I want to scrreeeammmm

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pabloesqobar]. . . That presupposes that the decedent has a pile of money laying around – enough to satisfy that lien, which most don’t.
2. All they need to do is establish an Irrevocable Trust, which completely shields their entire estate from the Medi-Cal lien.
3. Their are other exemptions to the lien. . . [/quote]

pabloeqobar, I’ve been to those “trust seminars,” too. The “potential clients” seeking to establish an “irrevocable trust” must do so at least three years “pre-need,” I believe, meaning three years before making application for a nursing home or “board and care” facility using Medicare part B alone to satisfy the entire expense of long-term care. As a senior citizen and parent, it’s hard to:

(1) know exactly when (or if) you’re going to actually need care;

(2) know year by year whether you ACTUALLY WANT TO leave your irrevocable trust to a child whose financial problems were/are all self-created;

(3) and, gauge whether you actually want to move in with a child for assistance in your sunset years.

Surprisingly, many parents don’t even talk to their children about these things. This only becomes and issue after something like a debilitating stroke happens to a patient who hasn’t done any estate planning in this regard. Then they’re stuck because they have too many assets to qualify for intermediate care or board and care using Medicare Part B only (without the gov’t placing a lien on the individual).

The last paragraph (above) is (unfortunately) the most typical scenario.

[quote=pabloesquobar]My ex-girlfriend has been on Unemployment for 2 years. I’d be willing to bet that the 5 year limit for Welfare is likewise negotiable, depending on the circumstances. [/quote]

pablo, I too have a friend who is perfectly capable in her line of work but rec’d UI for two years. It just recently ran out and she really HAS been heavily seeking work. It’s just a sign of the times 🙁

A big problem with TANF recipients is child care. Many have three or more children (elem. school-age or younger). I don’t know how extensions of TANF are handled but I know the county heavily subsidizes after-school programs like DASH or the “6 to 6 program” for these kids if the custodial parent is in training for employment skills in an ROP program or comm. college. A huge hurdle remains if the county can’t collect any excess child support from the other parent to send to the custodial parent (over and above the TANF benefits).

[briansd1]

[quote=pabloesqobar]
My ex-girlfriend has been on Unemployment for 2 years. I’d be willing to bet that the 5 year limit for Welfare is likewise negotiable, depending on the circumstances. [/quote]

That’s an exception because of the recession. Congress has extended unemployment benefits several times. It’s a quick way to get the money into the economy. The bailouts have many beneficiaries who don’t really deserve bailouts.

In normal times, unemployment is limited to 6 months.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061800211.html

The 5 year lifetime on welfare is non-negotiable.

Fraud is when people get benefits that they are not entitled to through fraud. Your girlfriend is entitled to the benefits since she’s unemployed.

If we don’t like to provide benefits to people who are unemployed or have little money and assets then that’s a policy question, not a fraud or criminal question.

So let’s not accuse people of fraud who do not commit fraud. Laziness is not a crime.

As far as Medicaid is concerned, the larger problem is not poor people who use the benefits. It’s the middle-class folks who have assets but give away their assets then go on the public dole near their sunset years.

It’s also doctors who abuse the system and order unnecessary treatment, which is fraud when done knowingly.

If welfare is so good, then anyone can put himself in the position to receive benefits. It’s still not fraud.

[briansd1]

[quote=pabloesqobar]
My ex-girlfriend has been on Unemployment for 2 years. I’d be willing to bet that the 5 year limit for Welfare is likewise negotiable, depending on the circumstances. [/quote]

That’s an exception because of the recession. Congress has extended unemployment benefits several times. It’s a quick way to get the money into the economy. The bailouts have many beneficiaries who don’t really deserve bailouts.

In normal times, unemployment is limited to 6 months.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061800211.html

The 5 year lifetime on welfare is non-negotiable.

Fraud is when people get benefits that they are not entitled to through fraud. Your girlfriend is entitled to the benefits since she’s unemployed.

If we don’t like to provide benefits to people who are unemployed or have little money and assets then that’s a policy question, not a fraud or criminal question.

So let’s not accuse people of fraud who do not commit fraud. Laziness is not a crime.

