# Are Medicaid eligibility requirements (and other aspects) discriminatory?



## wlhaught (Jul 19, 2014)

The following article discusses the raiding of assets of Medicaid recipients 55 and over.  However, it seems to me discriminatory as well to eliminate the asset tests on some classes of people and retain them for the poorest, oldest and most vulnerable.

Paul Craig Roberts Obamacare: The Final Payment–Raiding the Assets of Low-Income and Poor Americans
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/201...ent-raiding-assets-low-income-poor-americans/


It seems to me that the AARP and disability rights organizations ought to sue the states and federal government for violating various laws such as Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.  If they are, I haven't heard anything about it.



It seems to me that the Obamacare and Medicaid Expansion is no different than the stunt Hawaii did with its Quest system in the mid-1990s which can be found at the following link:

State facing liability over disabled by Sandi M. Skousen
http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/1997/05/26/story2.html?page=all


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 20, 2014)

I have mixed emotions on this. I know some one in his early 60s and he had trouble getting medicare or medicaid. I think they were waiting for medicare to kick in. He didn't even have a house.  

On the other hand I know someone with houseS in two different states-at least.  With serious medical issues he travels to the other state. But he seems to have declared this state his permanent residence getting his car licensed here and sending some of his kids to school here. He's lying in at least one state by saying that's his primary residence to receive medicaid. And depending on who or when you talk to in the family they have income and additional properties. With working family members and business/rental income I say they need to wait for medicare.


----------



## wlhaught (Jul 20, 2014)

Not at all relevant.  Don't punish the poor because a few middle class members abuse the system.  You need better reasoning skills.  I hope there are people on this forum who have more sense.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 20, 2014)

wlhaught said:


> Not at all relevant.  Don't punish the poor because a few middle class members abuse the system.  You need better reasoning skills.  I hope there are people on this forum who have more sense.



 I will agree forcing the poor to sell off assets is a lot different than a middle/upper middle class person being forced to use their assets before they even get on Medicaid. Having two homes does not make a poor person. You need an asset test or threshold for benefits. If you own two homes one of them has got to go or be rented out to pay for stuff. The same person mentioned got miffed at the state of second home wouldn't give him the benefits he got else where and he had to list all assets to which he was "surprised" they even knew about his other house. No one forced him to live here.


----------



## wlhaught (Jul 20, 2014)

Some people are not subjected to asset tests for Medicaid, only income test.  If someone is truly middle-class, they will in all likelihood fail an income test.  If you have a asset test it should apply to everyone and it should be high.  I say that a threshold of $1,500 is three orders of magnitude too low.  Better yet, have a system like Canada.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 20, 2014)

I'd say if someone fails an income test but appeals THEN I would start asking for assets. I wouldn't make it a massive inventory but just the basics like property ie houses and stuff over 15,000 dollars let's say. If grand pa gave you a gold coin unless it's over 15K I wouldn't want it listed. One of the problems with certain asset tests is the value is relative even with a house.  I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt on the first round of benefits. But when it comes time to extend, renew or is repetitive that's when these claims need to be scrutinized much harder.

I know too many people who lived on the brink for years but payed their bills and kept their credit with no bankruptcy. And that was done by selling assets. Sooner or later assets will have to come into the equation-in other words what are you doing to pay your bills. And if Medicaid wants to tap the estate they need to make a claim with-in a couple months of death and not come after relatives decades later.


----------



## wlhaught (Jul 21, 2014)

I disagree that it is reasonable to force middle class people into selling assets until they are poor.  If they have enough assets to earn enough to pay their bills including medical insurance, that is one thing.  The only reason I can think of to have an asset test is because it is possible to have no income on paper yet be rich.


----------



## wlhaught (Jul 21, 2014)

Furthermore, people shouldn't be penalized for having saved and investing their money instead of spending it.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 21, 2014)

wlhaught said:


> I disagree that it is reasonable to force middle class people into selling assets until they are poor.  If they have enough assets to earn enough to pay their bills including medical insurance, that is one thing.  The only reason I can think of to have an asset test is because it is possible to have no income on paper yet be rich.



Like I said I'll give a round or two of benefits to adjust to the circumstances surrounding the benefits claim/need. I'm not saying cash in a pension or 401k unless you want to. But if you have 50,000 dollars in bank and your into your second year of benefits it's time to start making withdrawals. I'd escalate the requirements and scrutiny every time a claim is renewed.  I'd make the initial claim much easier to get than a old claim in the 2nd year of receiving benefits.

It all depends on what you are applying for. The problem with health care IS that there are fewer choices with less money. That's simply an accepted fact. I'd pay for urgent care or clinic type medicine BUT would I pay for a person to receive that exact same type of health care they had with private insurance-NO unless a 100% medical necessity. I've had to pay for procedures out of savings having gone periods without insurance. I didn't even apply for medicaid.


----------



## wlhaught (Jul 23, 2014)

WhatInThe said:


> I've had to pay for procedures out of savings having gone periods without insurance.



This is what the "Affordable" Care Act is supposed to prevent, except in the case of people over 55 and poor or disabled. Obamacare changes things.  Before the ACA and Medicaid expansion you could argue it wasn't discrimination.


----------

