A Complete Waste of Space

oopsie! Pud steps in it again. The ACA does not allow for recovery from expanded Medicaid recipients(a 20 year old Medicaid provision), unless they have
In short, another lie about the ACA, from the ugly mob of haters.

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/01/medica ... y-program/

Here ya go Slick....from yer link above...step carefully in this...

Congress rejected the idea of taking from estates of surviving spouses, but it did make it mandatory for states to recover the cost of long-term care (such as nursing home care or home health care) in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. That law also reduced the age of deceased recipients whose estates are subject to the recovery from 65 or over to 55 or over. Congress kept the prohibition on estate recovery in cases when there is a surviving spouse, a child under the age of 21 or a child of any age who is blind or disabled. In the cases of property, the law also carved out other exceptions for adult children who have served as caretakers in the homes of the deceased, property owned jointly by siblings, and income-producing property, such as farms.
All states now have Medicaid Estate Recovery Programs, although some were slow to create them. Michigan was one of the last to create one in 2007 after the federal government threatened to withhold federal Medicaid funds.

Now what?

now, if you look at the rules, anyone with a surviving spouse, or a child up to age 21 cannot be recovered from. The folks in the expanded ACA are younger people on Medicaid, so very little likelihood of so much as ONE person encountering this due to ACA expanded coverage. You'll note, they don't really collect that much from the older folks on Medicaid as it is, and those people wouldn't have been on Medicaid due to the ACA.

do you actually think about these sorts of details, or just blindly post whatever your masters wish you to think, Pud?

Nah, he is not parroting Obama like you.
Callmecommie, you are so consistant, if Obama
lies, you repeat it.

Oh shit, Obama always lies!

HH

callmeslick wrote:do you actually think about these sorts of details, or just blindly post whatever your masters wish you to think, Pud?

First off, Slick, what you posted above applies to you. Why? Because you (once again) didn't read the whole link to yer proof. You just read far enough (so ya thought) to make yer point. You didn't. Ya shot yerself in the foot again. Repeatedly, in our experience here...with you.

You are one of the most "careless" folks...I've ever known.

callmeslick wrote:now, if you look at the rules, anyone with a surviving spouse, or a child up to age 21 cannot be recovered from. The folks in the expanded ACA are younger people on Medicaid, so very little likelihood of so much as ONE person encountering this due to ACA expanded coverage. You'll note, they don't really collect that much from the older folks on Medicaid as it is, and those people wouldn't have been on Medicaid due to the ACA.

Yup, I see what yer sayin'. I don't agree. Now, you try to see this?
You folks are on the abortion/birth control band wagon these days...in the future, with less families and a lower population as the result of....yer laws/views. What you wrote above is "negated" by this. And again, thanks fer proving my previous statement about confiscation is the legal future. I agree, a few folks now can escape it..with a couple of them loop holes. However, most are gonna have to pony up.....when they're dead. Most definitely, when they have no heirs and their spouse eventually dies.

Old Pudfark sez: " Just because ya pack yer pipe with a cow turd? Don't mean it'll smoke like tobacco. "

It made no sense up until now to recover too much of the dead's estates.

No it's much better to expand medicaid first, so that when they go shogun they can get much more money out of it all.

It would be counterproductive to go shogun before they have managed to expand medicaid to as many people they could.

Nic

Pudfark wrote:

callmeslick wrote:do you actually think about these sorts of details, or just blindly post whatever your masters wish you to think, Pud?

First off, Slick, what you posted above applies to you. Why? Because you (once again) didn't read the whole link to yer proof. You just read far enough (so ya thought) to make yer point. You didn't. Ya shot yerself in the foot again. Repeatedly, in our experience here...with you.

You are one of the most "careless" folks...I've ever known.

umm, I read the whole thing, and relayed why it has NOTHING to do with the ACA.

Pudfark wrote:

callmeslick wrote:now, if you look at the rules, anyone with a surviving spouse, or a child up to age 21 cannot be recovered from. The folks in the expanded ACA are younger people on Medicaid, so very little likelihood of so much as ONE person encountering this due to ACA expanded coverage. You'll note, they don't really collect that much from the older folks on Medicaid as it is, and those people wouldn't have been on Medicaid due to the ACA.

Yup, I see what yer sayin'. I don't agree. Now, you try to see this?
You folks are on the abortion/birth control band wagon these days...in the future, with less families and a lower population as the result of....yer laws/views. What you wrote above is "negated" by this. And again, thanks fer proving my previous statement about confiscation is the legal future. I agree, a few folks now can escape it..with a couple of them loop holes. However, most are gonna have to pony up.....when they're dead. Most definitely, when they have no heirs and their spouse eventually dies.

Old Pudfark sez: " Just because ya pack yer pipe with a cow turd? Don't mean it'll smoke like tobacco. "

more crystal-ball handiwork from Pud. He can see into the future! Amazing! Odd that no one else sees what you claim to be likely to happen.