Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bye-Bye Medicaid Asset Test (IMPORTANT)
Wordpress Incidental Economist ^ | 13 April 2010 | Austin Frakt

Posted on 06/30/2012 6:12:08 PM PDT by Lorianne

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) goes a long way toward simplifying Medicaid eligibility. Go try and figure it out from the legislative language and you’re not likely to believe me. Fortunately, Joy Johnson Wilson, Health Policy Director for the National Conference of State Legislatures, has done the dirty work. In a handy document Wilson summarizes Medicaid and CHIP provisions in the new law and compares them to current law.

In particular, on page 8 Wilson notes that the ACA “[r]equires states to use a net income standard (no asset or resource test, no income disregards) to determine [Medicaid] eligibility.” Yep, you read that right, bye-bye asset test. Hello simple income test. The new federal income eligibility threshold will be 133% of the federal poverty level (effective 1/1/14).

Essentially, the Medicaid expansion under the ACA will broaden Medicaid eligibility for low-income, non-elderly adults without regard to assets. A major exception for that age group are those with incomes above the threshold but with high out-of-pocket medical costs. Such individuals will be required to spend their assets down to the existing asset limit, which varies by state and is typically a few thousand dollars.

There are a few other caveats. Existing rules, including the asset tests, will continue to apply for individuals obtaining Medicaid eligibility through another program (e.g. foster care children, or SSI/SSDI recipients) and the elderly.

Medicaid qualification just got a whole lot easier (or, rather, it will in 2014).

(Excerpt) Read more at theincidentaleconomist.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government
KEYWORDS: healthcare; medicaid; obamacare; sourcetitlenoturl
Older article but relevant to the recent SC ruling.

The crafters of Obama care (PPACA) were counting on at least HALF of the projected number of newly 'insured' would come from this expansion on Medicaid.

Getting rid of the asset test and creating a new category of non-disabled adults under age 65 would have swelled the rolls on Medicaid.

Now that many States may not adopt the expansion (because the SC ruled they cannot be penalized for not expanding Medicaid) their projected number of newly 'insured' people is in serious jeapardy.

1 posted on 06/30/2012 6:12:20 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Interesting stuff. The OBVIOUS thing for for someone who has money, but who doesn’t have insurance, is to move to a Blue State if he develops a serious medical condition - and, of course, not work. For someone who has $100k or so saved up, he can live off of that for 2 or 3 years while getting free cancer treatment.


2 posted on 06/30/2012 6:29:24 PM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
From article: “133% of the federal poverty level (effective 1/1/14).

What is the federal poverty level? $11,628 + - ? My mother-in-law was $26 above Medicaid level for any drug assistance. After her husband died, I think her Medicare funds were just enough to keep her over Medicaid.

3 posted on 06/30/2012 6:33:20 PM PDT by Bronzy (No more RINO's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Watch what they do with the Death Tax.


4 posted on 06/30/2012 6:36:36 PM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Congrats to Ted Kennedy! He's been sober for two years now!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
If a state refuses to set up the exchanges, the feds will simply do it in those states. Who pays for it all? Eventually the states right?
5 posted on 06/30/2012 6:36:51 PM PDT by TornadoAlley3 (Obama is everything Oklahoma is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

Bookmark


6 posted on 06/30/2012 6:51:18 PM PDT by publius911 (Formerly Publius 6961, formerly jennsdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BobL

Yes.
Or. Move to a blue state, purchase a house, then (with no income) go on SNAP (foodstamps), get free medical care, free fuel assistance, free health care and whatever else is going for free.


7 posted on 06/30/2012 6:55:41 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BobL

Yes.
Or. Move to a blue state, purchase a house, then (with no income) go on SNAP (foodstamps), get free medical care, free fuel assistance, free health care and whatever else is going for free.


8 posted on 06/30/2012 6:55:49 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

no, each state runs its own unique program.
the feds can not set on up.


9 posted on 06/30/2012 6:57:34 PM PDT by ncalburt (NO MORE WIMPS need to apply to fight the Soros Funded Puppet !H)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

OK, I admit to being a bit mystified by this. Does this elimination of the Medicaid asset test apply to folks who want to have Medicaid cover their Nursing Home stays? I know that the asset tests for these folks were pretty complicated and had various “look back” tests to determine when (and how much) assets were disposed of. Disposal of assets (e.g., deeding over houses and other assets to children) within these look back periods would result in those assets being “counted” and thus making the person ineligible for Medicaid.


10 posted on 06/30/2012 6:58:29 PM PDT by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

“Or. Move to a blue state, purchase a house, then (with no income) go on SNAP (foodstamps), get free medical care, free fuel assistance, free health care and whatever else is going for free.”

Sounds like a plan to me.


11 posted on 06/30/2012 7:20:53 PM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

Yes. They have eliminated the asset test is my understanding. That’s Medicaid ... Medicare may be different.


