Medicaid's money grab
Remember ObamaCare's massive Medicaid expansion, which was supposed to be “free” in states that took the bait? Well, it's anything but free for some low-income recipients with homes and other assets who don't read the fine print.
States can recover the cost of health care after the death of recipients — those clients between the ages of 55 and 64 — by going after their assets.
ObamaCare's cheerleaders point out that this little known “death debt” policy has been part of Medicaid in some states since 1993. What they can't dismiss so quickly is that this not-so-insignificant stipulation affects a dramatically larger cohort under ObamaCare's carrot-dangling Medicaid expansion.
In defense, Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors, tells The Washington Post, “There's no way any state is going to see it as cost-effective or politically sensible to do that.” Then why didn't ObamaCare's underwriters simply remove the stipulation?
More importantly, why is it OK to go after the assets of Medicaid recipients and not people who get taxpayer subsidies through the exchange plans? Obviously the oracles of ObamaCare have some awfully strange notions about fairness.
Some states that expanded Medicaid under ObamaCare have revised their “estate recovery” policies. But most have not — and probably won't until enough people scream.
It's one more wrinkle in the mangy Shar-Pei that is ObamaCare.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Thursday wrap
- Calling out Russia: But weakly
- Blaming Israel: A new low
- Palmer v. District of Columbia: Upholding the 2nd Amendment
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- The Western Psych grand jury report: Do the right thing
- The Justice Department’s improper political agenda
- The China question
- Digitized medical records: They’ve become an unsecured threat
- Greensburg Tuesday takes