It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conservatives confusing reaction to the medicaid/ACA estate recovery provision.

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Greetings. Not here to debate cliche's and trade barbs. I am keenly interested in this specific topic though.

Basically what we've got here is a situation by which the USG will seek to recover it's costs of providing long term care to the living from their estates after they are deceased. Mind you this did not start with the ACA and the LTC costs were covered from taxes we all paid in the first place. There are variations on this theme but I hope this captures the concept.

As I read through the comments of ATS and other sites, I see conservatives calling this cost recovery provision; fraud, theft, a liberal money grab, a sneak attack, etc. They go on to describe in detail how to work loopholes to hide your assets and other more questionable tactics. The cost of long term care in the US is outrageous. I'll verify that from personal experience but the government will pick up most of the tab, most of the time. I guess conservatives are supposed to be against this, but the basis of that anger seems to be in conflict with conservative values.

So it seems that balanced budget, low taxes, eliminating fraud, increasing personal responsibility --all those conservative chestnuts get tossed quick when the impact hits home. I always try to look past behaviors to the underlying values so I am looking for some feedback to help me resolve this dissonance.

If the only guiding value you have is opposing Obama, do me a favor and reply with NO-MO-BO. It will save time.

Thanks in advance.




posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
The death of compromise is the death of the Republic.

Our leaders are Elected to represent the ideals of the people and up hold the laws of the constitution.


NO party, can claim to be doing that.

Not Democrats, or Republicans.

We face a time when Our elected officials no longer work for the will of the people,

THAT is who I have no time for,

People who still fall along the two party divide.

Anyone who does, I don't have time for, to keep doing the same thing expecting different results is insanity.
edit on 11-2-2014 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   

benrl
The death of compromise is the death of the Republic.

Our leaders are Elected to represent the ideals of the people and up hold the laws of the constitution.


NO party, can claim to be doing that.

Not Democrats, or Republicans.

We face a time when Our elected officials no longer work for the will of the people,

THAT is who I have no time for,

People who still fall along the two party divide.

Anyone who does, I don't have time for, to keep doing the same thing expecting different results is insanity.
edit on 11-2-2014 by benrl because: (no reason given)


But what of the question of values as it pertains to estate recovery for costs incurred. Surely that issue is a manageable piece to bite off on this forum on this day.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   

InverseLookingGlass
Greetings. Not here to debate cliche's and trade barbs. I am keenly interested in this specific topic though.

Basically what we've got here is a situation by which the USG will seek to recover it's costs of providing long term care to the living from their estates after they are deceased. Mind you this did not start with the ACA and the LTC costs were covered from taxes we all paid in the first place. There are variations on this theme but I hope this captures the concept.

As I read through the comments of ATS and other sites, I see conservatives calling this cost recovery provision; fraud, theft, a liberal money grab, a sneak attack, etc. They go on to describe in detail how to work loopholes to hide your assets and other more questionable tactics. The cost of long term care in the US is outrageous. I'll verify that from personal experience but the government will pick up most of the tab, most of the time. I guess conservatives are supposed to be against this, but the basis of that anger seems to be in conflict with conservative values.

So it seems that balanced budget, low taxes, eliminating fraud, increasing personal responsibility --all those conservative chestnuts get tossed quick when the impact hits home. I always try to look past behaviors to the underlying values so I am looking for some feedback to help me resolve this dissonance.

If the only guiding value you have is opposing Obama, do me a favor and reply with NO-MO-BO. It will save time.

Thanks in advance.
It is a money grab. Why don't you first come out and admit that? Most of those people who will bear this new tax would have already paid the lions share during their lifetime of paying taxes. Then there's estate taxes due if the estate is valued above a certain amount.

If the government, really those in the government who are looking for pork to help themselves get re-elected go after the billions in fraud and waste that happens at all levels, then there would be no need for such a tax. That is their job, not looking for where they can grab more money from working taxpayers. They're responsible for adequately protecting the public from fraud and misuse of funds. What else do we need them for? If they can't do that well enough that they don't need to keep digging into our pockets, then I say they're not doing their jobs well and should be fired as they would be in the private sector.
edit on 11-2-2014 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   

InverseLookingGlass

benrl
The death of compromise is the death of the Republic.

Our leaders are Elected to represent the ideals of the people and up hold the laws of the constitution.


NO party, can claim to be doing that.

Not Democrats, or Republicans.

We face a time when Our elected officials no longer work for the will of the people,

THAT is who I have no time for,

People who still fall along the two party divide.

Anyone who does, I don't have time for, to keep doing the same thing expecting different results is insanity.
edit on 11-2-2014 by benrl because: (no reason given)


But what of the question of values as it pertains to estate recovery for costs incurred. Surely that issue is a manageable piece to bite off on this forum on this day.
What about those who have been on the public dole all of their life? What do we get back from them after they die? How in any way is such a tax equitable? One must pay while the other goes for free? The cost to keep someone in long term care doesn't change because of what they might own. Many of those people who will be deemed rich are farmers, small business owners and the like. This is just a socialist money grab and I think you know it.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
No person should have to lose everything they own so they can live.


