Need Medicaid? Prove it upfront.

By Patricia Guthrie
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Saturday, Dec. 3, 2005


Gov. Sonny Perdue tightened requirements on the state's ballooning Medicaid program Friday as a way to control fraud and check the citizenship status of applicants.

Starting Jan. 1, individuals applying for the family Medicaid program in Georgia will have to present proof of income, such as a W-2 form, pay stub or income tax return, before they can start receiving benefits. Currently, those applying for the state health insurance program for poor families don't have to show income documents.

"We need to ensure that those receiving these taxpayer-funded services are U.S. and Georgia citizens and that their income makes them eligible," Perdue said in a prepared statement.

Currently, family Medicaid applicants self-declare their incomes on applications. That information is then verified through Department of Labor and Social Security databases, said Julie Kerlin, spokeswoman for the Department of Community Health, which oversees Medicaid. But because the verification process is at "the back end," a person could receive benefits for several months before being deemed ineligible, Kerlin said.



http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/1205/03metmedicaid.html

What if a family has been relying on friends and family to survive? Just one more reason for universal health care.

The applicant needs to file and sign an affidavit stating their unique living and/or income situation, with the standard reminder to notify a Medicaid official of any alteration in their status upon receiving approval for state services. I *think* that's what the forms mentioned when I applied several years ago for Medicaid and SSI Disability for my son, which at that time used the "front end" verification process mentioned in the article. Though I can't account for how that may have changed in the last 5 or so years...

I am impressed that the pre-natal care program here in GA ("Right From The Start") will remain essentially unchanged. That is one of our most utilized and successful Medicaid programs, with relatively generous financial threshholds. It even allows parents with insurance coverage through their employer to get secondary Medicaid coverage through RFTS for pre-natal care expenses if their last year's income is below the threshhold for their family size.

because I couldn't prove I had no income. When I appealed, the appeal took place over the phone and it was denied again in less than five minutes. People in that position need advocates as it's pretty difficult to be ill and deal with @ssholes at the same time.

prevent the poor from getting a crumb from their plate.

These people should be ashamed of themselves.

Our entire culture is designed to offer enthrallment to wealth, privilege, and celebrity--similar to the burning of sacred bulls for the feeding of the priesthood. The subjects of such adulation eventually come to believe they are entitled to it from birth. The possibility of humility and thankfulness never even enters their heads.

Expecting them to change this attitude on their own is unrealistic. We need a different cure.

privilege, and superstars in jockstraps and theatrics.

The French found the cure years ago. Our Requiem is being written as we speak. The people are pissed.

I know I am. >:|

being written for this country as we speak. Kind of reminds of that Poem, "The Spider & the Fly".

Anger Management must be doing well these days, eh?

Wall Street Journal
February 24, 2005
OPINION
Medicaid for Millionaires

Medicaid was established in 1965 with the worthy aim of providing medical care for the poor; it was never intended as a middle-class entitlement or as inheritance protection for the children of well-off seniors. Yet the latter is precisely what has happened -- to the point that sheltering assets and income to qualify for Medicaid is now as routine as writing a will. If you don't believe us, Google "Medicaid estate planning" on the Web and see what pops up. There's a whole "elderlaw" industry out there dedicated to the children of seniors who want to make sure that other taxpayers, not they, pay for nursing-home care via Medicaid should mom or dad ever need it. As one advertiser puts it, "You can qualify for Medicaid while preserving most assets & savings!"

Such "asset-shifting" may be morally questionable, but in most cases it is entirely legal. Anyone can give away most of his assets and three years later become eligible for Medicaid with no questions asked. Or, since a home, business and car of unlimited value are excluded from the calculation of assets, someone who wishes to qualify for Medicaid may shield his money by remodeling his house, investing in the family business, or purchasing expensive cars that he then gives away to family members (the notorious "two Mercedes rule"). Term life insurance -- also of unlimited value -- is excluded as well.

Medicaid "planners" often counsel well-to-do clients to save enough money to pay for a year of care at a private, high-quality nursing home, which under federal law can't kick you out if you then switch over to Medicaid. As Stephen Moses of the Center for Long-Term Care Financing points out, "Poor people don't have key money, so they end up in the least desirable 100%-Medicaid facilities, while the lawyers' clients occupy the scarcer Medicaid beds in nicer nursing homes." About 70% of nursing-home patients are on Medicaid...

They like nothing more than taking elderly parents, putting their house and assets in kids names and declaring mom and dad indigent so the government can pay for their nursing home care.

Its the fastest growing segment of Medicaid enrollment - elderly people.

So very Christian-like of them...

The article is poorly written and calls Medicaid "the state health insurance program for poor families.."

Medicaid is not insurance of any kind. In fact, those who get health care through Medicaid are obligated to pay back the state if they can afford it and liens are placed on homes of those who receive it so that when they die the State can recoup everything it paid out on the sale of the home (there are exceptions in most states for surviving spouses or minor children). Also, if there are damages awarded for pain and suffering in a civil suit by a Medicaid claimant those proceeds are also subject to levy.

But I don't think it is unusual or unreasonable to make someone show their income tax records before getting it. Just because you do not have health insurance that does not qualify you for Medicaid.

The two times I was on Medicaid, it was expressly because I had NO income. As soon as I had an income, I was shit out of luck. (And also SOL if I'd had an income 12 months earlier, since they figured I still had that money for some reason.) Has it changed significantly since 1991? Or are they not referring to current income in this article, just a previous income through which you paid into the program?

How is it morally acceptable to anyone that you can only "have" if you already "have"? Why do Americans not feel morally obligated to provide health services to the poor? If you're poor, I guess you should just die. We don't want you here in America. It's obviously your fault you weren't born to a rich family, your fault your job was outsourced to India. So if you're poor, just go die and stop making us all uncomfortable.

I think much of America was secretly gloating when they saw the poor of New Orleans dying on camera. I really do.

:(

but on the other, how many poor stupid fucks voted for this guy because, even though they're broke, they 'gotta stop them queers from kissin and babies from bein' murderded'.