Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Wickian

Obamacare and your house

21 posts in this topic

I just read an article describing a potentially horrible situation millions of people may find themselves in in the future.

...

Americans who do not have employer-based coverage have to accept Medicaid coverage in order to comply with the Obamacare individual mandate, or pay full price for the skyrocketing premiums from private-sector insurers.

People often confuse Medicaid with Medicare, but there is a critical difference between the two programs. Medicare eligibility derives from Social Security contributions, and is a true “entitlement” program. Theoretically, coverage comes as part of the funds paid into the system, although in reality the federal government has to borrow billions of dollars to cover the costs.

Medicaid, on the other hand, is a state-based and federally-subsidized welfare program, one that employs means-testing – which includes ownership of assets as well as income levels. Medicaid programs include conditions that put recipients’ assets remaining after death at risk for seizure to reimburse taxpayers who footed the bill for the recipient’s health care during his/her lifetime.

This was done to prevent fraud, to ensure that limited resources went to the truly needy, and to recapture resources to cover future costs. Until now, though, Medicaid was a voluntary program, and the vast majority of people who entered into it had few assets to risk by signing up.

Here’s where the law of unintended consequences comes into Obamacare. Thanks to the exchange programming, consumers are getting enrolled in Medicaid whether they understand what that means or not, and in much greater numbers than before. (In the first month, nearly 90 percent of all the enrollees in the federal and state exchanges were Medicaid applicants.)

Unless they look at the fine print in the paperwork in Washington and other states with similar asset-forfeiture regulations, any assets they own will not pass to their heirs but to the state instead.

...

link

Basically, if you own a home, and get subsidized healthcare, there a chance the government will repossess your home and other belongings after your death and your family will not receive any of it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is on the state level according to the article, so some states like Washington have the capability to take your assets after death. It sucks for the guy on Medicaid and I have a sinking feeling that some other states will probably pass legislation to seize property as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, if you own a home, and get subsidized healthcare, there a chance the government will repossess your home and other belongings after your death and your family will not receive any of it.

Yes mediCAID is for the very poor. If you OWN a home, you're kind of disqualified. They changed the law where millions scammed the system by hiding their assets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Joe Biden whispering into Obama's ear)..."This is a big ****-ing deal".

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt there is anything unintended about 0bamacare.

Edited by preacherman76
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Medicaid, on the other hand, is a state-based and federally-subsidized welfare program, one that employs means-testing – which includes ownership of assets as well as income levels. Medicaid programs include conditions that put recipients’ assets remaining after death at risk for seizure to reimburse taxpayers who footed the bill for the recipient’s health care during his/her lifetime.

This was done to prevent fraud, to ensure that limited resources went to the truly needy, and to recapture resources to cover future costs. Until now, though, Medicaid was a voluntary program, and the vast majority of people who entered into it had few assets to risk by signing up.

.....

Unless they look at the fine print in the paperwork in Washington and other states with similar asset-forfeiture regulations, any assets they own will not pass to their heirs but to the state instead.

Basically, if you own a home, and get subsidized healthcare, there a chance the government will repossess your home and other belongings after your death and your family will not receive any of it.

Personnally I don't see the problem here. These people line up for the government gravy, so isn't it only fair the government collect their stuff after they pass away? Or at least enough to pay back what they gave out?

If you used credit cards to buy insurance and run up a bunch of debt and then pass away, the credit cards are still going to want their money back, and any inheiritance would be their target. Seems very Capitalist to me.

Edited by DieChecker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a person who owns his house free and clear... but then ends up on Medicaid. Could he sell his house?? .. see what i mean? when would his house become a state , rather than personal ,asset?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a person who owns his house free and clear... but then ends up on Medicaid. Could he sell his house?? ..

I think you would have to in order to get Medicaid. The house is an asset. A significant one. Which would disqualify you. Previously in many states, there were ways that people could use to hide their assets. There were entire law firms who did this as their major business. But that's diminished now.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sign your house into trust on someone's name,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, if you comply with the Affordable Care Act and acquire health insurance, you probably would not lose everything you ever earned and saved.

Once again, you've posted a resource telling half-truths, or even lies. That makes three our of three for you.

Let's look at the opening of this article:

Americans who do not have employer-based coverage have to accept Medicaid coverage in order to comply with the Obamacare individual mandate, or pay full price for the skyrocketing premiums from private-sector insurers.

