Having it struck down by the courts might be the best thing for the Democrats. Here’s yet another example of what Nancy Pelosi meant when she said that we had to pass the bill to find out what’s in it. It’s from that right-wing bastion, the Seattle Times:
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.
Medicaid, in keeping with federal policy, has long tapped into estates. But because most low-income adults without disabilities could not qualify for typical medical coverage through Medicaid, recovery primarily involved expenses for nursing homes and other long-term care.
The federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) changed that. Now many more low-income residents will qualify for Medicaid, called Apple Health in Washington state.
But if they qualify for Medicaid, they’re not eligible for tax credits to subsidize a private health plan under the ACA, which requires all adults to have health insurance by March 31.
Nancy is a good catholic and wanted to make sure people like Prin would get into Heaven. Gerrib will be so proud. Of course, this means the Democrats are making more people pood, but then we didn’t need another law to know that’s what they do, because that is who they are. They even think it is virtuous, nay it’s biblical.
That’s the thing. To have Medicaid pay for your long-term care at a nursing home, you had to “burn through” your assets. It was a big deal in that you had to pauperize a spouse who didn’t (yet) need a nursing home and had a life to live outside an institution. And if some assets passed on to the estate, Medicaid had a claim on them (every funeral director knows that and informs families).
So I guess it is no big deal that if you collect Medicaid that the state you live in will come after your estate, although I didn’t figure out how that works in a spousal inheritance.
The Big Deal is that if you cross an income threshold, you get those ACA subsidies that you don’t have to pay back. Yet. It looks to be an awfully regressive tax on po’ people.
So when you are dead, you are dead, what do you care about how much you pass on. Except maybe you are trying to pass it on to your spouse that they have something to live on?
Are you making a social justice argument here?
Do you think the system needs to be fairer to the poor?
Umm, wasn’t Obamacare sold on a social justice platform? How does robbing poor people of what little money they have left to pass on to a spouse or decendant square with the Democrats endless chest beating about helping the poor?
Classic example of Fen’s Law, just like the rest of Obama’s policies.
No, stripping the accumulated assets from the poorest families so they can’t build up any generational wealth is the fairest thing we could do. When Medicaid was first passed in 1965 it lacked this important socio-economic function (which helps keep Democrat families poor, and thus voting Democrat).
After the success of Ronald Reagan in making inroads into Democratic constituencies, Democrats knew they needed to make drastic changes, so in 1993 the 103rd Congress (with Democrats controlling both Houses) passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that contained the all-important mandate to the states to implement a Medicaid Estate Recovery program, to strip poor families of any small inheritance they might otherwise get so that they stay dependent on government handouts. And of course Bill Clinton happily signed it, knowing it might one day be key to putting him back in the White House as Hillary’s first spouse.
It’s similar to a Baptist mega-church in my home town, whose pastors would rush to the bedside of any elderly, dying church member and convince them to leave all their assets, especially their house, to the church, who would then “administer it” for their children. Needless to say, the church got very rich on real-estate, and the surviving children’s loyalty and dependence on the church was assured.
” although I didn’t figure out how that works in a spousal inheritance.”
It’s always covered that case, too. A few years ago there was a while where they were talking about people who had discovered after a spouse died that the state was coming after a house or whatever.
if the plaintiffs prevail and argue that only state run exchanges can get federal subsidies, it basically
means a bunch of red states lose their insurance subsidies.
So, a bunch of red staters lose their cheap insurance.
Meanwhile they still have to have insurance or pay the taxes. That’s more money to the treasury.
It’s wonderful, it’s a mechanism to tax red states and funnel money to blue states.
But it’s unlikely to succeed. The IRS has broad latitude to set regulation and the courts defer
as long as the ruling isn’t arbitrary. I’d say the only limit is wether the legislative record supports
their arguments.
if the hearings don’t say that, no luck.
Wrong. The penalty tax is contingent upon subsidies in the state. Being free of the tax is the entire point of the lawsuit.
Having it struck down by the courts might be the best thing for the Democrats. Here’s yet another example of what Nancy Pelosi meant when she said that we had to pass the bill to find out what’s in it. It’s from that right-wing bastion, the Seattle Times:
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.
