Not only is Obamacare a disaster.. so is Medicaid.
Hello November 17, 2017, 06:35:52 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
 
   Home   Help Arcade Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Not only is Obamacare a disaster.. so is Medicaid.  (Read 704 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
(Hidden)

« on: July 25, 2017, 12:04:45 pm »

Obviously the cost of living increases over time.
This year, my father got a $110 per month increase in his social security benefits..
But.. his Social Security checks are exactly the same as they were last year.
The reason?   Medicare Part B health insurance INCREASED another $110 per month!

Here's an easy solution to healthcare.. take all their fees and salaries, etc.. and divide by 10.  That would be about what they SHOULD be.

A BIG problem with health insurance is that the person paying for it almost never knows how much they are paying into it, nor what services
are covered, nor how much those services cost!   Do YOU?   If you do, please share that with us! 
I'm outraged that they take the medicare payments out of his social security benefits without even telling him. 

Do you know that some people INTENTIONALLY commit crimes and INTENTIONALLY get caught just so they can go to prison and have their healthcare taken care of for free?  That is a VERY risky thing to so, because the healthcare in prisons is horrifying.. and one probably will not survive it. 

Logged
2x Thumb Down


(Hidden)

« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2017, 11:37:09 pm »

I think you are confused. This is what I do for a living.

I am doubtful your father got a $110 increase. That's a lot.

It's likey that his Part B premium was being paid for by Medicaid before he received the increase. Now he doesn't qualify for that. If you can tell me what state he is in and his income I can tell you for sure. Is he currently receiving Medicaid as well as Medicare?

Logged
2x Thumb Up


(Hidden)

« Reply #2 on: July 26, 2017, 01:12:37 am »

Also they did tell him.  They sent a letter in the mail.  He likely received a lot of letters in the mail and didn't know what any of it meant.    It's a confusing mess.

If Medicaid was paying and then stopped they likely told him too in another confusing letter.
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #3 on: July 26, 2017, 06:04:58 am »

Not sure if this article would help your father, Frederick, if he's already Medicaid-enrolled.  It certainly could be useful for those Forum members with retirement and potential Medicaid-eligibility on the horizon.

If anything, it's an interesting look at how the Medicaid system can be manipulated by those who employ a specialized lawyer, a strategy, and some specific financial moves.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/healthcare/the-ethics-of-adjusting-your-assets-to-qualify-for-medicaid/ar-AAoINFG?li=BBnbfcN&ocid=spartanntp
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #4 on: July 26, 2017, 10:10:05 am »

Also they did tell him.  They sent a letter in the mail.  He likely received a lot of letters in the mail and didn't know what any of it meant.    It's a confusing mess.

If Medicaid was paying and then stopped they likely told him too in another confusing letter.

He doesn't read his own mail.  I remember getting the letter about the $110 increase in Social Security.    I either did not get or did not see the one about the $110 increase in Medicaid.
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #5 on: July 26, 2017, 10:17:33 am »

Not sure if this article would help your father, Frederick, if he's already Medicaid-enrolled.  It certainly could be useful for those Forum members with retirement and potential Medicaid-eligibility on the horizon.

If anything, it's an interesting look at how the Medicaid system can be manipulated by those who employ a specialized lawyer, a strategy, and some specific financial moves.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/healthcare/the-ethics-of-adjusting-your-assets-to-qualify-for-medicaid/ar-AAoINFG?li=BBnbfcN&ocid=spartanntp

He qualifies because of his age.   
Shifting assets around is quite common, especially to avoid having the government seize one's property when nursing home care is needed. 
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2017, 10:26:24 am »

It's strange how Americans keep demanding that we go to an NHS system, even though the reasons they hate the American system is also a major problem in NHS systems. 


Asset stripping is the normal in NHS systems for long term care.    The only way to prevent this is to have private insurance to protect yourself.     It defeats the purpose of the NHS when you have to have private insurance as well. 
Logged



(Hidden)

« Reply #7 on: July 26, 2017, 11:45:30 am »

It's strange how Americans keep demanding that we go to an NHS system, even though the reasons they hate the American system is also a major problem in NHS systems. 


Asset stripping is the normal in NHS systems for long term care.    The only way to prevent this is to have private insurance to protect yourself.     It defeats the purpose of the NHS when you have to have private insurance as well. 

It's natural that people always want it both ways.. in this case, to not be paying if they don't need insurance, and to have full coverage if they do need it.  The problem with moonbats is that they can't accept the fact that they can't have it both ways.

From what I can see... the republican's healthcare plan is getting so watered down that it will be essentially the same as Obamacare. 

I think the way they seize assets is limited to seizing property - not iras.  That is not a problem since I own this house.
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #8 on: July 26, 2017, 01:34:02 pm »

Medicaid planning is a separate issue that only comes into play if he needs to go to a nursing home.

If he qualifies for Medicaid he likely also qualifies for Medicaid Buy In which is the name for the program that pays for his Medicaid. There are exceptions like if he is on some sort of waiver program.  You should call Medicaid and ask.
Logged


(Hidden)
Muted

« Reply #9 on: July 31, 2017, 04:08:53 pm »

It's strange how Americans keep demanding that we go to an NHS system, even though the reasons they hate the American system is also a major problem in NHS systems. 