If you do not have insurance, you don't have to accept anything. You will have to pay a penalty. IF you choose to pay that penalty on your taxes and still not acquire insurance, and THEN you get a prolonged terminal illness, you will end up losing your possessions and not passing them on to your heirs.

However, private sector insurers costs are not "skyrocketing" as a result of the affordable care act. In fact, 2014 is projected to see a slowdown in the rise of healthcare costs. Note that they are not going to drop, they just have not increased at the same rate since 2010.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/healthcostreport_final_noembargo_v2.pdf

As for your assertion that a person without insurance that requires expensive medical care might lose their property... this is correct. But it has nothing to do with Obamacare. Only a single-payer system would avoid this, something that the affordable care act SHOULD have been.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did I say... Obamacare is an tyrant's law. We are facing dictatorship. The government completely owns us and everything we have now. If we die today or later on down the road, they get everything that we leave behind. On top of that, they are forcing those who can't afford Obamacare to get it or face jail time. I am more likely going to face jail time due to the fact I have no job, no employment, no ability to pay this outright illegal law passed by Obama. He must be removed from office and the law repealed, rather it be by impeachment or force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Uncle Sam, everything in your post is a gross exaggeration.

Please show something to back up your idea that the gov't completely owns you and everything you have now. for starters.

Also, while you are at it, please show how you have to buy obamacare (which is NOT a health care policy) or go to jail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did I say... Obamacare is an tyrant's law. We are facing dictatorship.

and you would be wrong. The law was passed by Congress.

The government completely owns us and everything we have now. If we die today or later on down the road, they get everything that we leave behind.

for tangible assets. if you want to be on medicaid in some states. It is for the extremely poor.

On top of that, they are forcing those who can't afford Obamacare to get it or face jail time

there is no such provision

no ability to pay this outright illegal law passed by Obama.

The president does not pass laws per se. He signs them. The presidents signature is more like a gatekeeper. Do you really understand civics in the country whose name you claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've said in other threads, there is a common theme among the folks who complain the most about Obamacare... and that theme is that they don't understand the ACA at all. They just repeat misinformation from whatever source they favor.. without actually understanding what they are talking about.

Like our friend Uncle Sam a few posts above me in this thread. This person thinks that they are going to go to jail because they don't have a job and so they can't buy health insurance. This is baseless. But they don't care... they are just incredibly eager to believe anything that supports their idea that Obama is responsible for all sorts of negative things, whether or not they are real or imaginary.

He must be removed from office and the law repealed, rather it be by impeachment or force.

This is another interesting characteristic of this type of person. They lose a few elections, laws they don't like get passed FAIR AND SQUARE, but instead of mobilizing for the next election and electing people who will pass laws they like, they cry, pout, obstruct the government, do damage to the economy that hurts everyone, and threaten violence. Like a toddler that stamps his feet and punches the dog when they don't get their way.

I think it is part of the mentality that likes to call people that disagree with them "sheeple," yet they haven't even done a simple internet search to read the law they are spreading misinformation about. Who's the real sheep? Seems to me, it's the people who don't think for themselves... and that starts with reading the bill, or at least a synopsis of the bill, instead of just repeating the phrases posted by their favorite conservative pundit's opinion pieces.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt there is anything unintended about 0bamacare.

I agree with this statement. Someone, somewhere in a think tank putting this all together knew exactly how things would play out...

More Gov control and interference in your life...that is not unintentional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've said in other threads, there is a common theme among the folks who complain the most about Obamacare... and that theme is that they don't understand the ACA at all. They just repeat misinformation from whatever source they favor.. without actually understanding what they are talking about.

Like our friend Uncle Sam a few posts above me in this thread. This person thinks that they are going to go to jail because they don't have a job and so they can't buy health insurance. This is baseless. But they don't care... they are just incredibly eager to believe anything that supports their idea that Obama is responsible for all sorts of negative things, whether or not they are real or imaginary.

This is another interesting characteristic of this type of person. They lose a few elections, laws they don't like get passed FAIR AND SQUARE, but instead of mobilizing for the next election and electing people who will pass laws they like, they cry, pout, obstruct the government, do damage to the economy that hurts everyone, and threaten violence. Like a toddler that stamps his feet and punches the dog when they don't get their way.

LOL!

I've seen this attitude so many times among the chronically astonished in the ancient civs thread that I have to agree.