What part of that doesn't make sense?



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 


I worked hard my whole life, contribute in state and federal taxes. I own my home, it's not an estate, a few acres and a small home. In my will I'm leaving it to my only grown child. No where in my will does it say any government agency is the recipient of my hard work.

The fact that the ACA does have provisions that now claim they have a right to the contents of my will, before my child, doesn't sit well with me in any way shape or form.

It is another attempt at a government grab, nothing more. How long will it be until the courts are clogged with cases of children fighting for the family homes left to them in wills.

Des



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 


This LTC estate recovery is aimed squarely at those who can least afford to lose anything else, the poor stuck on Medicaid. People with money are not subjected to this. The most at risk are those who've lost their jobs or are barely making ends meet but who through some fortune have some remaining real assets (like a home.)

Once someone like that is forced onto medicaid and a spouse dies after LTC the government then puts the squeeze and sometimes a lien against any home equity they have forcing the sale of the last remaining asset.

I'm conservative by nature but I do not support the government consuming the last asset a person has. Especially in this type of situation. Paul Craig Roberts speaks to this much better than I could.

Obamacare: The Final Payment–Raiding the Assets of Low-Income and Poor Americans


edit on 927pm3333pm32014 by Bassago because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Bilk22

InverseLookingGlass

benrl
The death of compromise is the death of the Republic.

Our leaders are Elected to represent the ideals of the people and up hold the laws of the constitution.


NO party, can claim to be doing that.

Not Democrats, or Republicans.

We face a time when Our elected officials no longer work for the will of the people,

THAT is who I have no time for,

People who still fall along the two party divide.

Anyone who does, I don't have time for, to keep doing the same thing expecting different results is insanity.
edit on 11-2-2014 by benrl because: (no reason given)


But what of the question of values as it pertains to estate recovery for costs incurred. Surely that issue is a manageable piece to bite off on this forum on this day.
What about those who have been on the public dole all of their life? What do we get back from them after they die? How in any way is such a tax equitable? One must pay while the other goes for free? The cost to keep someone in long term care doesn't change because of what they might own. Many of those people who will be deemed rich are farmers, small business owners and the like. This is just a socialist money grab and I think you know it.


Why do people always try to bring in farmers when they are talking about estate tax? Let's see how many farmers that have lost their farms due to estate tax. The people that cry about them are the ones that never worked for the money in the first place unless you call being born working. And if you want to cry about the people on the "public dole" many of them are there because these people that have never worked are the ones that put them out of work. Well not them because usually they hire people to run companies for them because they are too stupid to do the job.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   

buster2010

Bilk22

InverseLookingGlass

benrl
The death of compromise is the death of the Republic.

Our leaders are Elected to represent the ideals of the people and up hold the laws of the constitution.


NO party, can claim to be doing that.

Not Democrats, or Republicans.

We face a time when Our elected officials no longer work for the will of the people,

THAT is who I have no time for,

People who still fall along the two party divide.

Anyone who does, I don't have time for, to keep doing the same thing expecting different results is insanity.
edit on 11-2-2014 by benrl because: (no reason given)


But what of the question of values as it pertains to estate recovery for costs incurred. Surely that issue is a manageable piece to bite off on this forum on this day.
What about those who have been on the public dole all of their life? What do we get back from them after they die? How in any way is such a tax equitable? One must pay while the other goes for free? The cost to keep someone in long term care doesn't change because of what they might own. Many of those people who will be deemed rich are farmers, small business owners and the like. This is just a socialist money grab and I think you know it.


Why do people always try to bring in farmers when they are talking about estate tax? Let's see how many farmers that have lost their farms due to estate tax. The people that cry about them are the ones that never worked for the money in the first place unless you call being born working. And if you want to cry about the people on the "public dole" many of them are there because these people that have never worked are the ones that put them out of work. Well not them because usually they hire people to run companies for them because they are too stupid to do the job.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The people with the type of money you're referring to, don't need government money to pay for long term care. Get a clue!

The farmer whose land is worth millions in development potential, but lives a life of the average middle class American and the guy who owns the grocery store down the block, but who also lives the life of the average American, but who also owns a business that if liquidated would meet the threshold of this law, are who will be effected.

Libs are always looking at someone else's bank account and conspiring ways to get their grubby hands on it.

Edit: I want to further add, this provision in the law is most certainly favored by banks and all those people you despise so much. It relieves them further of any financial responsibilities and protests their assets.
edit on 11-2-2014 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
This provision would directly impact me and my family. We have land with an old house and some farming acreage. We rent the land to some cousins to farm, and my parents live in the old house (over 130 years old). All of the assets are held in a family trust, so it should all be protected from anything like this, but my parents were working poor for all of their lives. They are now fighting hard to make it to Medicare and hoping to be able to avoid Medicaid. However, if they couldn't and had to go to Medicaid, this provision would threaten my sister, my cousins' and my inheritance because it would open the doors to the government getting there before us.

