Thursday, December 26, 2013

CNN/TIME: Worst Congress Ever?

Poll: This Is The Worst Congress Ever

The majority of respondents agree it's a 'do-nothing' Congress.

A majority of Americans agree: This is the worst Congress ever.

That’s according to a new CNN poll out Thursday, which found two-thirds of Americans survey agreeing that the current congress is the worst in their lifetime. Nearly three-quarters of respondents — rich and poor, young and old, Democrats and Republicans — agreed this is a “do-nothing” Congress.

Fewer than 60 bills have been signed into law this year, the first year of the 113th Congress ahead of what’s likely to be an even slower 2014, with lawmakers focused on the midterm elections. 

At that pace, this Congress is on track to be the least productive in at least 40 years.
[CNN]

Read more: Congress: CNN Poll Says This Is The Worst One Ever | TIME.com http://swampland.time.com/2013/12/26/poll-this-is-the-worst-congress-ever/#ixzz2oboA7v3X

Now you may better understand why we are undertaking the burden of a Constitutional Campaign for US Representative in Las Vegas District 1.

Join our campaign of Constitutional Government for Justice, Life, Liberty, Peace and Prosperity now


Monday, December 23, 2013

Civilization, Climate and Government

Raymond Wheeler's LT Civilization Climate Cycles

Because people are affected by weather, the long-term cycles of weather produce similar patterns of behavior and events in history during the same phases of the century-long weather cycle.

"Old civilizations collapse and new civilizations are born on the tide of climatic
change. The turning points occur when cold-dry times reach their maximum severity (1999).

The 100-year weather cycle and its phases are not of precisely equal duration.

The cycle can contract to 70 years or expand to 120.

The cycle is divided into a warm and a cold phase, each of which has a wet and dry period.

The phases are: (1) Cold-Dry, (2) Warm-Wet, (3) Warm-Dry, and (4) Cold-Wet.

We were in a cold-dry phase, which prevailed until about 2000 A.D.

Dr. Wheeler designed a "clock" of the cycles of Cold, Drought, and Civil War.

The 170-year Cycle of Civil War and the 510-year Cycle of Drought intersected in 1999, when another engulfing crisis began.

The next great shift of power is to the East and is exemplified by the ascendancy of China, Japan, and Russia.

We were up to 2000 in the 27th cold-dry phase of the 100-year weather cycle since 540 BC, and the first such since the 1800s.

This was the fifth --- and coldest --- phase of the 6th 500-year cycle of weather determined by Dr. Wheeler.

We reached the climax of a 1,000-year weather cycle that will produce record high temperatures during the first half of the 21st century.

Furthermore, according to Dr. Wheeler, there are possible indications that we are in a period of "reversal" of the alternate 1,000-year weather cycle, in which the evolution of humanity will take a leap forward.

"The problem is to expand prosperity by voluntary means, preserving free market institutions and laws protecting liberty and peace while the expansion process is being achieved.

Now, during the next few decades, this new and powerful class of voters, the working, must, in a sense, be absorbed into the middle class and be given middle-class concepts of free enterprise government.

While assuming greater responsibility, they must experience success in helping government work, or else, when it turns warm again and centralizing trends are under way once more, there will be nothing but stagnation and ruin ahead.

If this happens, the next warm period in 2000 will produce a despotism as catastrophic for modern civilizations of Greek and Roman Empires.

"A new and probably different series of species of similar general form will begin soon, and thus the Earth is about to begin a new phase of history.

"Sometimes there is a cold break in a warm period (but not a true cold phase), usually at the peak of the sunspot cycle. Then the general energy level of the populace begins to rise, and civil wars may erupt. A reformed government with new leadership then comes to power...

http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-research-weather/weather-wheeler.shtml

For freedom [peace and prosperity], it is essential that we rely on the political mechanism as little as possible, and on the free market mechanism as much as possible. 


Now you may better understand why we are undertaking the burden of a Constitutional Campaign for US Representative in Las Vegas District 1.

Join our campaign of Constitutional Government for Justice, Life, Liberty, Peace and Prosperity now

Sunday, December 22, 2013

Mentor Milton Friedman on the Proper Role of Government

Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman became a mentor through correspondence and his considerable works on the free market and society:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrgckWNgNgE 9:57

For freedom [and prosperity], it is essential that we rely on the political mechanism as little as possible, and on the free market mechanism as much as possible. 

Now you may better understand why we are undertaking the burden of a Constitutional Campaign for US Representative in Las Vegas District 1.

Join our campaign of Constitutional Government for Justice, Life, Liberty, Peace and Prosperity now

0Care and Our Constitution

It is worth noting the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." (PPACA is a misnomer and oxymoron if ever there were).

CJSCOTUS and the divided 5-4 majority ruled Congress has the authority to control and create Federal Taxes and individual mandates on health care. Of course they did. What government employee votes for their paycut to benefit middle class taxpayers?

Obviously not all Americans agree with the CJSCOTUS. One in 1961 who did not agree became President over a Federal government that cut red tape and taxes and grew the economy over 8%:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYrlDlrLDSQ 11:46

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/gross-domestic-product-charts 

A Nobel Laureate warned against socialized medicine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPADFNKDhGM 9:38

Those who supported PPACA are beginning to wonder about it after they, their family and friends lost their healthcare and doctors because of PPACA.

Failed Healthcare.gov failed to enroll even a million policyholders, despite repeated Presidential claims and exaggerations.

PPACA was passed in March 2010 by an all Democrat Partisan vote that ignored calls coming into Congress as high as 100:1 opposed to PPACA as unconstitutional and unsound.

PPACA was deliberately partially implemented until after the 2012 Presidential elections. 

Five million Americans lost healthcare policies in 2013 as a result of PPACA implementation of the January 2014 PPACA deadline law that the President exempted and overruled on repeated occasions, violating Constitutional separation of powers. 

More and more employees lost work because of PPACA law that requires anyone working more than 30 hours a week to have Healthcare.

Many more employed Americans may lose healthcare after the 2014 election, when corporations have the option to drop coverage and dump employees onto an already compromised Medicaid PPACA, with all its history of fraud, inefficiencies and bureaucratic inhumanities.

More and more doctors refuse Medicaid patients. They retire to escape PPACA or go into concierge practices where they charge $250 per person to see 1000 patients a year without third party costs and red tape.

It is quite clear that if healthcare rationing (unelected and unaccountable death panels) by PPACA does not deny medical services, it will exacerbate the already acute shortage of primary care physicians.

There is no economic way for additional healthcare coverage and enrollments to cost less, as the President and his party claimed. Government has no proven track record of eliminating corruption, fraud and waste in government programs. There is no magic Federal wand to stop 9% consumer cost inflation short of destroying healthcare:

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data

It is interesting to note that the very areas of the most healthcare inflation are areas with the most government involvement:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CUUR0000SEMD?cid=32419

One underappreciated aspect of PPACA is that many enrollees who receive subsidies (up to 80% of enrollees), do not understand they may be signing over all their assets and heirs' rights for MediCaid Federal and State collection, since the increased MediCaid burden and Tax under PPACA does not make Medicaid solvent.

In other words, DC government deliberately kicked yet another can down the road, beside the $17 Trillion in US National Debt, $126 Trillion in US Unfunded Liabilities and $240 Trillion in unregulated bank derivatives, 81% of them interest rate sensitive:

http://usdebtclock.org

http://www.occ.gov/topics/capital-markets/financial-markets/trading/derivatives/dq313.pdf

Most people with common sense understand a Federal debt burden of $383 Trillion that is 24 times the size of the economy will not be repaid any time soon. 

Unless and until government spending is cut, with liberty restored to grow the economy in the private sector by cutting red tape and taxes, the bloated government leviathan will continue to grow by devouring productive enterprise and prosperity.

For the rest of the PPACA story, a retired Constitutional Attorney and Instructor read all 2000+ pages of the 2009 PPACA House Bill 3200 which created 20 new taxes and 16,000 new IRS agents.

Here are his carefully considered conclusions:

The Truth About the Health Care Bills - 

Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009.
I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. 

I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. 

What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. 

The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. 

All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. 

Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. 

In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. 

Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. 

If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. 

The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.

The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! 

I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, in direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. 

The 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. 

It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. 

However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out of the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law. 

It doesn’t stop there though.

The 9th Amendment provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;

The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 

Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea.

This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. 

Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.” 

If I were a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. 

If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. 

There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly (First published in June 2012)
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas

Now you may better understand why we are undertaking the burden of a Constitutional Campaign for US Representative in Las Vegas District 1.

Join our campaign of Constitutional Government for Justice, Life, Liberty, Peace and Prosperity now

 

Saturday, December 21, 2013

RC In the News as Ron Paul Endorsed Republican who became Libertarian

http://weare1776.org/?s=richard+charles



Is it Time for Honesty in Government?

Is it Time for Honesty in Government?

By: Richard Charles, 2014 Republican Congressional Candidate, We Are 1776   “The art of war is deception and the su ...
Read More »




Who is Really a Citizen?

Who is Really a Citizen?

By: Richard Charles, 2014 Republican Congressional Candidate, We Are 1776 American citizens are expected by Uncle Sam to ...
Read More »

Immigration Reform or Law Enforcement?


By: Richard Charles, 2014 Republican Congressional Candidate, We Are 1776 In 2010 the Internal Revenue Services paid $4 ...
Read More »




Candidates Corner: Common Core or Excellence in Education?

Candidates Corner: Common Core or Excellence in Education?

By: Richard Charles, 2014 Republican Congressional Candidate, We Are 1776 When I was a high school student praying and w ...
Read More »




Candidates Corner: The 1913 Federal Reserve Currency Charter- Renew or Repeal?

Candidates Corner: The 1913 Federal Reserve Currency Charter- Renew or Repeal?

By: Richard Charles, 2014 Republican Congressional Candidate, We Are 1776 It is a generally proven principle in economic ...
Read More »




Candidate Corner: Should We End the Income Tax for A Better Economy and Jobs?

Candidate Corner: Should We End the Income Tax for A Better Economy and Jobs?

 Candidate Corner: A We Are 1776 Column By Richard Charles, 2014 Republican congressional candidate With the Budget debt ...
Read More »




Why I Am a Candidate for Congress, and You Can Be Too

Why I Am a Candidate for Congress, and You Can Be Too

Candidate Corner: A We Are 1776 Column By Richard Charles, 2014 Republican congressional candidate In 1990 I dropped out ...
Read More »






Why I Am a Candidate for Congress, and You Can Be Too 

About We Are 1776

Founded by Alec Scheer, We Are 1776 is a pro-freedom public policy journal dedicated to integrity, intellectual commentary, and bringing a new, youthful face to the political debate. We are unconventional,  bringing to you nothing short of against-the-grain news.
We Are 1776 is a public-policy venture established and run by multiple college aged students whom have been heavily involved in public policy advocacy. 

Our goal at WA6 is to look behind the grandeur that emanates from the legislature and analyze policy in a manner that preserves taxpayer capital and individual freedom. 

We plan to eventually form WA6 as a public policy firm, though, for right now, we are using this website to document our work in the public policy field. 

During the early stages of creating our business plan, we decided that we’d not only utilize this website to document our work, but to, in essence, form an online policy journal.

WA6 currently operates in seven states and one district: California, Washington State, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Connecticut, Florida, Utah and the District of Columbia. 

Additionally, we’re pleased to have Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-Twin Peaks, CA) and Representative David Taylor (R-Moxee, WA State) contributing weekly columns. 

We’re also indebted to our journalists, all of whom are working for WA6 on a volunteer basis, making up our objective writing team (reporting on legislation and public policy in their state in an objective manner): Ken Gillespie (CA), Cory Dohm (CT), Mike Gabrieli (PA), Sarah Neudaum (PA), Sai Nimmagadda (WA State), Ryan Sabot (Washington D.C.), Ryan Bell (Florida), and Michael Gray (VA). 

We also owe a “thank you” to Mikeal Thalen, a journalist for the Examiner, Ezra Van Auken from Spread Liberty News, and the Tenth Amendment Center Update, for allowing us to aggregate and post their work.

For those of you who are not so much about public policy, but all about plain-and-simple free-market economics, entrepreneurship, and business, we are rolling out The Atlas Business Journal in a few weeks. 

The Atlas Business Journal is a blog that will feature commentary on business initiatives and financial reports around the nation, and how those reports affect you.

We Are 1776 is constantly updated and edited by its Managing Partners and Editors Alec Sheer, Marc Connuck, Sri Nimmagadda, and Sai Nimmagadda.

The Team

Editor-in-Chief: Alec Scheer
Managing Editors/ Partners: Marc Connuck, Sri Nimmagadda, and Sai Nimmagadda.
Alec Sheer is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of We Are 1776. His interests include public policy, finance, and business economics. While previously the Senior Staff Writer for the Libertarian Party of Washington, Alec now focuses on overseeing the business practices and working on the strategic plan for We Are 1776. He currently resides in Sacramento, California, where he is an intern-aide for Congressman Tim Donnelly and a strategist for Manuel Martin’s assembly campaign.
Marc Connuck is a Managing Partner for We Are 1776. His interests include public policy, business, and economics in a practical setting. While heavily involved with the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania, he is going to be attending the University of Pittsburgh and hopes to one day pursue legal studies.
Sri Nimmagadda is an active libertarian activist and Managing Partner/ Editor for We Are 1776. Sri Nimmagadda is passionate about economic theory and its application in academic and professional settings. Sri Nimmagadda also serves as the Senior Staff Writer for the Libertarian Party of Washington where he manages a team of writers to work on policy analysis, Founder and CEO of EdSuccess Consulting Group, a collective of students dedicated to promoting academic growth in Washington state. At We Are 1776, Sri is primarily focused on the long-term strategic plan, social media relations, and writing quality.
Sai Nimmagadda is a Managing Partner/ Editor for We Are 1776, where he handles the writing quality and manages the writers. Sai Nimmagadda is also an intern for the City of Mill Creek, where he works finance on a public works project, a volunteer for EdSuccess, and a contributor to the Libertarian Party of Washington.

http://weare1776.org/about-us/ 

Join our campaign of Constitutional Government for Justice, Life, Liberty, Peace and Prosperity now
 

Friday, December 20, 2013

0Care ~ What the Bleep

Obamacare website down days before deadline

http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/20/news/economy/obamacare-website/

Hat Tip Falcon
Prepare to laugh at the truth


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbFrAAV3-o 1:40

IBD Editorials


ObamaCare Found To Restrict Where You Live And Travel


Posted 12/18/2013 06:54 PM ET

Freedom: It's bad enough that the president's health insurance takeover costs more, breaks his pledge of letting you keep your plan and diminishes choice. It actually restricts your travels too.

'We have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in." Those words from President John F. Kennedy in June 1963, standing at the Berlin Wall, neatly illustrated the moral superiority of the free West over the Soviet bloc.
But Americans are now about to find themselves grappling with their own bureaucratic Berlin Wall. The American Thinker's Stella Paul has exposed the virtually unnoticed fact that within the ObamaCare exchanges so many Americans are being forced into, "most plans only provide local medical coverage."
Paul warns this will have "a profound impact on the real-estate market, particularly the second home sector, and on the travel business." She interviewed one Connecticut retiree whose health required having a winter home in South Carolina. Her $450-per-month, $2,500 deductible, no co-pay Blue Cross policy that had worked well in both states was suddenly canceled.
The new policy she was offered under ObamaCare was twice as expensive, with a deductible costing $1,000 more, and no out-of-network coverage.
Having had a surgery at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, out-of-network coverage was a must. And she found it. "It's $900 a month," she told Paul, "with a $7,000 deductible and a co-pay on everything. Basically, it's catastrophic insurance, and I'll be paying my South Carolina doctors out of pocket."
A prominent New York insurance broker pointed out that most of the policies offered on the ObamaCare exchanges are not national networks, so "if you need routine medical services, they will not be covered when you leave your local area," as they were before.
Travel health insurance, unfortunately, only covers emergencies. So, the broker told Paul, "a large portion of the population will have their insurance as a consideration for their mobility, which they never had before."
Imagine having to take all this into account in making decisions about where in America you want to live.
And as Paul asks, "With Americans no longer able to receive routine medical services when they travel, will they start showing up in emergency rooms for sore throats and backaches? And how will these new throngs of patients affect the waiting time of people with genuine medical emergencies?"
Meet the latest unpleasant ObamaCare surprise, right on the heels of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius this week finally admitting that, contrary to Obama's endlessly repeated promise, "there are some individuals who may be looking at increases" in premiums.
Unrestricted movement is a birthright of our liberty. Even socialized medicine's harshest opponents didn't suspect Washington would trample that freedom.

http://news.investors.com/print/ibd-editorials-obama-care/121813-683475-obamacare-interferes-with-residential-and-travel-liberties.aspx

State Can Seize Your Assets to Pay For Care After You’re Forced Into Medicaid by Obamacare - See more at: http://healthydebates.com/state-can-seize-assets-pay-care-youre-forced-medicaid-obamacare/#sthash.HkMvCd1V.dpuf
(Mary Katharine Ham) My, this is an unpleasant consequence of Obamacare. I’m not going to call it unintended because in its current form, it potentially earns a bunch of money for states, so I’m pretty sure that’s intentional. What I think is unintentional is anyone noticing this is what they’re up to.
But the Seattle Times noticed:
It wasn’t the moonlight, holiday-season euphoria or family pressure that made Sophia Prins and Gary Balhorn, both 62, suddenly decide to get married.
It was the fine print.
As fine print is wont to do, it had buried itself in a long form — Balhorn’s application for free health insurance through the expanded state Medicaid program. As the paperwork lay on the dining-room table in Port Townsend, Prins began reading.
She was shocked: If you’re 55 or over, Medicaid can come back after you’re dead and bill your estate for ordinary health-care expenses.
The way Prins saw it, that meant health insurance via Medicaid is hardly “free” for Washington residents 55 or older. It’s a loan, one whose payback requirements aren’t well advertised. And it penalizes people who, despite having a low income, have managed to keep a home or some savings they hope to pass to heirs, Prins said.
So, here’s the deal. There used to be a provision whereby the state could recuperate funds spent on a Medicaid patient post-55 years old from whatever assets he owned. So, a low-income individual in nursing home care after age 55 might pass away and his kids would find out the family home or car of whatever he had to his name had to be bought back from the state if they wanted it. It’s called estate recovery, and sounds pretty shady if it’s not boldly advertised as the terms for Medicaid enrollment, which is most definitely is not.
Before the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, there weren’t that many people in Medicaid who had much in the way of assets for seizing. But now that Medicaid enrollment requirements have been relaxed, more people with assets but low income are joining the program or being forced into it. For instance, a couple in their 50s who, say, retired early after losing jobs in the bad economy may have assets but show a very low income. Under Obamacare, if their income is low enough to qualify for Medicaid, they must enroll in Medicaid unless they want to buy totally unsubsidized coverage in the now-inflated individual market. As teh Times notes, this is no small difference:
People cannot receive a tax credit to subsidize their purchase of a private health plan if their income qualifies them for Medicaid, said Bethany Frey, spokeswoman for the Washington Health Benefit Exchange.
But they could buy a health plan without a tax credit, she added.
For someone age 55 to 64 at the Medicaid-income level — below $15,856 a year — it’s quite a jump from free Medicaid health insurance to an unsubsidized individual plan. Premiums in King County for an age 60 non-tobacco user for the most modest plan run from $451 to $859 per month.
The couple in the Times story was able to marry, combine their incomes, and get out of the Medicaid trap. Others will not be so lucky, and may not even read the fine print:
Prins, an artist, and Balhorn, a retired fisherman-turned-tango instructor, separately qualified for health insurance through Medicaid based on their sole incomes.
But if they were married, they calculated, they could “just squeak by” with enough income to qualify for a subsidized health plan — and avoid any encumbrance on the home they hope to leave to Prins’ two sons.
For no one else in the world is it a-okay to give low-income people a loan that might endanger their family’s assets and not even clearly inform them they’re getting a loan.
This Daily Kos diarist has a nice write-up (I know) on the toll this could take on lower and middle-class people looking for relief and getting what amounts to a surprise predatory loan instead:
We haven’t had lots of people younger than 65 on Medicaid, because in most states simply earning less than the Federal Poverty Level did not qualify one for Medicaid.
And we haven’t had many people with lots of assets on Medicaid, because in most places you have to have less than around $2400 to your name before Medicaid will cover you. You can keep your house and your car, but Medicaid reserves the right to put liens on them and take them when you die.
But now we have the Affordable Care Act, and its expectation that everyone in the lower tier of income will end up in the Medicaid system. To accomplish this, they have dropped the asset test. So now we will have lots of people ages 55-64, who have assets but not a lot of income right now, for whatever reason, on Medicaid.
The kicker of it is, if you make the right amount to qualify for a subsidized health insurance plan, your costs are going to be shared and subsidized by the government. But if you go on Medicaid, you owe the entire amount that Medicaid spends on you from the day you turn 55…
How will this play out? No one knows, as far as I can tell. But it is easy to see how this could become a real problem. If someone is low income and goes on Medicaid, will Medicaid put a lien on their house? If they need to sell their house and move, will they then lose all their equity in paying off the lien? Will people get hit with bills and liens for many thousands of dollars, even if they were healthy and hardly ever went to the doctor?
The fact that this is being treated with seriousness at Kos is an indication of how large a liability it could be for this government program. Washington is scrambling to change the law. No doubt other states will start looking at their implementation of this part of Obamacare. But there will be people caught unaware that their houses effectively belong to the government because the government forced them into Medicaid coverage. You’re welcome!
- See more at: http://healthydebates.com/state-can-seize-assets-pay-care-youre-forced-medicaid-obamacare/#sthash.HkMvCd1V.dpuf

State Can Seize Your Assets to Pay For Care After You’re Forced Into Medicaid by Obamacare

Written by | December 17, 2013 | Comments Off
Obamacare
Obamacare
 654 564
 9Reddit0 63
(Mary Katharine Ham) My, this is an unpleasant consequence of Obamacare. I’m not going to call it unintended because in its current form, it potentially earns a bunch of money for states, so I’m pretty sure that’s intentional. What I think is unintentional is anyone noticing this is what they’re up to.
But the Seattle Times noticed:
It wasn’t the moonlight, holiday-season euphoria or family pressure that made Sophia Prins and Gary Balhorn, both 62, suddenly decide to get married.
It was the fine print.
As fine print is wont to do, it had buried itself in a long form — Balhorn’s application for free health insurance through the expanded state Medicaid program. As the paperwork lay on the dining-room table in Port Townsend, Prins began reading.
She was shocked: If you’re 55 or over, Medicaid can come back after you’re dead and bill your estate for ordinary health-care expenses.
The way Prins saw it, that meant health insurance via Medicaid is hardly “free” for Washington residents 55 or older. It’s a loan, one whose payback requirements aren’t well advertised. And it penalizes people who, despite having a low income, have managed to keep a home or some savings they hope to pass to heirs, Prins said.
So, here’s the deal. There used to be a provision whereby the state could recuperate funds spent on a Medicaid patient post-55 years old from whatever assets he owned. So, a low-income individual in nursing home care after age 55 might pass away and his kids would find out the family home or car of whatever he had to his name had to be bought back from the state if they wanted it. It’s called estate recovery, and sounds pretty shady if it’s not boldly advertised as the terms for Medicaid enrollment, which is most definitely is not.
Before the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, there weren’t that many people in Medicaid who had much in the way of assets for seizing. But now that Medicaid enrollment requirements have been relaxed, more people with assets but low income are joining the program or being forced into it. For instance, a couple in their 50s who, say, retired early after losing jobs in the bad economy may have assets but show a very low income. Under Obamacare, if their income is low enough to qualify for Medicaid, they must enroll in Medicaid unless they want to buy totally unsubsidized coverage in the now-inflated individual market. As teh Times notes, this is no small difference:
People cannot receive a tax credit to subsidize their purchase of a private health plan if their income qualifies them for Medicaid, said Bethany Frey, spokeswoman for the Washington Health Benefit Exchange.
But they could buy a health plan without a tax credit, she added.
For someone age 55 to 64 at the Medicaid-income level — below $15,856 a year — it’s quite a jump from free Medicaid health insurance to an unsubsidized individual plan. Premiums in King County for an age 60 non-tobacco user for the most modest plan run from $451 to $859 per month.
The couple in the Times story was able to marry, combine their incomes, and get out of the Medicaid trap. Others will not be so lucky, and may not even read the fine print:
Prins, an artist, and Balhorn, a retired fisherman-turned-tango instructor, separately qualified for health insurance through Medicaid based on their sole incomes.
But if they were married, they calculated, they could “just squeak by” with enough income to qualify for a subsidized health plan — and avoid any encumbrance on the home they hope to leave to Prins’ two sons.
For no one else in the world is it a-okay to give low-income people a loan that might endanger their family’s assets and not even clearly inform them they’re getting a loan.
This Daily Kos diarist has a nice write-up (I know) on the toll this could take on lower and middle-class people looking for relief and getting what amounts to a surprise predatory loan instead:
We haven’t had lots of people younger than 65 on Medicaid, because in most states simply earning less than the Federal Poverty Level did not qualify one for Medicaid.
And we haven’t had many people with lots of assets on Medicaid, because in most places you have to have less than around $2400 to your name before Medicaid will cover you. You can keep your house and your car, but Medicaid reserves the right to put liens on them and take them when you die.
But now we have the Affordable Care Act, and its expectation that everyone in the lower tier of income will end up in the Medicaid system. To accomplish this, they have dropped the asset test. So now we will have lots of people ages 55-64, who have assets but not a lot of income right now, for whatever reason, on Medicaid.
The kicker of it is, if you make the right amount to qualify for a subsidized health insurance plan, your costs are going to be shared and subsidized by the government. But if you go on Medicaid, you owe the entire amount that Medicaid spends on you from the day you turn 55…
How will this play out? No one knows, as far as I can tell. But it is easy to see how this could become a real problem. If someone is low income and goes on Medicaid, will Medicaid put a lien on their house? If they need to sell their house and move, will they then lose all their equity in paying off the lien? Will people get hit with bills and liens for many thousands of dollars, even if they were healthy and hardly ever went to the doctor?
The fact that this is being treated with seriousness at Kos is an indication of how large a liability it could be for this government program. Washington is scrambling to change the law. No doubt other states will start looking at their implementation of this part of Obamacare. But there will be people caught unaware that their houses effectively belong to the government because the government forced them into Medicaid coverage. You’re welcome!
- See more at: http://healthydebates.com/state-can-seize-assets-pay-care-youre-forced-medicaid-obamacare/#sthash.HkMvCd1V.dpuf

State Can Seize Your Assets to Pay For Care After You’re Forced Into Medicaid by Obamacare

Written by | December 17, 2013 | Comments Off
Obamacare
Obamacare
 654 564
 9Reddit0 63
(Mary Katharine Ham) My, this is an unpleasant consequence of Obamacare. I’m not going to call it unintended because in its current form, it potentially earns a bunch of money for states, so I’m pretty sure that’s intentional. What I think is unintentional is anyone noticing this is what they’re up to.
But the Seattle Times noticed:
It wasn’t the moonlight, holiday-season euphoria or family pressure that made Sophia Prins and Gary Balhorn, both 62, suddenly decide to get married.
It was the fine print.
As fine print is wont to do, it had buried itself in a long form — Balhorn’s application for free health insurance through the expanded state Medicaid program. As the paperwork lay on the dining-room table in Port Townsend, Prins began reading.
She was shocked: If you’re 55 or over, Medicaid can come back after you’re dead and bill your estate for ordinary health-care expenses.
The way Prins saw it, that meant health insurance via Medicaid is hardly “free” for Washington residents 55 or older. It’s a loan, one whose payback requirements aren’t well advertised. And it penalizes people who, despite having a low income, have managed to keep a home or some savings they hope to pass to heirs, Prins said.
So, here’s the deal. There used to be a provision whereby the state could recuperate funds spent on a Medicaid patient post-55 years old from whatever assets he owned. So, a low-income individual in nursing home care after age 55 might pass away and his kids would find out the family home or car of whatever he had to his name had to be bought back from the state if they wanted it. It’s called estate recovery, and sounds pretty shady if it’s not boldly advertised as the terms for Medicaid enrollment, which is most definitely is not.
Before the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, there weren’t that many people in Medicaid who had much in the way of assets for seizing. But now that Medicaid enrollment requirements have been relaxed, more people with assets but low income are joining the program or being forced into it. For instance, a couple in their 50s who, say, retired early after losing jobs in the bad economy may have assets but show a very low income. Under Obamacare, if their income is low enough to qualify for Medicaid, they must enroll in Medicaid unless they want to buy totally unsubsidized coverage in the now-inflated individual market. As teh Times notes, this is no small difference:
People cannot receive a tax credit to subsidize their purchase of a private health plan if their income qualifies them for Medicaid, said Bethany Frey, spokeswoman for the Washington Health Benefit Exchange.
But they could buy a health plan without a tax credit, she added.
For someone age 55 to 64 at the Medicaid-income level — below $15,856 a year — it’s quite a jump from free Medicaid health insurance to an unsubsidized individual plan. Premiums in King County for an age 60 non-tobacco user for the most modest plan run from $451 to $859 per month.
The couple in the Times story was able to marry, combine their incomes, and get out of the Medicaid trap. Others will not be so lucky, and may not even read the fine print:
Prins, an artist, and Balhorn, a retired fisherman-turned-tango instructor, separately qualified for health insurance through Medicaid based on their sole incomes.
But if they were married, they calculated, they could “just squeak by” with enough income to qualify for a subsidized health plan — and avoid any encumbrance on the home they hope to leave to Prins’ two sons.
For no one else in the world is it a-okay to give low-income people a loan that might endanger their family’s assets and not even clearly inform them they’re getting a loan.
This Daily Kos diarist has a nice write-up (I know) on the toll this could take on lower and middle-class people looking for relief and getting what amounts to a surprise predatory loan instead:
We haven’t had lots of people younger than 65 on Medicaid, because in most states simply earning less than the Federal Poverty Level did not qualify one for Medicaid.
And we haven’t had many people with lots of assets on Medicaid, because in most places you have to have less than around $2400 to your name before Medicaid will cover you. You can keep your house and your car, but Medicaid reserves the right to put liens on them and take them when you die.
But now we have the Affordable Care Act, and its expectation that everyone in the lower tier of income will end up in the Medicaid system. To accomplish this, they have dropped the asset test. So now we will have lots of people ages 55-64, who have assets but not a lot of income right now, for whatever reason, on Medicaid.
The kicker of it is, if you make the right amount to qualify for a subsidized health insurance plan, your costs are going to be shared and subsidized by the government. But if you go on Medicaid, you owe the entire amount that Medicaid spends on you from the day you turn 55…
How will this play out? No one knows, as far as I can tell. But it is easy to see how this could become a real problem. If someone is low income and goes on Medicaid, will Medicaid put a lien on their house? If they need to sell their house and move, will they then lose all their equity in paying off the lien? Will people get hit with bills and liens for many thousands of dollars, even if they were healthy and hardly ever went to the doctor?
The fact that this is being treated with seriousness at Kos is an indication of how large a liability it could be for this government program. Washington is scrambling to change the law. No doubt other states will start looking at their implementation of this part of Obamacare. But there will be people caught unaware that their houses effectively belong to the government because the government forced them into Medicaid coverage. You’re welcome!
- See more at: http://healthydebates.com/state-can-seize-assets-pay-care-youre-forced-medicaid-obamacare/#sthash.HkMvCd1V.dpuf
State Can Seize Your Assets to Pay For Care After You’re Forced Into Medicaid by Obamacare - See more at: http://healthydebates.com/state-can-seize-assets-pay-care-youre-forced-medicaid-obamacare/#sthash.HkMvCd1V.dpuf


Join our campaign for Constitutional Government for Justice, Life, Liberty, Peace and Prosperity now