Clinton 1993 Law: Death Debt – Confiscation of Medicaid Recipient Property

“What the hell does ObamaCare have to do with property seizures?” By now you know that most of the enrollees in ObamaCare have signed up for the Medicaid program, which means these enrollees pay nothing for health care. Remember when Senator Rand Paul tried to sign-up his son for an ObamaCare exchange policy, and the son was automatically put on Medicaid? Apparently Medicaid recipients bring big benefits to the power structure of the federal government. If you think the short snippet that you read below will not happen, be sure to visit Asylum Watch and see what the state of Oregon has done.


In more than half the states, ObamaCare comes with an expansion of Medicaid. A 1993 federal law gives the states the right to recoup the costs of Medicaid by seizing the property of Medicaid recipients who have passed away. Source: Asylum Watch

If you cannot pay for your healthcare, and The People have to pick-up your tab, why wouldn’t we put a lien on property, or garnishee future wages of those receiving unemployment benefits, or food stamps, until the debt is repaid to The People, even if only small amounts at a time? There’s a good answer to that. Liens and garnishees are against living, breathing voters, but the dead Medicaid patient can’t vote. Here’s another question: if the value of the property seized by the government exceeds the outlay of Medicaid expense, is the overpayment given back to survivors?

As Jim at Asylum Watch says, “what we do not know, can indeed, hurt us.”

Tom Gialanella, 56, was shocked to find out he qualified for Medicaid under ObamaCare. The Bothell, Wash., resident had been able to retire early years ago, owns his home outright in a pricey Seattle suburb and is living off his investments.

He wanted no part of the government’s so-called free health care. “It’s supposed to be a safety net program. It’s not supposed to be for someone who has assets who can pay the bill,” he said.

And after reading the fine print, Gialanella had another reason to flee Medicaid — the potential death debt.

Though many may not realize it, states are allowed to recover the cost of health care after someone’s death by seizing their assets. It applies to Medicaid recipients who are between the ages of 55 and 64. The law has been in place since 1993, when Congress realized states were going broke over rising Medicaid expenses. Source: Fox News

AND look at this from Fox article linked above:

A Washington state couple in their early 60’s actually got married recently so their combined income would keep them out of Medicaid and allow them to purchase a plan on the health exchange. Filing as individuals, their incomes had been low enough that they qualified for Medicaid.

They married primarily because Sophia Prins owns a home and wants to will it to her children without any worry that the government will attach a lien for the cost of her medical care.

In 2004, California collected $44.6 million “through estate recovery,” so yes, some Medicaid patients have assets.

I remember the case of my aunt and uncle who were not able to have children. After my aunt died, and my uncle was in his advanced 80s, with no income except his small social security check, he had a stroke, even though he had always taken good care of his health. He ate right, never smoked and didn’t drink. He worked hard and was never on welfare. After the stroke, he was diagnosed with diabetes. He sold everything he had, which was little, but included a house. That financed his stay in a nursing home for a while. When that money was gone, he had to go on welfare. Then his leg was amputated. It took him a long time to die. He was of the greatest generation and that was his fate. He had done everything he could to do the right thing.

I’m torn on this issue. I believe if we have assets we should pay our debts, but as is always the case, many do not have assets and they don’t pay taxes either. Those who do, in the instance of Medicaid, pay the debts of those who do not.

Linked at BadBlueuncensored news 24/7, read it here.

Linked at My Daily Musings Article Read – thank you!

Linked at Grumpy Opinions – read what Chicago blacks had to say about the State of the Union. They are fed up with the rhetoric, and one point made? What good is raise in minimum wage when you don’t have a job (and it doesn’t kick in until 2015). Read it here.

If you would like to receive Maggie’s Notebook daily posts direct to your inbox, no ads, no spam, EVER, enter your email address in the box below.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 957 other subscribers

  • Pingback: Clinton 1993 Law: Death Debt – Confiscation of Medicaid Recipient Property ::: Fast Forward to Obamacare | CITIZENS MILITIA OF MISSISSIPPI()

  • PA has had this in place for years. Age is not a factor. One of the most neglected insurance coverages that we should all have is long term care. It is relatively inexpensive if one buys it while in good health. That said, the affordable care act is just not as affordable as they claim. What a surprise.

    • Bunkerville, I agree about long-term care. I’m just listening to clips of people talking about their biggest concerns and some of the facts of what people are facing with help are just staggering.

  • Pingback: Clinton 1993 Law: Death Debt – Confiscation of Medicaid Recipient Property | Grumpy Opinions()

  • Paul Magel

    This should be no surprise to anyone. Governments have never created wealth and only exist by consuming the wealth of the productive. If a government program boasts about its generous benefits, it is implied that those benefits have been (or will be) paid for by those that are targeted as having the means to do so. Since the dead are no longer consumers, their estates are free game as viewed by Progressive politicians.

    What our government has failed to recognize is that a large part of the American dream was to give our children that which we did not have ourselves as we grew up. Taking away our right to pass on the fruits of our labors to our children violates the basic principals of the Unites States Constitution. This sacred document states clearly in the preamble that we formed this government to secure the blessings of liberty for “ourselves and our posterity”. That liberty, by any reasonable measure, must include the freedom to have our children build upon the wealth we created through inheritance.

    As the Obamacare fight rages on Democrats love to point out that Social Security and Medicare were opposed at first but people will fight tooth and nail to keep those programs now. That is not a sign of acceptance. That is merely a sign that government has already seized so much of our earnings to fund these leviathan programs that people simply demand that it be returned as promised. Would Social Security or Medicare have been passed if people knew how these programs would become tools of the left for “social justice” income redistribution or that the required payments into these programs would vastly exceed what was promised at their inception? Would these programs be in demand if people knew the hidden details of property seizure as the funds bleed out to provide benefits for prisoners and illegal immigrants?

    People must learn to investigate all of these government programs for themselves just as they would read the fine print of any other contract they enter into. Perhaps then the support for massive government bureaucracies would wane and politicians would no longer see a benefit in using them as a bribe for votes.

  • Pingback: My Article Read (1-28-2014) | My Daily Musing()