Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,842
    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.
    Last edited by Winehole23; 01-13-2010 at 09:39 PM.

  2. #2
    Pimp Marcus Bryant's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Post Count
    1,021,992
    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.

  3. #3
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,407
    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.

  4. #4
    Pimp Marcus Bryant's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Post Count
    1,021,992
    Welfare cheats only live on the wrong side of town, not Kennebunkport.

  5. #5
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    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.

  6. #6
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,407
    If someone with Alzheimers hangs on for 5 years, that's $300K.
    So he wouldn't even remember he owned part of a cottage.

  7. #7
    Pimp Marcus Bryant's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Post Count
    1,021,992
    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 watery loving s bags. 'em.

  8. #8
    Veteran EVAY's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    7,563
    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 cons utional protection against illegal search and seizure means if it doesn't protect owned property. But clearly, I just don't understand.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •