Another New Medicaid Law

[dyne]

Congress just passed a new bill which will impose punitive new restrictions on the transfer of a home to children to avoid the Medicaid rules. Also the lookback period is being extended from 3 years to 5 years and the five years ends on the date the person enters a nursing home compared to to the old 3 year rule which ended on the date of transfer of the house. Enter: "Congress Passes Bill Containing Punitive New Medicaid Transfer... in Google for further details.

[JON]

Good for

Congress. I think this is long over due. Whoever said you get something for nothing??? We have created a black hole for the kids and grandkids. They do not not have the same chances as us. They have to deal the debt we created. I am 64 fiscal conservative and the only thing that we created is a great life for those employed by government and we let it happen. Now we have to pay correct amounts for medicare and social security has to have means testing and is not a retirement plan. That is a small start the hole is a lot bigger. Everyone should notice it by now.

[dyne]

Also a house with a value or cost of less than $500,000 is exempt.

[Bees Knees]

I haven't looked at the details of the new law, but if that is true, then it appears Congress has duplicated a law already on the books. According to Public Law 109-171 (the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005), Chapter 2 – Long-Term Care under Medicaid, Section 6011(a) says:

(a) LENGTHENING LOOK-BACK PERIOD FOR ALL DISPOSALS TO
5 YEARS.—Section 1917(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396p(c)(1)(B)(i)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or in the case
of any other disposal of assets made on or after the date of the
enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005’’ before ‘‘, 60 months’’.

Previous law had this provision at 3 years for the look-back period. Thus, it has already been a 5-year waiting period ever since that law was passed on February 8, 2006.

[MAJ]

And the answer is.............................................

So... Tell me -- Tough times..... call for tough responses right??
So why don't the Senators, Congressmen, Legislatures.. Why don't they chip in to their retirement? To their Health Care... To anything??

My local Congressmen has an office on a State Highway.. Which I am sure pays top rental dollar? WHY!?? Why not in a smaller office - off the main road. It's not like ANYONE is ever there anyway... Except a secretary I'm sure... Instead of paying these high rents they can get away with something less......

[JON]

I watched

part of the President's "facebook" questions and answers yesterday. Lots of interesting points and I think he did well, but he got on the union thing, but did say public employees have better salary, insurance and retirement than non public employees. That is the point they are negotiating with themselves and spending our money and not holding back on anything. At least someone finally admitted it, but they are no slowing anything down. The poor generations coming up, if we think they are going to fund what we left unfunded you are sure counting on them not to be very smart.

Public employees should not have a BETTER position...

[dyne]

Correction: A home with an equity of less than $500,000 is exempt.