Obamacare can seize your assets after you die

[kallend 1,649]

chutem

***It would appear that you don't believe control of diet, and therefore obesity and type II diabetes, have anything to do with health care.

Those appear to be personal choice issues to me. How do you propose that our health care system "control" these issues?

Let's see. The US is the only 1st world country that doesn't provide healthcare to all its citizens, and it has a very large fraction of its population that is unhealthy. So unhealthy that it has health outcomes such as life expectancy and infant mortality that are more typical of 2nd world nations than first world nations. And the obesity rates are highest in states where the fraction of uninsured is highest.

Hmmm - no possible connection there.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Bolas 5]

So the reason people are fat is because they don't/didn't have health insurance, not their lifestyle choices?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[chutem 0]

kallend

******It would appear that you don't believe control of diet, and therefore obesity and type II diabetes, have anything to do with health care.

Those appear to be personal choice issues to me. How do you propose that our health care system "control" these issues?

Let's see. The US is the only 1st world country that doesn't provide healthcare to all its citizens, and it has a very large fraction of its population that is unhealthy. So unhealthy that it has health outcomes such as life expectancy and infant mortality that are more typical of 2nd world nations than first world nations. And the obesity rates are highest in states where the fraction of uninsured is highest.

Hmmm - no possible connection there.

I'm aware of the position you put forth here.

Once again, how would propose that our healthcare system control these issues?

[quade 3]

chutem

Once again, how would propose that our healthcare system control these issues?

Systemically, the US could actually regulate what is and isn't considered "healthy" food. Right now the system is set up as a "let the buyer beware" system that allows manufacturers to say almost any stupid assed thing they want to as long as they aren't specifically stating a something "cures" a particular disease.

Look at the complete and total bullshit surrounding the diet, gluten free, fat free industry claims.

I realize that's "scary government regulation of the nanny state," but so what? At least it's honest.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[chutem 0]

That would be fine with me, but I don't think that will solve the problem. I believe that this is more of a willpower and instant gratification type problem.

Funny, the move more eat less diet is not nearly as popular as many fad diets. Is that because people do not understand that eating less and moving more will result in weight loss or is it a lack of willpower to make it happen?

[Bolas 5]

Or the government could just stop subsidizing the agricultural industry, specifically corn.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[quade 3]

Bolas

Or the government could just stop subsidizing the agricultural industry, specifically corn.

Agreed that would be helpful except for the "or just" part. More like, "and."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

chutem

I believe that this is more of a willpower and instant gratification type problem.

When I was young, did physical work for a living and on top of that also rode 300 miles a week on a bike, I used to think the same thing.

I don't believe for a minute that "willpower" is the answer today. I believe that food in America is consciously manipulated by processors to be as addictive as possible. Part of the way the processors do that is manipulating sugar, fat and salt to levels that would have been unheard of decades ago.

Yes, an individual might be able to forgo any of that, but as an entire country, I don't think that's possible at all.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[chutem 0]

I guess I'm giving "the public" to much credit, all one has to do is look around.

I don't want to have the peanut m&ms I'm chewing now to not be available or to be "reformulated" so as to be more healthy since some are not able to overcome their draw.

I'm with you on advertising and labeling being regulated to be up front. I have my doubts it will make a big difference as I believe most will continue to do things as they have been. I am leery of crossing the saving people from themselves line as some may not agree with the risks to health that I am willing to incur on myself.

[kallend 1,649]

Bolas

So the reason people are fat is because they don't/didn't have health insurance, not their lifestyle choices?

You might say that, but I didn't.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Croc 0]

It seems to me that if you owe money when you die the persons or entities you owe it to are entitled to it--not your heirs. Why is this debatable?

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

[regulator 0]

Let me get this straight.

