Crux Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Liberal justices; Breyer, Ginsberg, Stevens, Souter all sided with government's right to sieze private homes to generate more tax $$$. This is a new ruling, and maybe not as bad as we fear. Consider the legal case that carried the issue to the high court: Isn't it actually a matter of turning a slum into a viable community that can -- yes -- generate tax revenue rather than consume it? In the former situation, you pay higher taxes to fund the transfer payments made to the decrepit community. In the latter case, more of your tax money can go to support subisidies for...dare say it...the local Walmart. Conservative justices; Scalia, Thomas, Renquist, O'Connor all sided with the citizen's right to keep their homes. It doesn't get any clearer to me. Liberals = big, intrusive government and fewer personal rights. 'Progressive' means a new WalMart or high-rise condo where my home used to be. Look at the bright side: The decision might empower the private sector (with public oversight, as required) to 'seize' Walmart stores and convert those properties to viable parts of the community for businesses and homeowners alike! Consider the 400 empty Walmart stores now strewn across some 31 states as 400 examples of how private business may do well to improve things by converting abandoned commercial real estate to productive use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 did anyone see the words, "to acquire the remainder of the property from unwilling owners in exchange for JUST COMPENSATION." I DID, I DID, LOOK AT ME - I DID! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 I would argue that this is far less of an issue of liberal vs. conservative and more of an issue of a special (in this case a very special) interest getting their way. WE should ALL be outraged! Well said. And if this way to steal your property weren't enough: Did anyone read the front page article in the Wall St. J this morning about states now going after estates of deceased Medicaid patients? States are saying that you owe them for the benefits you used in your dying years. Never mind that your generation as well as all those that followed you have paid into it already. Now your family gets a surprise call right after you die (they call quick before ownership of bank accounts, houses, etc) changes hands. If they can't take your property while you're alive, they will come and kick your survivors right out of your house and take it. That is an outrage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 And if this way to steal your property weren't enough: Did anyone read the front page article in the Wall St. J this morning about states now going after estates of deceased Medicaid patients? States are saying that you owe them for the benefits you used in your dying years. Never mind that your generation as well as all those that followed you have paid into it already. Now your family gets a surprise call right after you die (they call quick before ownership of bank accounts, houses, etc) changes hands. If they can't take your property while you're alive, they will come and kick your survivors right out of your house and take it. That is an outrage. So you can suckle on the federal teat, but when the bill comes do you shouldn't have to pay? That's an outrage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 When the teat should have been paid for already? Yes, its an outrage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 So you can suckle on the federal teat, but when the bill comes do you shouldn't have to pay? That's an outrage. Suckle? All I've done is pump $$ into Medicaid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 When the teat should have been paid for already? Yes, its an outrage. It is - with all our goddamn taxes. Fuck government bureaucrat assholes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman_Clyde Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 And if this way to steal your property weren't enough: Did anyone read the front page article in the Wall St. J this morning about states now going after estates of deceased Medicaid patients? States are saying that you owe them for the benefits you used in your dying years. Never mind that your generation as well as all those that followed you have paid into it already. Now your family gets a surprise call right after you die (they call quick before ownership of bank accounts, houses, etc) changes hands. If they can't take your property while you're alive, they will come and kick your survivors right out of your house and take it. That is an outrage. So you can suckle on the federal teat, but when the bill comes do you shouldn't have to pay? That's an outrage. At the risk of thread drift: Medicaid is supposed to be a safety net to ensure health care for the poor. People don't qualify for Medicaid unless they can prove that they are essentially destitute. The biggest Medicaid expense is nursing home care for the elderly. In order to keep their greedy mitts on their parents' money, many families shift parental assets to themselves, to make an elderly parent suddenly destitute and therefore Medicaid eligible. This is known as cheating the government. If the government finds that the appearance of poverty was faked, it will go after the remaining estate to recoup its costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 And if this way to steal your property weren't enough: Did anyone read the front page article in the Wall St. J this morning about states now going after estates of deceased Medicaid patients? States are saying that you owe them for the benefits you used in your dying years. Never mind that your generation as well as all those that followed you have paid into it already. Now your family gets a surprise call right after you die (they call quick before ownership of bank accounts, houses, etc) changes hands. If they can't take your property while you're alive, they will come and kick your survivors right out of your house and take it. That is an outrage. So you can suckle on the federal teat, but when the bill comes do