Asset stripping is the normal in NHS systems for long term care.    The only way to prevent this is to have private insurance to protect yourself.     It defeats the purpose of the NHS when you have to have private insurance as well. 

It's natural that people always want it both ways.. in this case, to not be paying if they don't need insurance, and to have full coverage if they do need it.  The problem with moonbats is that they can't accept the fact that they can't have it both ways.

From what I can see... the republican's healthcare plan is getting so watered down that it will be essentially the same as Obamacare. 

I think the way they seize assets is limited to seizing property - not iras.  That is not a problem since I own this house.

You own that house?

 Cheesy


Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #10 on: August 01, 2017, 02:09:37 am »



I think the way they seize assets is limited to seizing property - not iras.  That is not a problem since I own this house.

It's not limited to just property.  You just hear about that more because the home is usually the largest asset.  This can vary by state.  Some states are VERY aggressive with estate recovery and others are not.  Since Trump plans to gut Medicaid states are going to get much more aggressive because they will need the money.
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #11 on: August 01, 2017, 02:13:37 am »

There is a bill currently kicking around one state that makes the next of kin responsible for nursing home care before Medicaid kicks in.  The state wants the ability to sue an adult child even if the child is estranged from the parent.  I can't remember which state.  It was in the south.

This is what happens when you vote Republican. 
Logged


(Hidden)
Muted

« Reply #12 on: August 01, 2017, 08:29:27 am »



I think the way they seize assets is limited to seizing property - not iras.  That is not a problem since I own this house.

It's not limited to just property.  You just hear about that more because the home is usually the largest asset.  This can vary by state.  Some states are VERY aggressive with estate recovery and others are not.  Since Trump plans to gut Medicaid states are going to get much more aggressive because they will need the money.

more aggressive?

 Blinking



Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #13 on: August 02, 2017, 01:10:45 am »



I think the way they seize assets is limited to seizing property - not iras.  That is not a problem since I own this house.

It's not limited to just property.  You just hear about that more because the home is usually the largest asset.  This can vary by state.  Some states are VERY aggressive with estate recovery and others are not.  Since Trump plans to gut Medicaid states are going to get much more aggressive because they will need the money.

more aggressive?

 Blinking





States can choose how hard they want to look for assets.  Some put a lot of effort and others don't. Even my extremely blue state has stepped up their game and started using technology to verify assets within the past year or so.
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #14 on: August 02, 2017, 01:34:56 pm »

The UK varies by "country".

England and Wales used to force you to pay upfront if you had any assets.  This included forcing you to sell your house, even if one spouse was still living in it.    Now they wait until both spouses die and take their 100 pounds of flesh.   

Of course, this only applies to government funded places.   Private facilities do their own thing, which almost always means paying upfront or being chucked out. 

As expected, the number of government beds is falling short of need and getting worse every day.   

Ain't socialism so much better than capitalism.
Logged



(Hidden)

« Reply #15 on: August 02, 2017, 03:53:39 pm »

The UK varies by "country".

England and Wales used to force you to pay upfront if you had any assets.  This included forcing you to sell your house, even if one spouse was still living in it.    Now they wait until both spouses die and take their 100 pounds of flesh.   

Of course, this only applies to government funded places.   Private facilities do their own thing, which almost always means paying upfront or being chucked out. 

As expected, the number of government beds is falling short of need and getting worse every day.   

Ain't socialism so much better than capitalism.



The stereotype of English people is that they have lousy teeth - poor dentistry.  It goes beyond that.  I lived in England for 8 months, and Norway for about a month.   I have never seen so many people with massive scars, missing limbs, missing eyes / eye patches, etc.   Socialized healthcare is a disaster.   One example I often give people is that in England, you often have to wait 6 months to see a doctor.  If you have cancer, and have to wait 6 months to see a doctor, then what WAS a treatable / survivable cancer is terminal and a death sentence "gee, too bad you didn't go to a doctor 4 months eariler!" 
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #16 on: August 02, 2017, 11:24:35 pm »

Doctor shortages is a totally separate issue that needs to be addressed.
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #17 on: August 03, 2017, 12:34:45 am »

I have read some nonsense in this topic but rarely as silly as this.

I have lived in England slightly longer than 8 months and have never seen any massive scars, by definition I haven't seen missing limbs, but I have seen three people with amputated legs, and have never seen anyone with an eye patch.

I can make an appointment online to see a GP for tomorrow. And the question of money will never come up.
Logged
2x Thumb Up


(Hidden)

« Reply #18 on: August 03, 2017, 01:57:02 am »

Doctor shortages is a totally separate issue that needs to be addressed.

There's no shortage of doctors.  There is a shortage of doctors who do 40 hours of work a week. 
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #19 on: August 03, 2017, 02:01:46 am »

Doctor shortages is a totally separate issue that needs to be addressed.

There's no shortage of doctors.  There is a shortage of doctors who do 40 hours of work a week. 

Once again you are making a great case as to why single payer is a better option.  Doctors don't work 20 hours per week because they are paid too much money.  Pay them less  under a single payer system and they will work more.
Logged


Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
  Print  

* Permissions
You can't post new topics.
You can't post replies.
You can't post attachments.
You can't modify your posts.
BBCode Enabled
Smilies Enabled
[img] Enabled
HTML Disabled

 
Jump to: