Posted on 05/30/2014 10:33:49 AM PDT by Red Badger
If he was approved to be on Medicaid, then he didn’t have it in the first place.................
If someone has that kind of resources, they sure as heck ain’t gonna be going to some state institution for car....................
I’ve been executor, once. Thankfully my dad had his affairs in order and his will was very clearcut. Everything was left to my mother. Some estates are a mess. His wasn’t, thankfully. I was still in shock from his passing, I think.
“The notarized bill, sent to Rose’s estate in March, was for paid Medicaid assistance from August 2002 up to Rose’s death.
The state agency is demanding to be paid the staggering amount if Luke prevails in her suit and is awarded punitive damages.”
The state is insane...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/family-killed-disabled-man-11m-bill-article-1.1808713
Well that’s one way to up the tensions :-)
i tend to agree with you, but if he comes into a sudden windfall, say a winning lottery ticket, or successful lawsuit, why shouldn’t the taxpayers get their money back?
the lawsuit is supposedly for damages, and it’s the taxpayers who are damaged. sounds like the family might be looking =for a windfall of their own.
Read a little deeper, the claim is against her brother’s estate.
Offsetting claims... Medicare/Medicaid is supposedly an equal opportunity estate biller.
Wow.
Good catch. Very interesting.
Well if it IS resource based, it kind of makes sense. Just as though they had won the lottery.
If no award gets awarded then no resource is there and it’s moot. Not even Medicare/Medicaid thinks it can get blood from a turnip.
My calculator says they charged the gubmit $3250 a day! Must have been some kind of hospital! If Medicaid is anything like Medicare, the hospital charges an obscene rate and then accepts a drastic make-down, with the remainder obviously charges against income taxes.
Sadly this is amount not surprising and that “our gubmit” is pissing money away like a Lotto winner.
“Attorney Ilann Maazel said others who have filed lawsuits on behalf of loved ones who have died in state care have received similar bills.
Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg (D-Long Island) said the bills are clearly meant as retaliation.”
I agree, it’s nothing more than retaliation, and an attempt to get them to drop the lawsuits.
It’s beyond the pale.
They may be but it’s a rare case indeed where a decedent has suddenly become wealthy just prior to their death. The bureaucrats don’t care, they just fill out the proper forms and follow the laws as written, whether they are insipid or not.....................
So, be on medicaid long enough, and the state’s position is that they are entitled to kill you with absolute impunity.
The math might be fishy, who knows. But again maybe they need to pay a nanny $90 for every $10 that gets doled out for services.
I am quite detached from this, having gone briefly through the belly of the Medicaid beast (a job that lasted 8 weeks until the boss decided I was being too high profile) and understanding QUITE how crazy it can be.
Suffice it to say there is a lot of potential poop that could hit the fan. Yeah go ahead LET them make these outlandish claims... and then explain them. Maybe they and the suers deserve one another.
They COULD wait until the award happens, then claw it back, if they were wise accountants.
$10K a month would be pretty high. They’re pushing $100K. It’s punitive for suing, no way around it.
Through a kafkaesque twist like this, maybe. Or they dare you to stop it, even though it is Calvinball as hell.
Well they have... now let them explain it. Tell us where that extra order of magnitude of money went. We’re dying to hear.
I had a cousin that was on welfare and medicaid and my aunt had to write him out of her will because the State would have taken every dime in reimbursement.
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.