Does California have a new Obamacare scam in mind?

oldmodman

I looked at Covered California as an alternative to buying my insurance in the open market. I was paying $969.00 per month from Blue Cross and now I am paying less than half that under the Covered California umbrella.
I thought that was just fine so I signed up.

Ever since I have been getting letters from the State of California saying I now qualify for free medical care under the MediCal plan.

Well, this is absolutely not true. To qualify for medical you must have an earning cap of less than 17K a year. I have notified them that my earnings are many times that but they can't seem to remove me from their free medical plan. Which I will never touch.

Just in case you have never heard of MediCal one of the things it does is allow the State to seize all your assets after your death to pay back all your benefits you used while alive. Naturally, the poor have nothing to seize, but the well off do. It sure sound like an asset grab to me.

Anyone have any idea why they are trying to herd a huge number of people into the state run medical plans other than the reason I mentioned?

madmax

oldmodman wrote: »

State of California saying I now qualify for free medical care under the MediCal plan.

They must think you are an illegal alien.

tonyb

I don't get it.....if you have an earnings cap of 17k, how can they enroll you anyway ? Those with assets to grab are well over that so it doesn't make sense. Unless they just automatically enroll everyone and that 17k cap is simply B.S. If that's the case, you'll have zero to leave anyone after you die as I'm sure those costs they'll want to recover will be inflated like crazy.

mhardy6647

tonyb wrote: »

I don't get it.....if you have an earnings cap of 17k, how can they enroll you anyway ? Those with assets to grab are well over that so it doesn't make sense. Unless they just automatically enroll everyone and that 17k cap is simply B.S. If that's the case, you'll have zero to leave anyone after you die as I'm sure those costs they'll want to recover will be inflated like crazy.

earnings and assets are different. Earnings are income; assets are what you have. . Some of us have lots of one and not so much of the other

tonyb

I do believe I have a pretty firm grasp on that difference. As explained though, a yearly income level is 17k capped to even qualify. That's income...the assets are what you may have to surrender after you die to cover the costs your HC provider dished out over a period of time. That can be anything from cash to material things such as house/car/boats/rental property/death benefits/pension money/furniture/jewelry, you name it.

Now, what is happening here is your leaving government in charge of what you owe them as restitution for your HC. That figure will most certainly be inflated and a slippery slope for obvious reasons to boot. How about your auto insurance comes after you for all the money they dished out in accidents on your behalf ? Your home owners insurance ? Well, you may not care, you'll be dead, but those you thought would be taken care of after the fact may not necessarily happen the way you wanted it to.

mhardy6647

I guess my point is it's entirely possible to have an income of, say, $10,000 per annum but have total holdings (house, real estate, investments, etc.) of, say, $5,000,000. If the eligibility is based on income, such a person would qualify. I would posit that such a scenario is possible (EDIT: even if not terribly likely!) for a retiree or a "trust fund kid" (although gross income, including interest and dividends, is probably considerably more than that for most such folks).

Traditionally folks who have estates of any consequence can - and should - shelter (so to speak) their estates in the ownership of a trust ('family trust'). This will typically protect the assets from being lost, e.g., to extended care facility costs towards the end of life. Can CA attach the assets owned by a trust? I doubt it... but it is their ball and their back yard, so they might make any rules they want.

BlueFox

I doubt if there is any new scam going on. Other than this thread, I haven't seen any press on this. Then again, I avoid the lunatic fringe sites.

schwarcw

Go get some free and legal marijuana and spin some tunes!

warren

doubt if there is any new scam going on. I haven't seen any press on this. Then again, I avoid the lunatic fringe sites.

tonyb

mhardy6647 wrote: »

I guess my point is it's entirely possible to have an income of, say, $10,000 per annum but have total holdings (house, real estate, investments, etc.) of, say, $5,000,000. If the eligibility is based on income, such a person would qualify. I would posit that such a scenario is possible (EDIT: even if not terribly likely!) for a retiree or a "trust fund kid" (although gross income, including interest and dividends, is probably considerably more than that for most such folks).

Traditionally folks who have estates of any consequence can - and should - shelter (so to speak) their estates in the ownership of a trust ('family trust'). This will typically protect the assets from being lost, e.g., to extended care facility costs towards the end of life. Can CA attach the assets owned by a trust? I doubt it... but it is their ball and their back yard, so they might make any rules they want.

mhardy6647 wrote: »

I guess my point is it's entirely possible to have an income of, say, $10,000 per annum but have total holdings (house, real estate, investments, etc.) of, say, $5,000,000. If the eligibility is based on income, such a person would qualify. I would posit that such a scenario is possible (EDIT: even if not terribly likely!) for a retiree or a "trust fund kid" (although gross income, including interest and dividends, is probably considerably more than that for most such folks).

Traditionally folks who have estates of any consequence can - and should - shelter (so to speak) their estates in the ownership of a trust ('family trust'). This will typically protect the assets from being lost, e.g., to extended care facility costs towards the end of life. Can CA attach the assets owned by a trust? I doubt it... but it is their ball and their back yard, so they might make any rules they want.

That's an extreme end and highly unlikely. Here's a more realistic scenario.

