could Put Millions At Risk - Happening Now - YouTube

If you have an estate of any value, then why are you on medicaid -- a program that serves poor families and children.

 

[Publius1787]

Should Estate Recovery Be Tied to Welfare Programs?

I just got through reading about the Medicaid Estate Recovery Program. Such a program is designed to afford the state the opportunity to recover the money they paid toward your Medicaid (after the age of 55) via seizing and selling your estate. Now different states have different rules on the matter, but on the whole, I think its a great idea and I did not know it existed until today. Shouldn't all Welfare programs be subject to estate recovery?

Obamacare Alert - Medicaid Estate Recovery Obamacare Could Put Millions At Risk - Happening Now - YouTube

If you have an estate of any value, then why are you on medicaid -- a program that serves poor families and children.

I thought that welfare was a hand up for the poor so they will eventually get an estate of their own? And if they do, why not demand that the taxpayer is reimbursed upon their death?

 

[The Rabbi]

Should Estate Recovery Be Tied to Welfare Programs?

I just got through reading about the Medicaid Estate Recovery Program. Such a program is designed to afford the state the opportunity to recover the money they paid toward your Medicaid (after the age of 55) via seizing and selling your estate. Now different states have different rules on the matter, but on the whole, I think its a great idea and I did not know it existed until today. Shouldn't all Welfare programs be subject to estate recovery?

Obamacare Alert - Medicaid Estate Recovery Obamacare Could Put Millions At Risk - Happening Now - YouTube

If you have an estate of any value, then why are you on medicaid -- a program that serves poor families and children.

Because it is based on income not assets. A lot of poor people, esp elderly, own their own homes.

 

[nodoginnafight]

This is an interesting idea. I'll follow this discussion with interest. Right now, I'm not sure. On the one hand, if there really are people who own very valuable assets, I wonder why we are subsidizing them. Is this just a "feel good" proposal for the "let them eat cake crowd"? Or is there really an opportunity to recover money that went to people who may not have really needed it?

Does recovering assets like this create a disincentive to climb out of poverty - if the state is just gonna take it anyway?

Interesting proposal with some real questions attached imho

 

[Agit8r]

People need to pay for what they've gotten. If all they have is the house then when they are done using it, the state should get the house. I dont see an issue with it. Screw the heirs.

Paula once wrote a song about you.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7aShcmEksw]Paula Abdul - Cold Hearted - YouTube[/ame]

I guess it goes by the premise that the heirs were supposed to have been taking care of their aging parents, or if failing that, should at least not expect their full inheritance.

 

[The Rabbi]

People need to pay for what they've gotten. If all they have is the house then when they are done using it, the state should get the house. I dont see an issue with it. Screw the heirs.

Paula once wrote a song about you.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7aShcmEksw]Paula Abdul - Cold Hearted - YouTube[/ame]

Bullshit.
There are limited resources available. If the state does not try to recover expenditures it has less ability to help the next person.
The question is, Should someone who has the means to pay, even after death, be allowed to hold on to those assets even while taking assistance? I answer No.

 

[Publius1787]

People need to pay for what they've gotten. If all they have is the house then when they are done using it, the state should get the house. I dont see an issue with it. Screw the heirs.

Paula once wrote a song about you.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7aShcmEksw]Paula Abdul - Cold Hearted - YouTube[/ame]

Bullshit.
There are limited resources available. If the state does not try to recover expenditures it has less ability to help the next person.
The question is, Should someone who has the means to pay, even after death, be allowed to hold on to those assets even while taking assistance? I answer No.

The video was a joke. If you look at my others posts here in the thread you would know that I agree with you.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

In other words, let TOO BIG TO FAIL banks wreck the economy, and let the State WRECK the health industry, so we can allow the State and the TOO BIG TO FAIL Banksters GOBBLE up the wealth and property of the citizens.

EXCELLENT THINKING YOU FUCKING MORONS.

How dare you call yourselves Libertarians.

HOORAY for the BANKING MONOPOLIES AND CARTELS!!! FUCK YEAH, SLAVERY! SERFDOM! FEUDALISM! FUCK YEAH!

Don't ever call yourself a Libertarian/Constitutonalist EVER again.

 

[tyroneweaver]

the stupidity on this thread is amazing.
First of all the pharoah obama is forcing kids into medicaid based on a tax return
farmers as a rule try and keep income on tax returns as low as possible.
So the child is forced onto the rolls courtesy of the US government.
So now when a future farmer inherits the farm he has to pay the gov back the medicaid bill .
Sounds like a good way to starve a nation.