Universal Health care, Obamacare, Managed Care
Home › Forums › Decaffeinated Coffee › Universal Health care, Obamacare, Managed Care
- This topic has 54 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 5 months ago by Dr. Pepper.
July 11, 2021 6:42 pm at 6:42 pm #1990532HealthParticipant
TLIK – “Managed care was the first step towards the universal health care goal. Etc….”
You forgot to mention who started this Garbage!
I’ll do it for you – the DemonCrats & the Clintons.July 11, 2021 9:09 pm at 9:09 pm #1990558
Amil Zola is a FEMALE. She uses her late husband’s account and has explained this over the years.
As I have posted earlier, Medicaid is a STATE program administering Federal funds.
Here in CT, you must qualify via the means test. Our minimum wage is $13 per hour. If you work 4o hours, chances are you won’t qualify for Medicaid, but can buy a subsidized plan through the state ACA exchange that might cost you as little as $12 per month.
Unlike many other benefits such as SNAP, the state can recover expenses paid through Medicaid if your financial position improves. When you sign up and accept Medicaid you are granting the state a lien on your present and future assets.
As someone who has practiced family law, wills, trusts and estates I deal with Medicaid issues regularly, Most people don’t recognize that Title XIX that pays for nursing homes is Medicaid, The state often ends up owning the home of the nursing home patient who dies. They can claw back 6 years if it has been transferred taking it away from the patient’s children, etc.
This is one of the reasons we suggest placing your home in a trust omce you reach the age of 50July 11, 2021 11:46 pm at 11:46 pm #1990598HealthParticipant
CTLawyer – Why are posting to me?
Because she’s a female – she doesn’t know every State makes their own rules?!?July 12, 2021 10:53 am at 10:53 am #1990699
I am posting to you because you referred to or addressed AZ with male pronoun in the comment to which I clicked reply.July 12, 2021 10:54 am at 10:54 am #1990701
Specifically you called AZ Mr. Know it AllDecember 23, 2021 5:08 pm at 5:08 pm #2044417Dr. PepperParticipant
I don’t think we’ll ever agree politically but I do respect your opinion and like reading your posts. They’re well thought out, non-confrontational and it gives me insight as to how others on the other side feel.
With that being said, I read your post on the previous page and I’m happy that the ACA worked for your family. I hope that Hashem gives you and your family the health and strength needed to live life to the fullest.
On the other side of the equation though are families that the ACA did not work for. Take a real family formerly from NY, we’ll call them the NYLAWYER family. Mr. NYLAWYER works for a company that has a generous health insurance plan with a negligible $250 family deductible and a $10 copay after that. For their insurance plan the employer pays $1,200 per month and Mr. NYLAWYER pays $200 per month. When the ACA came out the cost of their insurance plan was raised from $1,400 per month to $1,800 per month of which the company increased their share to $1,400 and the employees pay $400. Also going up is the deductible to $6,500 per person / $13,000 per family as well as the copay from $10 to $50.
After a few years of this the family’s savings are wiped out, their credit cards are maxed out and they’re very close to defaulting on their mortgage. With no end in sight they’re forced to move out of the city that the family, their parents and grandparents grew up in.
I think everyone would agree that it would be great if free, excellent healthcare was readily available to everyone. I also think that everyone would agree that it’s not possible to provide it without many families being negatively affected.
It’s a long stretch to say that the crushing costs incurred by the NYLAWYER family went to directly cover the costs of any other family as there are many factors and variables used in balancing the equation.
So let’s discretize the equation as much as possible with a hypothetical situation and bring it down to two households- Family A and Family B.
The A Family have a good employer sponsored health insurance plan and spends money very frugally, they have $150,000 equity in their house. Their neighbors, the B Family, have a horrible health insurance plan, spends lavishly and rents their home as they have never been able to save towards a down payment.
One of the members of the B Family is horribly sick R”L, and needs a serious operation which their insurance won’t fully cover. Their out of pocket expenses are estimated to be $100,000 which they can not afford.
My question is this- does the government have a right to seize the A Family’s house, sell it and split the proceeds between Family A ($50,000), Family B ($100,000 to use towards the operation) and the bank (remainder of the mortgage)?
Why or why not?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.