Many Americans rely on Medicaid when fighting diseases. But there's a catch. Often, states try to recoup the costs after the recipients die.

As Salvatore LoGrande fought cancer and all the pain that came with it, his daughters promised to keep him in the white, pitched roof house he worked so hard to buy all those decades ago.

So, Sandy LoGrande thought it was a mistake when, a year after her father’s death, Massachusetts billed her $177,000 for her father’s Medicaid expenses and threatened to sue for his home if she didn’t pay up quickly.

“The home was everything,” to her father said LoGrande, 57.

But the bill and accompanying threat weren’t a mistake.

Rather, it was part of a routine process the federal government requires of every state: to recover money from the assets of dead people who, in their final years, relied on Medicaid, the taxpayer-funded health insurance for the poorest Americans.

This month, a Democratic lawmaker proposed scuttling the “cruel” program altogether. Critics argue the program collects too little — roughly 1% — of the more than $150 billion Medicaid spends yearly on long-term care. They also say many states fail to warn people who sign up for Medicaid that big bills and claims to their property might await their families once they die.

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    6·
    9 months ago

    I don’t see why this is so outrageous. Why should someone with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of assets receive free medical care?

    • Captainvaqina@sh.itjust.works
      37·
      9 months ago

      Because we pay taxes our entire fucking lives to still have EXTRA stolen from us for “healthcare.”

      EVERY OTHER MAJOR DEVELOPED COUNTRY HAS SINGLE PAYER.

      Why are you people so fucking shortsighted and fucking selfish? You’re enabling the Republican thieves to bleed us dry because you aspire to be as greedy as they are. Absolutely insane.

    • mapiki@discuss.online
      16·
      9 months ago
      1. A house is not an asset if it’s the one place you can live cost-free in retirement.
      2. We all pay into the system with our taxes - including someone who earned enough to afford a home. Why should anyone not benefit from the taxes they paid?
      3. Anyone can be sick and in long-term care as they age, including ourselves. As we age, we may not be able to keep working. Those costs add up fast in our healthcare system. And we don’t get to make those choices up front for ourselves or our families. The bills come months if not years later. No one says what you owe until it’s too late. Why should anyone pay a cost they weren’t told would be coming?

      I can’t argue that the way the US provides many services based off wealth is fair - I believe we should have a universal system that we all benefit from. Why should someone making less than me get better services than me because my job offers worse insurance than they get? We should all benefit.

      But, if the choice is that no one benefits or that of our current system. I’ll choose our current system. Because I don’t know if I’ll be the one on the other side 40 years from now.

      • jeffw@lemmy.worldM
        4·
        9 months ago

        Just playing devil’s advocate here… Medicaid doesn’t take your house until after you die. Not saying I think it’s a good practice

    • Kaiyoto@lemmy.world
      1·
      9 months ago

      The problem is that with all of these efforts to take houses to pay for the card, it only covers 1% of the cost. Is it really worth it at that point? Is it worth it to take homes that could benefit families who could otherwise not be able to obtain a home?