12 posted on 06/30/2012 7:25:53 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

nobama’s obvious purpose is to get as many sheeple as possible dependent on the gov for medical care.

Bless the states that are saying, “Shove this!”


13 posted on 06/30/2012 7:33:53 PM PDT by upchuck (FACEBOOK... Share pointless stuff with friends you don't know. Beg for intrusion into your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ncalburt
What about laws such as drinking age must be 21 or you lose federal transportation dollars? Will states be able to object to changes to various cooperative federal-state programs on the theory that those changes are coercive? Possibly a cellphone ban in your state or no$ for you etc? This Medicaid decision seems to be a very important and positive one for states. If enough states do not expand it, Obama Care fails. It was the third leg of the stool to cover people.
14 posted on 06/30/2012 7:34:05 PM PDT by TornadoAlley3 (Obama is everything Oklahoma is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Another gift from Roberts. Obama can’t cover all low income people and those with bad health problems. States that don’t play ball don’t have to change Medicaid thresholds.


15 posted on 06/30/2012 7:36:05 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Democrats are the problem. Vote them out, all of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

I agree, though it’s illogical as hell.

Individuals can be penalized for not doing something but States apparently can’t. :)


16 posted on 06/30/2012 7:40:19 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BobL
The asset test is a ridiculous low $2,000 now.

If you've got no income and only $2,000 you're not going to survive long and yet, somehow, you're not yet eligible for assistance even if you're been foreclosed. Try renting from that situation.

It might work out for Holder's People.

17 posted on 06/30/2012 7:43:44 PM PDT by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
The crafters of Obama care (PPACA) were counting on at least HALF of the projected number of newly 'insured' would come from this expansion on Medicaid.

Yes, this was always the plan but the media, even conservative media, didn't give it the attention it deserves. This is old news and I fault the conservatives in Congress for not doing more to publicize this aspect of Obamacare as the Dems and the liberal media were never going to do it. It's shameful that they're all celebrating reform that dumps millions into a failing program that's a ticking timebomb financially. I wish one of the conservative PACs would do a good ad on this. I'd love to see one that speaks directly to the uninsured who have no idea they're about to be dumped into Medicaid.

18 posted on 06/30/2012 8:01:31 PM PDT by PeevedPatriot (Obamacare is taxation without representation courtesy of the British subject in the White House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

The expansion of Medicaid was planned to accommodate the illegal immigrants. After the states were forced to expand their coverage and took the federal money, they would change the rules administratively and require the states to include the illegals. That was the plan which would break the states and make them totally dependent on the feds. A previous example of this kind of activity was when the feds offered one time payments for the states to expand their unemployment payments to include people who would not ordinarily qualify (such as college students, part-time/intermittent employees, etc.). If the states changed their laws and accepted the money, they couldn’t change them back later .... they owned you.


19 posted on 06/30/2012 8:12:33 PM PDT by RetiredTexasVet (Just call me Doctor or maybe even Judge ... Supreme Court said it was ok!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

The next step will be a requirement that all physicians in all disciplines licensed by a particular state “must” accept all Medicaid patients or matching federal funds will not be available to the states.
If this were ever to come to the table, I bet the traitor physicians who supported this monstrosity, will be singing a different tune.
I would never ever want to be a Medicaid patient. There are so few physicians that accept Medicaid and especially new Medicaid patients.
I’m glad my dad, who already has Medicare A&B and supplemental insurance, has had his internist and specialists for years. It’s also getting pretty dicey to find physicians who accept Medicare.


20 posted on 06/30/2012 8:15:15 PM PDT by ebersole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

“The asset test is a ridiculous low $2,000 now.”

I agree, that’s way too low. And if they catch you moving funds around, it’s even worse - you won’t even qualify if under $2,000.


21 posted on 06/30/2012 9:22:45 PM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Individuals can be penalized for not doing something but States apparently can’t. :)

Think of it, the Federal Government has been notorious for forcing things down the states' throats by threatening to withhold other goodies. Now that federal practice is in question and the 4 liberals signed on to this. Roberts is good.

22 posted on 06/30/2012 9:53:02 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Democrats are the problem. Vote them out, all of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici
Watch what they do with the Death Tax.

What else can they do? Roberts already gave them free rein with his ideation of a "tax them until it kills them" policy.

23 posted on 07/01/2012 5:34:10 AM PDT by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

You are correct
The. Radical
Left wanted all 50 states to be forced to have bloated Medicaid programs and high taxes so people and companies could not move to union free and low tax states !
They lost


24 posted on 07/01/2012 7:35:52 AM PDT by ncalburt (NO MORE WIMPS need to apply to fight the Soros Funded Puppet !H)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Supreme Court Saved the Near Poor
http://townhall.com/columnists/johncgoodman/2012/07/28/supreme_court_saved_the_near_poor/page/2

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2911732/posts

cross posted for reference with my above article


25 posted on 07/28/2012 6:10:02 AM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson