Skip to main content

View Diary: So are the ACA "Subsidies" or are they LOANS!?! (166 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  so you can't actually explain (0+ / 0-)

    how anyone will get "bit in the butt"?

    •  I know a few people with low incomes AND homes. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tommymet, beverlywoods

      I'd bet a few of them would rather tighten their belts a  bit and pay a few hundred a month for subsidized insurance rather than expose their only real assets to the whim of present or future state government. If some part of the process has been handed over to the private sector, like management, you can bet it mirrors the private prison model: good money and guaranteed income.  

      I'll look around now, but I'll bet it costs over a grand a month per patient in states with that model, whether you use medical services in a given month or not.

      Yes, I'm talking out of my butt. At least I am aware of it, though.

      "The right is correct on one thing...we really are a bunch of easily outraged nitpickers."

      by potato on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 06:53:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's really not the whim (0+ / 0-)

        of present and future state governments. The laws exist now. If you have assets but still qualify for Medicaid, then its possible that expenses paid by Medicaid on your behalf will be recovered from your estate after you die. If heirs want to protect their inheritance, they can take care of their parents without relying on Medicaid. If heirs don't have the wherewithal to do that, then Medicaid will at least provide some protections. It's unclear to me why anyone thinks this is unfair or unreasonable.

        •  It is unfair and unreasonable because shelter (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          is a basic human need.  
          You buy a home in this nation by taking out a loan with interest.  Over the life of the loan you already pay the principle perhaps several times over.  You struggle to meet the mortgage every month but, you pay for interest for a couple of decades on top of what the home is worth. This in a nation that is so wage depressed that even full time workers will die in the hole.  Getting government help to enable workers to meet a basic human need of shelter will only dig that generational hole deeper.
          Say you have a child and modern education has put that child under crushing debt such that they will not be able to marry, buy their own home, pay for their own children.  They are paying several times the principle of that educational loan.  Modern young adults are up against impossible indentured servitude that creates generational poverty as they have children they cannot afford.
          You may want to leave your kids some place to live so that child can raise a family in it.
          Claw back after death is entropic and dissipative of wealth once again impoverishing the would be middle class with generational race to the bottom.
          In a place like NM where generational lands are passed down through families, it serves to dissipate those families leaving future generations to dwell in trailer park slums rather than rural ranches and lands.  The ancient land grants and generational ranches concentrate into the hands of the few and into the hands of carpet bagging rich who could care less about cultural and natural heritage such as water rights.
          The estate tax was abolished by the Republicans for the rich but, once again only the poor are left to pick up the tab to pay for civilization as they are are subjected to generational wealth stripping. It is a poverty penalty tax.
          The medical system is rife with cost over run, inefficiency, and profit taking and paying for that with generational degeneration is unreasonable.
          By the time the financial industry is done taking it's lion's share cut from closing the deals of estate wealth stripping, very little is left for the government to take.

          •  I don't think this makes much sense (0+ / 0-)

            A parent acquires a home, is fortunate enough to be able to pay off the home during their lifetime, but has insufficient cash flow to provide for their own support during later years. The state steps in and provides care, and is reimbursed upon the death of the parent, if, and only if, there is equity in the home. The child is not left with any net debt. In fact, if there is sufficient equity in the home to cover the expenses reimbursed to the state, the child gets it. Why should the state not get reimbursed?

            •  Because the state did not provide the (0+ / 0-)

              social and financial infrastructure to ensure that that the elderly are situated to be taken care of without impoverishment.  These are people that worked all their lives.

              •  Keep in mind (0+ / 0-)

                that most elderly are eligible for medicare. This issue would only applicable if they're covered by both medicare and Medicaid. There are some expenses Medicaid pays in some states that medicare doesn't cover. Like nursing homes. HIX policies (probably) won't cover nursing homes either. This really has nothing to do with the ACA. Medicaid recovery predates the ACA by almost 2 decades.

            •  Why not take back the other subsidies then? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Orj ozeppi, beverlywoods

              People are being treated very differently depending on whether they fall above or below the line at which they are going into Medicaid or given heavily subsidized exchange policies.  

              I can't see why these two groups of people should be treated differently.

              And in fact I don't see any reason why anyone should be subject to this.

              Is there any other first world country that does anything like this?

              We're trying to move to a model in which everyone gets health care. It no longer makes sense, if it ever did, to treat some of them as welfare recipients.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site