Skip to main content

View Diary: 'Cadillac tax' causing some employers to cut back insurance programs (151 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Should Subsidies also be taxed? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    musiccitymollie

    Since the old and poor have no choice but are automatically enrolled in "a collateral loan and estate death tax" why should the others who get subsidies not pay tax at death as well?

    •  Combining some answers (0+ / 0-)

      I think that the whole idea of an "estate tax" is wrong.  The taxes should be paid as "income tax" by the person receiving the inheritance.  Money should be taxed when it is income, and all income should be treated the same.   People who get free money should be taxed at the same level as people who earn it.

      Concerning  people who receive medicaid at the end of life, a great many of them were never poor, and simply structured their estates in such a way that they look poor.  There is a whole legal and tax dodging industry set up to enable those people.  

      If a person has a significant estate at death, then they were not really poor at the end.    The estate should pay back the money that was granted to them during their final years.

      "Subsidies" cannot all be treated the same.   For example, subsidies granted to someone who adopts a special needs child (good) are different than subsidies granted to an oil company (bad) or an insurance company (evil).      

      A health benefit that is part of employment is not provided due to need, but due to privilege.   Cadillac benefits for the privileged should be phased out.    If everybody cannot get it under the law, then NOBODY should get it.

      Until we stop playing favorites with benefits, then the great majority of us will continue to be screwed.     A few powerful people who have a vested interest in the status quo are usually willing and able to block progress for the rest of us.

      Religion gives men the strength to do what should not be done.

      by bobtmn on Wed May 29, 2013 at 02:41:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You just made spashoils' point, with your (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        splashoil

        statement that:

        The estate should pay back the money that was granted to them during their final years.
        Your very own words indicate that Medicaid is not an 'insurance' program--it is indeed a 'collaterized loan' program.

        That's all that he's been trying to convey, I believe.

        If I understand him, his main point was to make it obvious (and frankly, I didn't get it, initially, since none of our family have participated in the program) that we don't really offer low-income Americans 'insurance' like the rest of us have--just a mandatory 'collateralized loan' program enforced by the MERP (Medicaid Estate Recovery Program), which itself is a 'big business' in some states.

        Before I read one of his links (didn't bookmark it, but maybe he'll provide it), I didn't realize that the Medicaid program could seize assets for EVERYTHING THEY SPEND ON FOLKS OVER THE AGE OF 55.

        I thought that they were allowed to recoup monies only when there was a long-term nursing home confinement for the very elderly.

        I would think that folks over age 55 might want to 'reconsider' enrollment in SNAP and other federal benefit programs, until they check out all the legal ramifications, since the ACA authorizes 'auto-enrolling' folks into 'Expanded Medicaid.'

        You say:

        If a person has a significant estate at death, then they were not really poor at the end.
        Not sure what you mean by 'significant.'  

        According to one piece splashoil linked to, many times the ONLY thing in an estate is a home, which may not be much, but has been passed down to the poor beneficiary.

        I'm still looking into this Medicaid expansion, but I am concerned about any system or program which takes the only property a family has had for generations.

        Maybe the federal government should just abolish this program, and bring everyone into the exchange who has no insurance through their employer.

        Somehow, I can't imagine that this Medicaid 'expansion'  will fly with the general public, if thousands of Americans, who get stuck with a catastrophic medical bill during a 'stint' of unemployment (long-term or otherwise), as a result of mandatory participation in Medicaid, and then have a lien levied on their home or other real property, at the age of 55, 57, etc.

        I feel certain of that.

        Hopefully, the Administration will change this, before we have a chance to find out.

        Mollie

        "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


        hiddennplainsight

        by musiccitymollie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 07:26:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musiccitymollie

          This subject has been ignored or seldom discussed seriously.  It's time for all of us to start asking questions and get some answers.  We might get some answers from the Administration, but I do not expect any changes.  The site Correntewire has a discussion but there is much more information to be drawn out.
          For many including myself, we are just now realizing the contours of Obamacare.  Now that the initial enthusiasm has passed I hope we can find out more before it is fully implemented and try to change it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site