As far as Medicaid is concerned, the larger problem is not poor people who use the benefits. It’s the middle-class folks who have assets but give away their assets then go on the public dole near their sunset years.

It’s also doctors who abuse the system and order unnecessary treatment, which is fraud when done knowingly.

If welfare is so good, then anyone can put himself in the position to receive benefits. It’s still not fraud.

[briansd1]

[quote=pabloesqobar]
My ex-girlfriend has been on Unemployment for 2 years. I’d be willing to bet that the 5 year limit for Welfare is likewise negotiable, depending on the circumstances. [/quote]

That’s an exception because of the recession. Congress has extended unemployment benefits several times. It’s a quick way to get the money into the economy. The bailouts have many beneficiaries who don’t really deserve bailouts.

In normal times, unemployment is limited to 6 months.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061800211.html

The 5 year lifetime on welfare is non-negotiable.

Fraud is when people get benefits that they are not entitled to through fraud. Your girlfriend is entitled to the benefits since she’s unemployed.

If we don’t like to provide benefits to people who are unemployed or have little money and assets then that’s a policy question, not a fraud or criminal question.

So let’s not accuse people of fraud who do not commit fraud. Laziness is not a crime.

As far as Medicaid is concerned, the larger problem is not poor people who use the benefits. It’s the middle-class folks who have assets but give away their assets then go on the public dole near their sunset years.

It’s also doctors who abuse the system and order unnecessary treatment, which is fraud when done knowingly.

If welfare is so good, then anyone can put himself in the position to receive benefits. It’s still not fraud.

[briansd1]

[quote=pabloesqobar]
My ex-girlfriend has been on Unemployment for 2 years. I’d be willing to bet that the 5 year limit for Welfare is likewise negotiable, depending on the circumstances. [/quote]

That’s an exception because of the recession. Congress has extended unemployment benefits several times. It’s a quick way to get the money into the economy. The bailouts have many beneficiaries who don’t really deserve bailouts.

In normal times, unemployment is limited to 6 months.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061800211.html

The 5 year lifetime on welfare is non-negotiable.

Fraud is when people get benefits that they are not entitled to through fraud. Your girlfriend is entitled to the benefits since she’s unemployed.

If we don’t like to provide benefits to people who are unemployed or have little money and assets then that’s a policy question, not a fraud or criminal question.

So let’s not accuse people of fraud who do not commit fraud. Laziness is not a crime.

As far as Medicaid is concerned, the larger problem is not poor people who use the benefits. It’s the middle-class folks who have assets but give away their assets then go on the public dole near their sunset years.

It’s also doctors who abuse the system and order unnecessary treatment, which is fraud when done knowingly.

If welfare is so good, then anyone can put himself in the position to receive benefits. It’s still not fraud.

[briansd1]

[quote=pabloesqobar]
My ex-girlfriend has been on Unemployment for 2 years. I’d be willing to bet that the 5 year limit for Welfare is likewise negotiable, depending on the circumstances. [/quote]

That’s an exception because of the recession. Congress has extended unemployment benefits several times. It’s a quick way to get the money into the economy. The bailouts have many beneficiaries who don’t really deserve bailouts.

In normal times, unemployment is limited to 6 months.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061800211.html

The 5 year lifetime on welfare is non-negotiable.

Fraud is when people get benefits that they are not entitled to through fraud. Your girlfriend is entitled to the benefits since she’s unemployed.

If we don’t like to provide benefits to people who are unemployed or have little money and assets then that’s a policy question, not a fraud or criminal question.

So let’s not accuse people of fraud who do not commit fraud. Laziness is not a crime.

As far as Medicaid is concerned, the larger problem is not poor people who use the benefits. It’s the middle-class folks who have assets but give away their assets then go on the public dole near their sunset years.

It’s also doctors who abuse the system and order unnecessary treatment, which is fraud when done knowingly.

If welfare is so good, then anyone can put himself in the position to receive benefits. It’s still not fraud.

[danielwis]

Well, that’s nothing. A ruined economy? Bankster fraud? Real-estate fraud? Welfare queen’s? Pfffft!

Worse than all that, it is now being reported in the news that Jenna Bush had her bicycle stolen from her garage! OMG!!!!!!!!!!!! Hurry up and invade some country. We need to put Haliburton and friends back to work to cover the damages!

