Surprise! If you're forced into Medicaid by Ocare,your assets canbe confiscated later

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Jun 20, 2006
10,025
2,410
290
San Diego, CA
It's buried way down in the fine print.

More and more people are finding that the high costs of Obamacare policies, are forcing them to choose Medicaid instead. But unless they read way, way down into the fine print, they may get bitten by a nasty bug, after their deaths: If you qualify for Medicaid due to low income, but still have any assets (in other words, if you haven't yet been forced to sell your house or car yet etc.), the state can come back and confiscate them after you die, to pay for your "free" medical expenses.

If you thought you might have something to pass down to your children... the government has other ideas.

Welcome to "compassionate socialism".

Yes, we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it. And boy, are we finding out.

This is one part that your heirs might find out instead. They might find that they aren't your heirs after all... the government is.

----------------------------------------------

Expanded Medicaid’s fine print holds surprise: ‘payback’ from estate after death | Local News | The Seattle Times

Expanded Medicaid’s fine print holds surprise: ‘payback’ from estate after death

As thousands of state residents enroll in Washington’s expanded Medicaid program, many will be surprised at fine print: After you’re dead, your estate can be billed for ordinary health-care expenses. State officials are scrambling to change the rule.

By Carol M. Ostrom
Seattle Times health reporter
BETTINA HANSEN / The Seattle Times

Sofia Prins and Gary Balhorn, both 62, decided to marry so they wouldn’t have to get health insurance individually through Medicaid, which could bill their estates after death. The Port Townsend couple’s joint income is too high for Medicaid but low enough for tax credits.

It wasn’t the moonlight, holiday-season euphoria or family pressure that made Sofia Prins and Gary Balhorn, both 62, suddenly decide to get married.

It was the fine print.

As fine print is wont to do, it had buried itself in a long form — Balhorn’s application for free health insurance through the expanded state Medicaid program. As the paperwork lay on the dining-room table in Port Townsend, Prins began reading.

She was shocked: If you’re 55 or over, Medicaid can come back after you’re dead and bill your estate for ordinary health-care expenses.

The way Prins saw it, that meant health insurance via Medicaid is hardly “free” for Washington residents 55 or older. It’s a loan, one whose payback requirements aren’t well advertised. And it penalizes people who, despite having a low income, have managed to keep a home or some savings they hope to pass to heirs, Prins said.

With an estimated 223,000 adults seeking health insurance headed toward Washington’s expanded Medicaid program over the next three years, the state’s estate-recovery rules, which allow collection of nearly all medical expenses, have come under fire.
 
Obamacare = Wealth redistribution, it is the reason the far left was salivating over getting this passed.

Hopefully people have learned that when the far left is in control oft the government it is not the publics benefit.
 
In other words, Kosh and Little-Acorn don't think people should be responsible for their health care.

What a couple of far right reactionary drones.
 
In other words, Kosh and Little-Acorn don't think people should be responsible for their health care.

What a couple of far right reactionary drones.

Absolutely right for once

No let's allow a new vote, now that this and many other portions of the law have come to light, and see just how the 47% vote this time.

Me thinks the results would be much different.
 
"Unlike Medicaid recipients in the past — who were required to reduce their assets to qualify — they’re more likely to have a home or other assets.

For health coverage through Medicaid, income is now the only financial requirement."

At least they don't have to sell their assets before they get coverage. That way if they don't have some costly long term health issues they can still pass those assets along.
 
In other words, Kosh and Little-Acorn don't think people should be responsible for their health care.

What a couple of far right reactionary drones.

Absolutely right for once

No let's allow a new vote, now that this and many other portions of the law have come to light, and see just how the 47% vote this time.

Me thinks the results would be much different.

Do you mean the 47% who voted for Romeny?
 
No let's allow a new vote, now that this and many other portions of the law have come to light, and see just how the 47% vote this time.

Me thinks the results would be much different.

Of course.

Remember when Nancy Pelosi said, "We have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it."?

What she really meant is, "We don't dare tell you what's in it before we pass it, because if you find out what's in it, you'll demand that we reject it immediately!"

Now we're finding out what's in it... and just how different it is, from what the leftists told us.

* No, you CAN'T keep your doctor.

* No, you CAN'T keep your present insurance plan.

* Yes, there ARE plenty of new taxes in it. We just called them "penalites" before the vote, to fool you and your congressmen into supporting it.

* No, costs are NOT lower. They're a lot higher.