Medicaid, in keeping with federal policy, has long tapped into estates. But because most low-income adults without disabilities could not qualify for typical medical coverage through Medicaid, recovery primarily involved expenses for nursing homes and other long-term care.
The federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) changed that. Now many more low-income residents will qualify for Medicaid, called Apple Health in Washington state.
But if they qualify for Medicaid, they’re not eligible for tax credits to subsidize a private health plan under the ACA, which requires all adults to have health insurance by March 31.
Nancy is a good catholic and wanted to make sure people like Prin would get into Heaven. Gerrib will be so proud. Of course, this means the Democrats are making more people pood, but then we didn’t need another law to know that’s what they do, because that is who they are. They even think it is virtuous, nay it’s biblical.
That’s the thing. To have Medicaid pay for your long-term care at a nursing home, you had to “burn through” your assets. It was a big deal in that you had to pauperize a spouse who didn’t (yet) need a nursing home and had a life to live outside an institution. And if some assets passed on to the estate, Medicaid had a claim on them (every funeral director knows that and informs families).
So I guess it is no big deal that if you collect Medicaid that the state you live in will come after your estate, although I didn’t figure out how that works in a spousal inheritance.
The Big Deal is that if you cross an income threshold, you get those ACA subsidies that you don’t have to pay back. Yet. It looks to be an awfully regressive tax on po’ people.
So when you are dead, you are dead, what do you care about how much you pass on. Except maybe you are trying to pass it on to your spouse that they have something to live on?
Are you making a social justice argument here?
Do you think the system needs to be fairer to the poor?
Umm, wasn’t Obamacare sold on a social justice platform? How does robbing poor people of what little money they have left to pass on to a spouse or decendant square with the Democrats endless chest beating about helping the poor?
Classic example of Fen’s Law, just like the rest of Obama’s policies.
No, stripping the accumulated assets from the poorest families so they can’t build up any generational wealth is the fairest thing we could do. When Medicaid was first passed in 1965 it lacked this important socio-economic function (which helps keep Democrat families poor, and thus voting Democrat).
After the success of Ronald Reagan in making inroads into Democratic constituencies, Democrats knew they needed to make drastic changes, so in 1993 the 103rd Congress (with Democrats controlling both Houses) passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that contained the all-important mandate to the states to implement a Medicaid Estate Recovery program, to strip poor families of any small inheritance they might otherwise get so that they stay dependent on government handouts. And of course Bill Clinton happily signed it, knowing it might one day be key to putting him back in the White House as Hillary’s first spouse.
It’s similar to a Baptist mega-church in my home town, whose pastors would rush to the bedside of any elderly, dying church member and convince them to leave all their assets, especially their house, to the church, who would then “administer it” for their children. Needless to say, the church got very rich on real-estate, and the surviving children’s loyalty and dependence on the church was assured.
” although I didn’t figure out how that works in a spousal inheritance.”
It’s always covered that case, too. A few years ago there was a while where they were talking about people who had discovered after a spouse died that the state was coming after a house or whatever.
Here’s news that will surprise no one here, apparently Obama wishes he could get things done in the same way as Kevin Spacey’s corrupt, murderous, power hungry character on House of Cards: http://laughterkey.com/post/70301978215/section9-buzzfeedpolitics-obama-wishes
if the plaintiffs prevail and argue that only state run exchanges can get federal subsidies, it basically
means a bunch of red states lose their insurance subsidies.
So, a bunch of red staters lose their cheap insurance.
Meanwhile they still have to have insurance or pay the taxes. That’s more money to the treasury.
It’s wonderful, it’s a mechanism to tax red states and funnel money to blue states.
But it’s unlikely to succeed. The IRS has broad latitude to set regulation and the courts defer
as long as the ruling isn’t arbitrary. I’d say the only limit is wether the legislative record supports
their arguments.
if the hearings don’t say that, no luck.
Wrong. The penalty tax is contingent upon subsidies in the state. Being free of the tax is the entire point of the lawsuit.
Jeez, you are so stupid.