There is no way you can say that any of us have never worked to earn our way, but the government would seek to rob us of property that has been in our family for 5 generations because my parents are working poor? I don't think so. It's our land.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 


Conservatives value freedom at the expense of equality.
Liberals value equality at the expense of freedom.

Do not get confused on the micro, focus on the macro.

It is not about "fair" it is about "freedom".

What is fair (equal) is to have all members of your household share in paying for the costs of your medical treatment if any remains after death; but that takes away the "freedom" of the family members left behind who are burdened by the costs they themselves did not accrue.

The conservative concept in this situation is not about being fiscally responsible of and by itself, it is about having the freedom to be either fiscally responsible and benefit your situation, or be fiscally irresponsible and harm your situation.

The liberal concept by contrast would be not allowing the freedom to be either fiscally responsible or fiscally irresponsible, by allowing the government to determine where your money should and shouldn't go to ensure a greater degree of equality.

God Bless,


edit on 11-2-2014 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   
My lifetime of paying Medicaid tax isn't enough to cover it? Why do they need any more? I am born and turned into a toll user for their "money". I have to pay for it coming in, then pay more to spend it. And when I die, my executor will have to pay for what I had when the balance sheet is closed.

Its like an arcade with tokens, only they charge you extra for each time you buy and use them.

BS. Im tired of working just to give more of my efforts to a government I can't stand.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   

ElohimJD
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 


Conservatives value freedom at the expense of equality.
Liberals value equality at the expense of freedom.

Do not get confused on the micro, focus on the macro.

It is not about "fair" it is about "freedom".

What is fair (equal) is to have all members of your household share in paying for the costs of your medical treatment if any remains after death; but that takes away the "freedom" of the family members left behind who are burdened by the costs they themselves did not accrue.

The conservative concept is not about being fiscally responsible, it is about having the freedom to be either fiscally responsible and benefit your situation, or be fiscally irresponsible and harm your situation.

The liberal concept by contrast would be not allowing the freedom to be either fiscally responsible or fiscally irresponsible, by allowing the government to determine where your money should and shouldn't go to ensure a greater degree of equality.

God Bless,



This is the best explanation I have ever read.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ElohimJD
 


Ah, but that dry description completely ignores anything the family might have been doing to try to contribute by whatever means they could.

For example, no, neither my sister or I were in any position to help pay for my dad's medical bills after his hip surgery, but my husband and I took 3-hour drives out the farm every other weekend while he was laid up to do the yard work, shop and take care of any other errands that were needed. My sister and her husband did any minor maintenance work on their weekends.

When my dad was undergoing his heart arrhythmia procedures, my mom lived with us, and I drove her everywhere, and we fed her.

Yeah, compared to the total cost of medical expenses, that's small-time stuff, but I'll bet a lot of families do these things where they can.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Actually, this is not at all new. I don't know how long it has been in effect, but it was in 2004 when my father passed away. He was facing extensive long-term care costs of over $200 a day. The Feds would have picked this cost up, but with the provision that his estate was attached for as much of the cost as they could recover upon his death. His only significant asset was a paid-for house that was worth about $100K. The first 60 days or so (I forget the exact amount) were paid for by traditional Medicare with the idea that he could be "rehabilitated," after which the Medicaid issue would kick in. As it happened he lasted about four days so the issue was moot, but my attorney had to address it in probate and the sale of the house.

So my point is that this is not a new provision; it's just that it is being newly discovered. And, for the record as a conservative, I have no problem with it at all. I can't imagine that ONLY conservatives would be upset about this when they get over the initial shock that it exists at all. But it seems reasonable that you pay your own way and not expect perpetual entitlements just because you exist.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   

ketsuko
reply to post by ElohimJD
 


Ah, but that dry description completely ignores anything the family might have been doing to try to contribute by whatever means they could.

For example, no, neither my sister or I were in any position to help pay for my dad's medical bills after his hip surgery, but my husband and I took 3-hour drives out the farm every other weekend while he was laid up to do the yard work, shop and take care of any other errands that were needed. My sister and her husband did any minor maintenance work on their weekends.

When my dad was undergoing his heart arrhythmia procedures, my mom lived with us, and I drove her everywhere, and we fed her.

Yeah, compared to the total cost of medical expenses, that's small-time stuff, but I'll bet a lot of families do these things where they can.


I agree.

My examples were of the macro (as a whole) rather than the micro (individual situations).

My heart goes out to all people who sacrifice themselves to help others.

God Bless,



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 


The rules, laws, and common sense have always been that if a person, dead body or living, incurs expenses then that person or the estate of that person is liable for those expenses. That would be completely outside of any type of insurance that person has/had.

Any new rules stipulating the recovery of expended funds upon that individual are redundant and only serve to strengthen the state's ability to collect.

A common application of that situation is when an old person requires nursing home care but does not have the personal/family resources to make it possible. In Illinois for example, the person/heirs give the state permission to take title of the sick/aged person's home when that person dies if not before.

This happened with a family member of mine and I personally don't see it as unfair to anybody. And I didn't vote for Zero.




top topics



 
4

log in

join