I have been employed since I was 17 years old. I have held a job, been self sufficient, and when I was young...I never bought health insurance. Never needed to cause I wasn't sick. But now that obama is president and he wants a single payer system he creates obamacare with the only goal of this pinnacle legislation. To loose miserably and default to single payer. Seriously all of you liberals...do you honestly think that you are going to get 50% of the young invincibles to sign up for healthcare when they aren't sick...much less 100? Fuck no. So in order to foot the bill now they want to seize your assets after you die to pay for this piece of shit legislation. And you are totally fine with this? I have my own insurance. Lots of people don't need obamacare and have their own insurance but could lose their policies and have to resort to the exchanges...now they are left to foot the bill. So when those same people get their assets seized and their children inherit nothing that makes it ok? I honestly think the liberal utopia you dream of is just like the hunger games. Where the government has complete control over everyone and they choose who lives and dies. So tell me...is it hard to see when you have your head stuck up your ass or can you just keep going regardless of the direction?



Edit to add: I can see blue states doing this a lot more than red states. Which is why that cunt Wendy Davis needs to lose miserably...AND SHE WILL.

When they start seizing assets make sure the first peoples assets they seize come from the idiots that voted for obama in the first place.

[wmw999 2,149]

You don't need insurance because you're sick, you need healthcare because you're sick.

You need insurance because you might get sick, just as you need homeowner's because you might have a fire (well, either that or you self-insure when you own your home outright).

But not having health insurance is kind of like not having homeowner's. And expecting the county/city/state/whatever to pick up the tab if you end up needing it unexpectedly is kind of like expecting a bailout from the feds if you don't have homeowner's and then expect disaster recovery to pay for your house when there's a tornado.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[ChrisHoward 8]

chutem

Once again, how would propose that our healthcare system control these issues?

Why would the healthcare system need to control this? Is it too much of a stretch to imagine that wide spread access to healthcare would lead to a population better educated on healthcare issues. A population that would be more conscientious of their own health.

[regulator 0]

I understand the concept of why heathcare is necessary. However convincing a 22 year old with his first job that hasnt been sick since they ditched on senior skip day to take a large percentage of their first income and devote it to healthcare is assinine.

[kallend 1,649]

regulator

I understand the concept of why heathcare is necessary. However convincing a 22 year old with his first job that hasnt been sick since they ditched on senior skip day to take a large percentage of their first income and devote it to healthcare is assinine.

Not having health insurance is what's asinine. Convincing a 22 year old who **thinks** he is immortal is just an uphill battle, but not asinine.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

regulator

I understand the concept of why heathcare is necessary. However convincing a 22 year old with his first job that hasnt been sick since they ditched on senior skip day to take a large percentage of their first income and devote it to healthcare is assinine.

Is it assinine to force a 22 year old skydiver to spend a lot of money on a reserve parachute? Containers could be a lot simpler, cheaper, and smaller (=cooler) if they didn't have to make room for a second parachute. You can buy a lot of jumps for the cost of a reserve. Shouldn't jumpers be able to make a choice for themselves? If they are convinced that they will never make a mistake, always pack perfectly and deploy from a perfect body position, who is the FAA to force them to buy a reserve they think they will probably never use?

Maybe the cost calculus would be different if you could not just declare bankruptcy and walk away from your debts, sticking the rest of us with the bill. Perhaps your 22-year-old invincible would look at things differently if they were assured that they would have to pay the full bill, every penny, should they get sick/injured and chose not to be insured. Even if it meant that they had to use 80% of their income for the rest of their lives to do so.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[champu 1]

The cost calculus is screwed up indeed, as most people who have had a medical procedure know. What gets billed and what gets paid are complete madness.

Hospital: "Oh you had a CT scan? That'll be, uh... $10,000..."
Insurance Company: "Nah, we only pay hospitals $1,500 for that..."
Hospital: "Close enough, that works. Oh and there is the IV fluids we gave the patient, how about another $1,500?"
Insurance Company: "How about no?"

If individuals could pay hospital bills like insurance companies pay hospital bills, then I could see holding people to it if they chose not to purchase insurance.

[Bolas 5]

GeorgiaDon

Maybe the cost calculus would be different if you could not just declare bankruptcy and walk away from your debts, sticking the rest of us with the bill. Perhaps your 22-year-old invincible would look at things differently if they were assured that they would have to pay the full bill, every penny, should they get sick/injured and chose not to be insured. Even if it meant that they had to use 80% of their income for the rest of their lives to do so.

