PDA

View Full Version : Joint tenants in Maine: soon to lose their property to recoup Medicaid costs?



Winehole23
01-13-2010, 07:14 PM
Maine may seize cottages to cover Medicaid (http://updates.morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/updates/maine-may-seize-cottages-to-cover-medicaid)

AUGUSTA — Maine's budget proposal would allow jointly owned camps or summer cottages to be seized to help reimburse the state for Medicaid expenses.

Many Maine families have owned and maintained camps or summer cottages through joint tenancy deeds, which permit them to keep the property within their families.

But as Maine Public Radio reports, the state would get the power to seize those properties in some cases. Health and Human Services Commissioner Brenda Harvey says the change would allow the state to be reimbursed for its costs if one of the property owners uses Medicaid funding to pay for long-term care.

Under present law, those properties can't count as an asset toward their expenses.

Marcus Bryant
01-13-2010, 09:31 PM
Private LT care providers can go after what you own, AFAIK, at least in Texas.

And if you have the wherewithal, then I'm not sure why you are on the public dime.

But this seems like a problem that wouldn't be too hard to fix, unless we are talking about running afoul of federal gift tax issues, which of course gets back to having the wherewithal to pay, but preferring the public to cover.

ChumpDumper
01-13-2010, 09:52 PM
And if you have the wherewithal, then I'm not sure why you are on the public dime.This. If you co-own a summer cottage in Maine, you shouldn't be on Medicaid.

Marcus Bryant
01-13-2010, 09:54 PM
Welfare cheats only live on the wrong side of town, not Kennebunkport.

boutons_deux
01-13-2010, 11:19 PM
Perhaps the real estate was inherited, and current family just doesn't have the 100s of $1000s cash to pay long-term care, which can easily run $5K/month. If someone with Alzheimers hangs on for 5 years, that's $300K.

You people assume these cottages are multi $M properties held by cheating millionaires.

ChumpDumper
01-13-2010, 11:23 PM
If someone with Alzheimers hangs on for 5 years, that's $300K.So he wouldn't even remember he owned part of a cottage.

Marcus Bryant
01-13-2010, 11:37 PM
Perhaps the real estate was inherited, and current family just doesn't have the 100s of $1000s cash to pay long-term care, which can easily run $5K/month. If someone with Alzheimers hangs on for 5 years, that's $300K.

You people assume these cottages are multi $M properties held by cheating millionaires.

ROFL. Clearly they are Repug Darth Cheney loving neocon pitbull bitch watery tit loving scumbags. Fuck 'em.

EVAY
01-14-2010, 10:18 AM
Maine may seize cottages to cover Medicaid (http://updates.morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/updates/maine-may-seize-cottages-to-cover-medicaid)

AUGUSTA — Maine's budget proposal would allow jointly owned camps or summer cottages to be seized to help reimburse the state for Medicaid expenses.

Many Maine families have owned and maintained camps or summer cottages through joint tenancy deeds, which permit them to keep the property within their families.

But as Maine Public Radio reports, the state would get the power to seize those properties in some cases. Health and Human Services Commissioner Brenda Harvey says the change would allow the state to be reimbursed for its costs if one of the property owners uses Medicaid funding to pay for long-term care.

Under present law, those properties can't count as an asset toward their expenses.


Not to state the obvious or anything, but wouldn't the rather less stark alternative be to actually start counting the cabins as assets? Wouldn't that be simpler?

Wouldn't one of the unintended consequences of this proposal be to make sure that virtually all summer cabins in Maine be sold to out-of-state- owners with lease-back provisions for current owners?

I have never gotten over the Supremes decision a few years ago that allowed imminent domain claims by a township to seize property in New Jersey
because somebody wanted to put up a strip mall or something. I mean, I don't know what the constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure means if it doesn't protect owned property. But clearly, I just don't understand.