* No, "more Americans" will NOT be insured. Millions have already been kicked off their insurance, far more than are signing up for the new Obamacare policies. And we haven't even gotten to the part where we start forcing companies to cancel the policies you got through your employer.

Should we have another vote on it, now that we know what's REALLY in it? Oh, God forbid (as insurance agents say)!! It would be voted down and rejected so fast, the ballot boxes would smoke!

The best thing that ever happened to this Obamacare scheme, was where the Supreme Court changed the "penalties" it contained, back into the taxes they really were, without required another vote on their altered version of the law!

If they had merely struck it down as written (They declared that penalties for non-compliance were unconstitutional, after all), and made us re-write it with taxes instead, and made us hold another vote, you know and we know it never would have passed.
 
In other words, Kosh and Little-Acorn don't think people should be responsible for their health care.

What a couple of far right reactionary drones.

No kidding, what a joke these far right idiots are.

They bitch claiming socialism because medicaid helps the poor and elderly, then when they have to pay their bills back, they bitch and complain with their "scary catch words" Beck taught them.

I sure hope being a right winger has now been defined as one of the most serious of mental illnesses.
 
Obamacare = Wealth redistribution, it is the reason the far left was salivating over getting this passed.

Hopefully people have learned that when the far left is in control oft the government it is not the publics benefit.

but what our leftard ignoramuses do not want to understand is that the wealth redistribution is not AIMED at the 1% ( as the left is serving them) but at middle and even POOR class.

welcome to the reality of socialism - NOTHING belongs to YOU, everything belongs to the government.
 
No let's allow a new vote, now that this and many other portions of the law have come to light, and see just how the 47% vote this time.

Me thinks the results would be much different.

Of course.

Remember when Nancy Pelosi said, "We have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it."?

What she really meant is, "We don't dare tell you what's in it before we pass it, because if you find out what's in it, you'll demand that we reject it immediately!"

Now we're finding out what's in it... and just how different it is, from what the leftists told us.

* No, you CAN'T keep your doctor.

* No, you CAN'T keep your present insurance plan.

* Yes, there ARE plenty of new taxes in it. We just called them "penalites" before the vote, to fool you and your congressmen into supporting it.

* No, costs are NOT lower. They're a lot higher.

* No, "more Americans" will NOT be insured. Millions have already been kicked off their insurance, far more than are signing up for the new Obamacare policies. And we haven't even gotten to the part where we start forcing companies to cancel the policies you got through your employer.

Should we have another vote on it, now that we know what's REALLY in it? Oh, God forbid (as insurance agents say)!! It would be voted down and rejected so fast, the ballot boxes would smoke!

The best thing that ever happened to this Obamacare scheme, was where the Supreme Court changed the "penalties" it contained, back into the taxes they really were, without required another vote on their altered version of the law!

If they had merely struck it down as written (They declared that penalties for non-compliance were unconstitutional, after all), and made us re-write it with taxes instead, and made us hold another vote, you know and we know it never would have passed.

Heck, we, the people never got to vote on it to begin with!
 
Heck, we, the people never got to vote on it to begin with!
wrong.

WE DID.

On November 6, 2012.

If some were too lazy or too high and above the candidates - they have to eat the shit which others have chosen for them.
 
When it starts, you'll get it. Now you're totally misinformed...ie when everyone sees their actual deal...One thing for sure, there'll be almost no medical bankruptcies, instead of over 500k for people who THOUGHT they had good insurance...
 
Last edited:
1499664_10152445436020830_390839972_n.jpg
 
Heck, we, the people never got to vote on it to begin with!
wrong.

WE DID.

On November 6, 2012.

If some were too lazy or too high and above the candidates - they have to eat the shit which others have chosen for them.

I didn't. The rep I have I did not vote for.

yes, you did. you were too high above to level with a low mortal Mitt.

that is exactly what I was talking about.

this crap could have been kicked out in November 2012
 
wrong.

WE DID.

On November 6, 2012.

If some were too lazy or too high and above the candidates - they have to eat the shit which others have chosen for them.

I didn't. The rep I have I did not vote for.

yes, you did. you were too high above to level with a low mortal Mitt.
that is exactly what I was talking about.

this crap could have been kicked out in November 2012

?? I voted for Romney.
 
If you qualify for Medicaid due to low income, but still have any assets (in other words, if you haven't yet been forced to sell your house or car yet etc.), the state can come back and confiscate them after you die

Excellent! Apparently even Obama finds an acorn once in a while. People who have to live off the State should not be then leaving money to other people, they should be paying for their own bills first.
 

Forum List

Back
Top