However, I would certainly disagree with your "fair and square" assessment, given the many bribes doled out by the Administration to get its way on this bill and the fact that it was passed in an unusual manner.

The switch to a reconciliation bill when the bill had already been considered and voted on as a regular procedure. That tactic was unprecedented in American history.

That's hardly fair and with the huge political bribes, to Nebraska and Louisiana for only two examples, certainly not square.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The switch to a reconciliation bill when the bill had already been considered and voted on as a regular procedure. That tactic was unprecedented in American history.

Except that it was not passed using reconcilliation.http://www.theattackdemocrat.com/2012/07/fact-check-budget-reconciliation-and.html

Did the Democrats pass Obamacare using Budget Reconciliation?

Answer: NO and YES.

Here is what happened. After a year of deliberation and wrangling, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate each passed a different version of health care reform in 2009. On November 7, the House passed its version of the bill on a 220-to-215 vote. On December 23, the Senate voted 60 to 39 to end debate on the bill, eliminating the possibility of a filibuster by opponents. The bill then passed on a party-line vote of 60 to 39 the next day.

Soon after the Senate passed the Affordable Care Act, Scott Brown was elected to take Ted Kennedy’s seat and the Democrats consequently lost their filibuster proof 60 votes in the Senate. Consequently, the most viable option for the proponents of comprehensive reform was for the House to abandon its own health reform bill, and instead approve the Senate-passed bill. They knew they could not get an amended bill passed by the Senate since they would not have 60 votes to end a Republican filibuster. However, a number of House Democrats who had reluctantly backed the president on health care reform didn’t like a number of provisions in the Senate version of the bill such as a provision that would have provided a higher rate of Medicaid reimbursements for Nebraska – the so-called “Cornhusker Kickback” that was designed to win the support of Democratic senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

House Speaker Pelosi made a deal to get the reluctant Democrats to go along with passing the Senate version of the bill. If they would vote for the Senate bill, then the Democratic leadership agreed to immediately introduce and pass separate legislation under Budget Reconciliation amending the Affordable Care Act to address those members’ grievances. The House passed the Senate bill on March 21, 2010 by a vote of 219 to 212. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed into law by Obama on March 23, 2010.

Pelosi then introduced the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010

to make changes to the Affordable Care Act. The Democrats used reconciliation to pass the amendments. On March 26, 2010, the Senate approved the amendments, 56 to 43, and the House passed them, 220 to 207. Obama signed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 into law on March 30, 2010.

So Obamacare—The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—was actually passed in normal fashion without the use of Budget Reconciliation. However, Democrats did use Budget Reconciliation to amend the Act shortly after it was signed into law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which was how it got passed.

Couldn't have done it without reconciliation.

Unprecedented in American history.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which was how it got passed.

Couldn't have done it without reconciliation.

I'm not sure what point you're making. The law was passed WITHOUT reconcilliation. The AMENDMENTS were passed with reconcilliation. If reconcilliation was not used, we would still have the ACA but in it's original form.

additionally the amendments passed were budget reconcilliations. So it was not unprecendented.

Unlike rules under regular order, as per the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, reconciliation cannot be subject to a filibuster. However, the process is limited to budget changes, which is why the procedure was never able to be used to pass a comprehensive reform bill like the ACA in the first place; such a bill would have inherently non-budgetary regulations.[114][115] Whereas the already passed Senate bill could not have been put through reconciliation, most of House Democrats' demands were budgetary: "these changes—higher subsidy levels, different kinds of taxes to pay for them, nixing the Nebraska Medicaid deal—mainly involve taxes and spending. In other words, they're exactly the kinds of policies that are well - suited for reconciliation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

you can find the reconcilliation provisions here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Care_and_Education_Reconciliation_Act_of_2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is only temporary anyway. Before I die, we will repeal the affordable care act and institute a single payer system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ACA was passed by the House on the condition that a new bill would be introduced in the Senate. It was. It was also passed - under "reconciliation" even though it was a new bill.

I can say this because it was the new bill that became the basis for the House-Senate conference on the matter, and not the original bill.

Again, like I said, this is unprecedented in American history.

I didn't say it was illegal.

I said it can hardly be characterized as "fair and square."

The most interesting thing about this is that the bill can be repealed under "reconciliation" as well. IOW, a simple majority.

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.