Lets say you retire with just income from Social security. Many have no pensions, or simply 401k's they plan on drawing from. That's a fairly good sized pool of people wouldn't you agree ? They can't afford to pay the private insurance premiums so they look for the cheaper alternatives. This program the OP is talking about is subsidized by the government so what they are saying is after you die, they want their money back....or as much as possible. This same pool of people, has what as far as assets go ? A house that may be paid off or has a huge chunk of equity in it. Maybe some cash in an account somewhere, be it savings or retirement account. These same people do not have trusts, financial advisors or the like.

Now lets extend that train of thought. It's estimated that nearly half of the people will receive some form of government subsidy in their life span. What if they extended that "I want it back" mentality to other areas such as food stamp recipients for example ? Reduced drug benefits for the elderly ? School ? Don't tell me it can't happen either, because lots of what I see today I thought couldn't happen. Hence your slippery slope.

What you are witnessing is an ever evolving reason to take what is yours from a government that can't stop spending....and that's the bottom line.

Simplyrandom

Many states that use that process to recover costs are even changing the rules on when the assets can change hands and be exempt from seizure. I also read a lengthy article a couple of days ago that just makes me cringe about growing older and needing care. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/26/nyregion/family-fights-health-care-system-for-simple-request-to-die-at-home.html?_r=0

tonyb

It's always that darn small print that never seems to break to the surface....until you need it. Then it's glaringly obvious.

Midnite Mick

The first question I have is how the hell is your health insurance almost a k a month? Wow I could never afford that. Are you insuring ten people?

tonyb

I think me and the wife, in the open market pay 560 a month....and that was double from a few years ago. 12K A year seems high, even by California standards.

Still, they also raised my deductible to 6k from 2k. So at 560 a month, that's 6720 a year, plus deductible of 6k, I'm paying close to 13k a year just for the privilege of having HC coverage without using one dime of it yet.

Sound like a good deal ? Sure...if your the insurance company. Now if I was in my 30's and put away 7k a year in some sort of investment account, I would have well over a million bucks by the time I was in my 50's and needing more frequent care. Which I could then pay frickin' cash and won't need no stinkin' insurance. After all, what do you think insurance companies do with all those payments they receive ? Naturally pay out bills and cost of doing business but the rest is invested....for them....using your money. Imagine doing that for yourself and cutting out the middleman. Healthcare services, if paying cash, can be very reasonable. I've stated on here before my experiences with having an MRI done. Hospital= 4k, independent lab=1200.00, offer them cash= 400.00....for the exact same MRI, on the exact same equipment no less than the hospital at 4k.

HC is so screwed up now, it's unbelievable we in such a short period of time destroyed the best HC system in the world. Even the Swiss know of the benefits of quality care from private insurers and have recently rejected a national HC system by a good margin.

Eh...I better stop before I go off on another rant.....go figure. Still, 1k a month for HC coverage.....to me says they want to drop your butt and force you into Cover California. Wait until you have to actually use it though, that fine print will bubble to the surface they all failed to tell you about.

Midnite Mick

Ugh. I guess I shouldn't complain about paying taxes. The only real issues with the health care where I am is that the population has been increasing however the institutions have not, so wait times can be higher than they should.

Other than that when I have needed I have gotten. I may have had to wait a bit when not urgent but when it has been high priority I have gotten instant care....at no immediate cost.

I can definitely see how so many people do not have insurance at those prices. If I lived down there I probably would not have insurance either.

Mike

maximillian

I perfectly understand why people don't buy HC. HC is simply a bad investment. For many it costs more than rent or a mortgage, and you still have a deductible or co-pays.

The HC system is soooo bad that even Michael Moore, perhaps one of the greatest supporters of a national HC system, even said it was awful. I guess what our government does best is beat even our lowest expectations.

vmaxer

This is scary t best.

Midnite Mick

tonyb wrote: »

Eh...I better stop before I go off on another rant.....go figure. Still, 1k a month for HC coverage.....to me says they want to drop your butt and force you into Cover California. Wait until you have to actually use it though, that fine print will bubble to the surface they all failed to tell you about.

True of all insurance. They all sound great when they are taking your money. However, when you need them they are often not so great anymore.

Don't you just love paying for coverage that you are "getting" until you need it and then you don't?

tonyb

Insurance isn't all bad, it's a good concept when it started. However over the years they are mandated to do certain things by government that increase their cost of doing business....which results in higher premiums. Insurance companies are in business to make money, not swap dollars. Government run HC doesn't have to make money, matter of fact they can lose money year over year and never blink an eye.

Private insurance can't compete with that. They will eventually only exist as an option for the elites of society, the well to do. Guess which system all the good doctors will be in ? Basically, they know the majority of your HC costs come later in life which also coincides with you being towards the end of your useful working years. In other words, towards the point of you becoming a drain on society rather than a work horse contributing taxable income.

That's the point where you no longer become useful to the elite crowd and they wish you to die off asap. The elites however will have the best of the best to extend their lives. That's called Marxism, social engineering, and a few other colorful names I could use. That's why you had to "pass the bill to see whats in it". That's why it was sold to you as "affordable HC" which in many cases is anything but. That's why you were told "you can keep your doctor....keep your plan if you like it". Told "premiums would be reduced by 2500 a year". All lies to sell you something.

When someone tries that hard to sell you something...anything, doesn't a red flag go off in your head ? You would think so anyway.

We as a society have become too focused on one word...."Free". That word is like a shiny nickel. So shiny that we trip over the dollars to pick it up.