you shouldn't have to pay? That's an outrage. At the risk of thread drift: Medicaid is supposed to be a safety net to ensure health care for the poor. People don't qualify for Medicaid unless they can prove that they are essentially destitute. The biggest Medicaid expense is nursing home care for the elderly. In order to keep their greedy mitts on their parents' money, many families shift parental assets to themselves, to make an elderly parent suddenly destitute and therefore Medicaid eligible. This is known as cheating the government. If the government finds that the appearance of poverty was faked, it will go after the remaining estate to recoup its costs. Not thread drift--VERY good point! The problem here is that this is not the problem--it is the symptom. the problem is that if you are not destitute before you go on medicaid, you sure will be after you do. The problem is the healthcare system. But talking about that leads to people calling each other socialists and all that crap. I don't think we realize that people are suffering in very real ways--they are losing the homes they've had for generations, they are losing their inheiritance and their history. That is gonna take more than a band-aid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Not thread drift--VERY good point! The problem here is that this is not the problem--it is the symptom. the problem is that if you are not destitute before you go on medicaid, you sure will be after you do. The problem is the healthcare system. But talking about that leads to people calling each other socialists and all that crap. I don't think we realize that people are suffering in very real ways--they are losing the homes they've had for generations, they are losing their inheiritance and their history. That is gonna take more than a band-aid. Now there be a bold proposition -- we should implement a freakin' leebrul healthcare plan. (?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Not thread drift--VERY good point! The problem here is that this is not the problem--it is the symptom. the problem is that if you are not destitute before you go on medicaid, you sure will be after you do. The problem is the healthcare system. But talking about that leads to people calling each other socialists and all that crap. I don't think we realize that people are suffering in very real ways--they are losing the homes they've had for generations, they are losing their inheiritance and their history. That is gonna take more than a band-aid. They had the choice to take grandma into their home and pay for her themselves, and keep the assets, or have the government pay for her care and then forfeit the assets. I confess I'm at a loss how the government confiscating a persons property to pay for services directly used by that person is heartless and cruel. Yeah, healthcare needs reform. It'll come over the dead bodies of congress, the drug companies, the insurance companies and the doctors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 The problem here is that this is not the problem--it is the symptom. the problem is that if you are not destitute before you go on medicaid, you sure will be after you do. The problem is the healthcare system. Which is also not the problem, but the symptom. Medical costs are rising because of rising costs imposed by the government and society - malpractice insurance and frivolous lawsuits come to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 and drugs that cost 10x as much but don't work any betterhave nothing to do with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitergal Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 spam..I'm afraid for once I'm going to have to step in here and not be my fun loving party going self. The American health care system is rated 8th in the world. I LOVE it when bush goes around touting our greatness. Washington State has a decent system thanks to the creation of the Community Health Clinics pretty much anyone can get their very basic health care needs met. In my opinion, and I live, and breath the Health Care World every day and get paid for it, and am continually studying other countries systems and other solutions, and alternatives for ours (I do get paid for do'in something)...I KNOW we have all the right pieces to the puzzle. I know we do. But they just can't seem to work out right...it's like they can't fit together like they should. Why? Where does one start? unfortunately there are problems in every single step of our system. From every angle, every piece of the system and there is no single solution. A complete revamp...re-organizing the entire process, break it down and rebuild it from ground up...that would be great...but not something this president is brave enough to take on. Well..wait..why would he...he keeps bragging about our system and how it's best in the world...ha..ohh to be as naive as he. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Not thread drift--VERY good point! The problem here is that this is not the problem--it is the symptom. the problem is that if you are not destitute before you go on medicaid, you sure will be after you do. The problem is the healthcare system. But talking about that leads to people calling each other socialists and all that crap. I don't think we realize that people are suffering in very real ways--they are losing the homes they've had for generations, they are losing their inheiritance and their history. That is gonna take more than a band-aid. They had the choice to take grandma into their home and pay for her themselves, and keep the assets, or have the government pay for her care and then forfeit the assets. I confess I'm at a loss how the government confiscating a persons property to pay for services directly used by that person is heartless and cruel. I think you are forgetting someone in this equation. How about Gramma's wishes? This issue either has not yet directly affected you (directly meaning that you are the one who had to not only make the decision but also clean the bed pan) or you are the heartless one. I sincerely hope it is the former, and I also hope