|
|
|
|
|
|
by maxerickson
3337 days ago
|
|
|
I've never argued that estate recovery doesn't happen. Maybe you could admit that the 3/4 of people on Medicaid that aren't elderly aren't subject to it in any way, the primary thing that has lead me to pushing back on your comments. It's a pretty big deal that it doesn't apply, because that's where you started, fear mongering about how evil Medicaid is for everyone. And I think I was clear enough in my previous comment. It's fine if the resources for elder care come from the assets of the people receiving the care. Dealing with it through estate recovery is a detail; the other way to do it would be to force disposal of the assets before providing any benefit (pretty much the situation faced today by people who don't own homes). I think a different health care system could cost a lot less and be better for everyone. In the healthcare system we have, where funding for Medicaid is quite limited, I'm fine with it kicking in as a last resort. |
|
|
Yet, let's leave it at that. Let's concede it is only 25% of the folks on Medicaid. We are at 75 million people enrolled right now and firmly headed towards 100 million if nothing changes.
And so, per your number, that means 19 to 25 million people are in debt with the government for their medical care.
You keep calling it "fear mongering". All I did is provide links to source information where the way the program works is clearly laid out. And everything is factually correct.
Here's the part you don't seem to want to concede: If someone is put into Medicaid when they are, say, 40 because they don't qualify for subsidies and can't afford anything else, they are likely to stay there for a long time. And I'd be willing to bet money, they have no clue what's coming.
So, 15 years later they are still on Medicaid only now they shift over to becoming a debtor to the government for aspects of their medical care. And it so happens that after 50 to 55 years of age most people start having greater needs.
Our population is living far longer now, with 90+ not being uncommon. Which means that the 100 million or more that will be on Medicaid over the next decade or two will have a greater component of 55 or older folks. And every single one of them will owe money to the government for health care.
This isn't fear mongering, this is a mathematical reality.
> It's fine if the resources for elder care come from the assets of the people receiving the care.
Ah. OK. Now we understand each other.
I do not agree with this. Not at all. And mostly because most people have no clue they are accumulating debt.
If we did NOT call it medical insurance. If we classified it clearly for what it is. And if we made certain everyone knew what they were walking into it might be a different matter.
I know you are going to say it's right there in the forms. Nobody reads the fucking things. They want healthcare and they are placed between a rock and a hard place. They sign on the dotted line and move on.
-------------------
The fundamental disagreement here is that I am not OK with there being a program that turns people 55 and older into debtors to the government for their medical care.
You don't have a problem with the idea.
That, I think, is the bottom line. Everything else is slicing and dicing numbers. This, to me, is a question about the morality of the thing, not about statistics.