[danielwis]

Well, that’s nothing. A ruined economy? Bankster fraud? Real-estate fraud? Welfare queen’s? Pfffft!

Worse than all that, it is now being reported in the news that Jenna Bush had her bicycle stolen from her garage! OMG!!!!!!!!!!!! Hurry up and invade some country. We need to put Haliburton and friends back to work to cover the damages!

[danielwis]

Well, that’s nothing. A ruined economy? Bankster fraud? Real-estate fraud? Welfare queen’s? Pfffft!

Worse than all that, it is now being reported in the news that Jenna Bush had her bicycle stolen from her garage! OMG!!!!!!!!!!!! Hurry up and invade some country. We need to put Haliburton and friends back to work to cover the damages!

[danielwis]

Well, that’s nothing. A ruined economy? Bankster fraud? Real-estate fraud? Welfare queen’s? Pfffft!

Worse than all that, it is now being reported in the news that Jenna Bush had her bicycle stolen from her garage! OMG!!!!!!!!!!!! Hurry up and invade some country. We need to put Haliburton and friends back to work to cover the damages!

[danielwis]

Well, that’s nothing. A ruined economy? Bankster fraud? Real-estate fraud? Welfare queen’s? Pfffft!

Worse than all that, it is now being reported in the news that Jenna Bush had her bicycle stolen from her garage! OMG!!!!!!!!!!!! Hurry up and invade some country. We need to put Haliburton and friends back to work to cover the damages!

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=pabloesqobar]
My ex-girlfriend has been on Unemployment for 2 years. I’d be willing to bet that the 5 year limit for Welfare is likewise negotiable, depending on the circumstances. [/quote]

That’s an exception because of the recession. Congress has extended unemployment benefits several times. It’s a quick way to get the money into the economy. The bailouts have many beneficiaries who don’t really deserve bailouts.

In normal times, unemployment is limited to 6 months.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061800211.html

The 5 year lifetime on welfare is non-negotiable.

Fraud is when people get benefits that they are not entitled to through fraud. Your girlfriend is entitled to the benefits since she’s unemployed.

If we don’t like to provide benefits to people who are unemployed or have little money and assets then that’s a policy question, not a fraud or criminal question.

So let’s not accuse people of fraud who do not commit fraud. Laziness is not a crime.

As far as Medicaid is concerned, the larger problem is not poor people who use the benefits. It’s the middle-class folks who have assets but give away their assets then go on the public dole near their sunset years.

It’s also doctors who abuse the system and order unnecessary treatment, which is fraud when done knowingly.

If welfare is so good, then anyone can put himself in the position to receive benefits. It’s still not fraud.[/quote]

Sorry, Brian, I don’t agree with you on this one. Although I believe in helping those of our citizenry who are genuinely in need, there’s no question that we’ve become an entitled society through the largesse of our government, fueled by vote-hungry politicians of all stripes.

It IS fraud if you are not complying 100 percent with the terms and conditions of any of these programs. You may be entitled to unemployment because you are without a job, but you are legally bound to search for work on a regular basis, keep a written record of said search, and accept an offer of employment even if it’s not your dream job, or (in some cases) even in your regular line of work. And while it is true that unemployment insurance is drawn from a fund that is composed of obligatory payments from employers in the form of a tax on each employee they hire, the funds are rapidly running dry as a result of the huge number of layoffs. The feds are kicking in on the shortfall currently, but, given the situation, the states are going to have to raise the unemployment tax rate, and that doesn’t bode well for future jobs growth.

The examples you give are certainly accurate, but “poor people” are capable of committing fraud too. When a welfare/food stamps recipient is allowing her employed boyfriend to live with her and her kids, it’s fraud. When you’ve gone through a government-funded education program while receiving additional help in the form of cash assistance, food stamps, and childcare, and then quit your job after a month because your paycheck isn’t high enough, it’s fraud. None of these programs permits “laziness” in its eligibility guidelines. The real issue is that it’s both difficult, and politically risky, to measure laziness, so it becomes a non-issue in the administration of these programs.

There is a genuine need for these programs. But they were not designed to be permanent income providers for citizens of the United States. And, despite the “rules”, it’s readily apparent that, for a great number of people, they’ve become just that.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=pabloesqobar]
My ex-girlfriend has been on Unemployment for 2 years. I’d be willing to bet that the 5 year limit for Welfare is likewise negotiable, depending on the circumstances. [/quote]

That’s an exception because of the recession. Congress has extended unemployment benefits several times. It’s a quick way to get the money into the economy. The bailouts have many beneficiaries who don’t really deserve bailouts.

In normal times, unemployment is limited to 6 months.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061800211.html

The 5 year lifetime on welfare is non-negotiable.

Fraud is when people get benefits that they are not entitled to through fraud. Your girlfriend is entitled to the benefits since she’s unemployed.

If we don’t like to provide benefits to people who are unemployed or have little money and assets then that’s a policy question, not a fraud or criminal question.

So let’s not accuse people of fraud who do not commit fraud. Laziness is not a crime.

As far as Medicaid is concerned, the larger problem is not poor people who use the benefits. It’s the middle-class folks who have assets but give away their assets then go on the public dole near their sunset years.

It’s also doctors who abuse the system and order unnecessary treatment, which is fraud when done knowingly.

If welfare is so good, then anyone can put himself in the position to receive benefits. It’s still not fraud.[/quote]

Sorry, Brian, I don’t agree with you on this one. Although I believe in helping those of our citizenry who are genuinely in need, there’s no question that we’ve become an entitled society through the largesse of our government, fueled by vote-hungry politicians of all stripes.

It IS fraud if you are not complying 100 percent with the terms and conditions of any of these programs. You may be entitled to unemployment because you are without a job, but you are legally bound to search for work on a regular basis, keep a written record of said search, and accept an offer of employment even if it’s not your dream job, or (in some cases) even in your regular line of work. And while it is true that unemployment insurance is drawn from a fund that is composed of obligatory payments from employers in the form of a tax on each employee they hire, the funds are rapidly running dry as a result of the huge number of layoffs. The feds are kicking in on the shortfall currently, but, given the situation, the states are going to have to raise the unemployment tax rate, and that doesn’t bode well for future jobs growth.

The examples you give are certainly accurate, but “poor people” are capable of committing fraud too. When a welfare/food stamps recipient is allowing her employed boyfriend to live with her and her kids, it’s fraud. When you’ve gone through a government-funded education program while receiving additional help in the form of cash assistance, food stamps, and childcare, and then quit your job after a month because your paycheck isn’t high enough, it’s fraud. None of these programs permits “laziness” in its eligibility guidelines. The real issue is that it’s both difficult, and politically risky, to measure laziness, so it becomes a non-issue in the administration of these programs.

There is a genuine need for these programs. But they were not designed to be permanent income providers for citizens of the United States. And, despite the “rules”, it’s readily apparent that, for a great number of people, they’ve become just that.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=pabloesqobar]
My ex-girlfriend has been on Unemployment for 2 years. I’d be willing to bet that the 5 year limit for Welfare is likewise negotiable, depending on the circumstances. [/quote]

That’s an exception because of the recession. Congress has extended unemployment benefits several times. It’s a quick way to get the money into the economy. The bailouts have many beneficiaries who don’t really deserve bailouts.

In normal times, unemployment is limited to 6 months.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061800211.html

The 5 year lifetime on welfare is non-negotiable.

Fraud is when people get benefits that they are not entitled to through fraud. Your girlfriend is entitled to the benefits since she’s unemployed.

If we don’t like to provide benefits to people who are unemployed or have little money and assets then that’s a policy question, not a fraud or criminal question.

So let’s not accuse people of fraud who do not commit fraud. Laziness is not a crime.

As far as Medicaid is concerned, the larger problem is not poor people who use the benefits. It’s the middle-class folks who have assets but give away their assets then go on the public dole near their sunset years.

It’s also doctors who abuse the system and order unnecessary treatment, which is fraud when done knowingly.

If welfare is so good, then anyone can put himself in the position to receive benefits. It’s still not fraud.[/quote]

Sorry, Brian, I don’t agree with you on this one. Although I believe in helping those of our citizenry who are genuinely in need, there’s no question that we’ve become an entitled society through the largesse of our government, fueled by vote-hungry politicians of all stripes.