you never have to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 spam..I'm afraid for once I'm going to have to step in here and not be my fun loving party going self. The American health care system is rated 8th in the world. I LOVE it when bush goes around touting our greatness. Washington State has a decent system thanks to the creation of the Community Health Clinics pretty much anyone can get their very basic health care needs met. In my opinion, and I live, and breath the Health Care World every day and get paid for it, and am continually studying other countries systems and other solutions, and alternatives for ours (I do get paid for do'in something)...I KNOW we have all the right pieces to the puzzle. I know we do. But they just can't seem to work out right...it's like they can't fit together like they should. Why? Where does one start? unfortunately there are problems in every single step of our system. From every angle, every piece of the system and there is no single solution. A complete revamp...re-organizing the entire process, break it down and rebuild it from ground up...that would be great...but not something this president is brave enough to take on. Well..wait..why would he...he keeps bragging about our system and how it's best in the world...ha..ohh to be as naive as he. I didn't like you until right now. Well said lady! I like this side way better than the fun loving airhead. You Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 "The Rehnquist court"?? Nice try, cj. But the idealogical divisions were clear here, and each justice had exactly one vote. True colors revealed. This entire thread clearly demonstrates the obfuscation, excuses, and dodges so common on your side of the political fence. Why not just say it? "My liberal justices got it wrong. This is an outrage brought on by judicial activist liberals who promote a 'living, breathing' constitution." C'mon, cj! I'll show you! ... "My Republican friends are wrong about flag burning! It is a constitutionally protected right." See? It's easy! Just an FYI...the "renquist court" simply refers to the time period of the court with his as chief justice, it isn't some liberal mead up phrase or anything. You'll also see references to the "berger court", etc. I've actually thought for a while a better title for the current court would be the "O'connor court". In most of the big cases of the past decade it has been SHE that has msde the decision. She is the swing vote of this court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 I think you are forgetting someone in this equation. How about Gramma's wishes? This issue either has not yet directly affected you (directly meaning that you are the one who had to not only make the decision but also clean the bed pan) or you are the heartless one. I sincerely hope it is the former, and I also hope you never have to be. I wish my kids a million dollars. If I don't have it, they don't get it. If it was Grandma's choice to go to the Nursing home, then she made the choice to not pass on the house. My grandmothers currently planning to make that choice. I'm neither ignorant nor heartless only responsible. I'm not sure why someone else should get to pass things on to their grandchildren and I should have to pay the bill for her generosity. Elder care for those who don't have the means to pay for it is one matter, if you are passing on an estate of greater than $50k you clearly had the means to pay for a good bit more of your care than you did Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitergal Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 I just spit beer through my nose.....an estate of 50K. sweetheart...what is your home worth? I think pretty much anyone who owns a home...will have an estate of 50k. Yes...a home..is part of your estate. 50k is barely a shack! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 They are going after people for much less than that. The amount is small to the state, big to the family. Also, elderly (especially women) usually don't grasp what is at stake. And their kids usually don't expect to be taxed again for Medicaid. You may have a different approach after you get more acquainted with the system--if its you who will be actually helping your Gma. Best of luck to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomtom Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 I just spit beer through my nose.....an estate of 50K. sweetheart...what is your home worth? I think pretty much anyone who owns a home...will have an estate of 50k. Yes...a home..is part of your estate. 50k is barely a shack! Dearest Marie, Not everyone lives in Seattle or Redmond. My grandparent's house sold for $27k in a small town in Arkansas, and my father's house sold for $43k in suburban Houston, Texas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman_Clyde Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 [quoteI think you are forgetting someone in this equation. How about Gramma's wishes? Do you think Gramma's wishes figure much in the decision? I can tell you they don't. Very few people wish they lived in a nursing home. It's a place of last resort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 [quoteI think you are forgetting someone in this equation. How about Gramma's wishes? Do you think Gramma's wishes figure much in the decision? I can tell you they don't. Very few people wish they lived in a nursing home. It's a place of last resort. Exactly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 and drugs that cost 10x as much but don't work any betterhave nothing to do with it? Fine, let people use "last year's" latest and greatest drug at a fraction of the cost. Guess what would happen when said patient suffered from side effects, or died (even if the death would have occurred anyway, not necessarily because of the drug or lack of it's relative efficacy)? That's right - law suit, malpractice, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 That hasn''t been the case in BC, which has had reference-based pricing for about 5 years now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.