Don

So you're proposing use student loans for healthcare?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[chutem 0]

ChrisHoward

***Once again, how would propose that our healthcare system control these issues?

Why would the healthcare system need to control this? Is it too much of a stretch to imagine that wide spread access to healthcare would lead to a population better educated on healthcare issues. A population that would be more conscientious of their own health.

Do you really believe that the over weight people currently do not know that it is not healthy?

As for why the healthcare system needs to control this it was mentioned by another poster above me and I'm questioning how it could be done within the idea of personal freedom of choice.

The average life expectancy keeps being mentioned to justify claims of how bad healthcare is in the US. It is my opinion that much of this "problem" is created by people having the freedom and availability to make "less healthy" choices for themselves. I believe it relates to the same thought process and failure to look to the future exhibited by folks who make a good income but can not save for their future.

Same thing with tobbaco use, people start smoking knowing full well it will most likely take years off their life.

[Croc 0]

Apparently you did not read my post, so I will repeat it. If you owe money and you die with assets, those assets belong to your creditors until they are paid; what is left belongs to your heirs. Do you disagree with that?


I did not vote for Obama, by the way.

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

[regulator 0]

I completely understand what you are inferring and I agree with what you said and apologize for pointed words, however...where does one draw the line?

If a person goes out gambling...they knew the risks and they lose all their money...then get a loan and lose that...the guy will either become homeless or get beat up or killed by the people that loaned him money. Cause and Action.

If a person risks their money on wall street and loses everything...same type of cause and action.

But if a person lives their lives paying their debts and the only supposed debt they had when they died was to help foot the bill for a law that was never going to work in the first place...well that doesnt seem fair.

[Croc 0]

Perhaps I don't understand the example in your original post. As far as I can tell this woman, who owns her own house and can easily get a reverse mortgage to pay for health insurance, would rather go on welfare so she can leave her assets to her children. If this is the case I will tell you that I have no interest at all in continuing to work (I am older than she is ) and pay taxes so that her children can inherit her assets. Again, the heirs get what is left after the creditors, including the government, should you go on welfare, get what is owed them.
Are the middle class taxpayers getting screwed? Of course! 'Twas ever thus, my friend! I am debt free now, and with any luck I'll die that way. But if I need to spend everything I have to avoid going on the dole, I will. Then, if I need assistance, thank God I live in a country where I am likely to get it.

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

[Southern_Man 0]

So, I did some research in my state, since I wasn't really familiar with all of this. The only expenses that the states are required to recover are those for long term care--nursing home. They are allowed to recover all expenses after age 55 but many states only go after the nursing home costs. If this is your state then you can get around that by having your own long term care insurance. Asset recovery usually has various exemptions (especially for homes). It is not much for helping defray the actual state costs--In VA I believe a typical case yielded a recovery of .8% of the Medicaid costs expended. Of course even in those states that aggressively go after estates it can be avoided with some advanced planning.

Anyway, if this is a concern for people they should know what their particular state law says. Medicaid is a federal program administered at the state level so rules differ in every state.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[jclalor 12]

regulator

I completely understand what you are inferring and I agree with what you said and apologize for pointed words, however...where does one draw the line?

If a person goes out gambling...they knew the risks and they lose all their money...then get a loan and lose that...the guy will either become homeless or get beat up or killed by the people that loaned him money. Cause and Action.

If a person risks their money on wall street and loses everything...same type of cause and action.

But if a person lives their lives paying their debts and the only supposed debt they had when they died was to help foot the bill for a law that was never going to work in the first place...well that doesnt seem fair.

"supposed debt" what kind of debt do you suppose that is? Why should a person not be responsible for all debt they incur? I don't want to pay for it, or do you suppose that medical debt just disappears?

Doesn't seem fair? How old are you? You should have learned about life and fairness long ago. Although I don't know what's not fair about not being able to mooch off the tax-payers.