It IS fraud if you are not complying 100 percent with the terms and conditions of any of these programs. You may be entitled to unemployment because you are without a job, but you are legally bound to search for work on a regular basis, keep a written record of said search, and accept an offer of employment even if it’s not your dream job, or (in some cases) even in your regular line of work. And while it is true that unemployment insurance is drawn from a fund that is composed of obligatory payments from employers in the form of a tax on each employee they hire, the funds are rapidly running dry as a result of the huge number of layoffs. The feds are kicking in on the shortfall currently, but, given the situation, the states are going to have to raise the unemployment tax rate, and that doesn’t bode well for future jobs growth.

The examples you give are certainly accurate, but “poor people” are capable of committing fraud too. When a welfare/food stamps recipient is allowing her employed boyfriend to live with her and her kids, it’s fraud. When you’ve gone through a government-funded education program while receiving additional help in the form of cash assistance, food stamps, and childcare, and then quit your job after a month because your paycheck isn’t high enough, it’s fraud. None of these programs permits “laziness” in its eligibility guidelines. The real issue is that it’s both difficult, and politically risky, to measure laziness, so it becomes a non-issue in the administration of these programs.

There is a genuine need for these programs. But they were not designed to be permanent income providers for citizens of the United States. And, despite the “rules”, it’s readily apparent that, for a great number of people, they’ve become just that.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=pabloesqobar]
My ex-girlfriend has been on Unemployment for 2 years. I’d be willing to bet that the 5 year limit for Welfare is likewise negotiable, depending on the circumstances. [/quote]

That’s an exception because of the recession. Congress has extended unemployment benefits several times. It’s a quick way to get the money into the economy. The bailouts have many beneficiaries who don’t really deserve bailouts.

In normal times, unemployment is limited to 6 months.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061800211.html

The 5 year lifetime on welfare is non-negotiable.

Fraud is when people get benefits that they are not entitled to through fraud. Your girlfriend is entitled to the benefits since she’s unemployed.

If we don’t like to provide benefits to people who are unemployed or have little money and assets then that’s a policy question, not a fraud or criminal question.

So let’s not accuse people of fraud who do not commit fraud. Laziness is not a crime.

As far as Medicaid is concerned, the larger problem is not poor people who use the benefits. It’s the middle-class folks who have assets but give away their assets then go on the public dole near their sunset years.

It’s also doctors who abuse the system and order unnecessary treatment, which is fraud when done knowingly.

If welfare is so good, then anyone can put himself in the position to receive benefits. It’s still not fraud.[/quote]

Sorry, Brian, I don’t agree with you on this one. Although I believe in helping those of our citizenry who are genuinely in need, there’s no question that we’ve become an entitled society through the largesse of our government, fueled by vote-hungry politicians of all stripes.

It IS fraud if you are not complying 100 percent with the terms and conditions of any of these programs. You may be entitled to unemployment because you are without a job, but you are legally bound to search for work on a regular basis, keep a written record of said search, and accept an offer of employment even if it’s not your dream job, or (in some cases) even in your regular line of work. And while it is true that unemployment insurance is drawn from a fund that is composed of obligatory payments from employers in the form of a tax on each employee they hire, the funds are rapidly running dry as a result of the huge number of layoffs. The feds are kicking in on the shortfall currently, but, given the situation, the states are going to have to raise the unemployment tax rate, and that doesn’t bode well for future jobs growth.

The examples you give are certainly accurate, but “poor people” are capable of committing fraud too. When a welfare/food stamps recipient is allowing her employed boyfriend to live with her and her kids, it’s fraud. When you’ve gone through a government-funded education program while receiving additional help in the form of cash assistance, food stamps, and childcare, and then quit your job after a month because your paycheck isn’t high enough, it’s fraud. None of these programs permits “laziness” in its eligibility guidelines. The real issue is that it’s both difficult, and politically risky, to measure laziness, so it becomes a non-issue in the administration of these programs.

There is a genuine need for these programs. But they were not designed to be permanent income providers for citizens of the United States. And, despite the “rules”, it’s readily apparent that, for a great number of people, they’ve become just that.

[Author]

Posts