tloonya
Junior Associate
What status?
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 16:22:13 GMT -5
Posts: 8,452
|
Post by tloonya on Oct 16, 2015 11:23:28 GMT -5
That is it. I refuse to see crime in it. Period!The problem is that you are complicit in it, Loony. It IS a crime, your FIL essentially stole money from the US taxpayer. If he could get away with basic living expenses for $100 less each month, why should this come out of my pocket? Just because you refuse to see it, doesn't mean that it isn't a crime. He may not go to jail, but your FIL KNEW that he ran the risk of losing his welfare benefits if he put the money into a bank account. He was not stupid, he was not naive. He deliberately defrauded the government, and by you accepting the money, you are also guilty. You can try to rationalize this as much as you want. It is still wrong, both ethically and by law. You know that. HE knew that. But you keep trying to justify why what he's doing is ok. It simply is not. So if he ate a caviar and lived larger - it would be ok. But if he saved what government calculated should be given to him - he had not set the amount - government said you should have this much! Minimum wage. He saved. As no one answered to me - was he supposed to give back from which sum? $3? Or give up subsidized house and get back after 4 month when he ran out of $3 spent on rent and ask to be back to subsidized home?
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,600
|
Post by Ombud on Oct 16, 2015 11:27:28 GMT -5
That is it. I refuse to see crime in it. Period!The problem is that you are complicit in it, Loony. It IS a crime, your FIL essentially stole money from the US taxpayer. If he could get away with basic living expenses for $100 less each month, why should this come out of my pocket? Just because you refuse to see it, doesn't mean that it isn't a crime. He may not go to jail, but your FIL KNEW that he ran the risk of losing his welfare benefits if he put the money into a bank account. He was not stupid, he was not naive. He deliberately defrauded the government, and by you accepting the money, you are also guilty. You can try to rationalize this as much as you want. It is still wrong, both ethically and by law. You know that. HE knew that. But you keep trying to justify why what he's doing is ok. It simply is not. So if he ate a caviar and lived larger - it would be ok. But if he saved what government calculated should be given to him - he had not set the amount - government said you should have this much! Minimum wage. He saved. As no one answered to me - was he supposed to give back from which sum? $3? Or give up subsidized house and get back after 4 month when he ran out of $3 spent on rent and ask to be back to subsidized home? go off SSI until within asset limits
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Oct 16, 2015 11:33:04 GMT -5
Argghhh, I know I am going to regret this.....
Where is all the outrage about all the social programs that actually support this kind of fraud?
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 16, 2015 11:33:25 GMT -5
I have no idea what the restrictions are for his subsidized housing. But I have worked with SSD/SSI and their guidelines are pretty clear:
Once your assets exceed $2,000 (excluding your house, a paid-off car, clothing, and personal items), you no longer qualify for SSI. It is a need-based program, and singles with more than $2,000 in assets are not considered "needy" per the Social Security Administration.
If you receive some sort of windfall, you're usually permitted some time to spend down these extra assets to avoid being booted out of SSI... but first you have to disclose them. The Social Security Administration is a lot less understanding when they think you've been attempting to hide assets.
So in your FIL's case, once he hit $1,999 in cash, he should have stopped saving it or spent it on items he needed. Once he hit $2,000, he needed to disclose to the SSA.
If he has $25K saved from the $100/mo your husband sent, he's been receiving SSI payments to which he is not entitled for more than 19 years.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Oct 16, 2015 11:35:07 GMT -5
I have no idea what the restrictions are for his subsidized housing. But I have worked with SSD/SSI and their guidelines are pretty clear: Once your assets exceed $2,000 (excluding your house, a paid-off car, clothing, and personal items), you no longer qualify for SSI. It is a need-based program, and singles with more than $2,000 in assets are not considered "needy" per the Social Security Administration. If you receive some sort of windfall, you're usually permitted some time to spend down these extra assets to avoid being booted out of SSI... but first you have to disclose them. The Social Security Administration is a lot less understanding when they think you've been attempting to hide assets. So in your FIL's case, once he hit $1,999 in cash, he should have stopped saving it or spent it on items he needed. Once he hit $2,000, he needed to disclose to the SSA. If he has $25K saved from the $100/mo your husband sent, he's been receiving SSI payments to which he is not entitled for more than 19 years. Am I the only one who thinks that is a very stupid and irresponsible law ?
|
|
NancysSummerSip
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 19:19:42 GMT -5
Posts: 36,651
Today's Mood: Full of piss and vinegar
Favorite Drink: Anything with ice
|
Post by NancysSummerSip on Oct 16, 2015 11:35:34 GMT -5
Just let us know which prison you wind up in, Loony...we will all come to visit. Really.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,429
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 16, 2015 11:36:18 GMT -5
Did the hand-off of the money already occur? Katy man arrested with $1.2 million hidden in trailerA Katy man is in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service after a serious chunk of change was found inside his tractor trailer along the Texas-Mexico border Roman M. Sanchez, 51, of Katy, was driving at about 6:45 a.m. Monday in Hidalgo County, just north of the Mexican border, when he was pulled over by a Texas Highway Patrol trooper for a routine traffic violation. However, when the trooper inspected the trailer which Sanchez allegedly was towing, he discovered 12 hidden bundles of cash, totaling $1,239,755. Sanchez was arrested and charged with federal money laundering and taken into custody by the U.S. Marshals Service. Katy man arrested with $1.2 million hidden in trailer
|
|
|
Post by mojothehelpermonkey on Oct 16, 2015 11:37:23 GMT -5
That is it. I refuse to see crime in it. Period!The problem is that you are complicit in it, Loony. It IS a crime, your FIL essentially stole money from the US taxpayer. If he could get away with basic living expenses for $100 less each month, why should this come out of my pocket? Just because you refuse to see it, doesn't mean that it isn't a crime. He may not go to jail, but your FIL KNEW that he ran the risk of losing his welfare benefits if he put the money into a bank account. He was not stupid, he was not naive. He deliberately defrauded the government, and by you accepting the money, you are also guilty. You can try to rationalize this as much as you want. It is still wrong, both ethically and by law. You know that. HE knew that. But you keep trying to justify why what he's doing is ok. It simply is not. So if he ate a caviar and lived larger - it would be ok. But if he saved what government calculated should be given to him - he had not set the amount - government said you should have this much! Minimum wage. He saved. As no one answered to me - was he supposed to give back from which sum? $3? Or give up subsidized house and get back after 4 month when he ran out of $3 spent on rent and ask to be back to subsidized home? The summer before I went to college, I worked two jobs and saved up several thousand dollars to basically just hand it over to the school I went to. I could have not worked or lied and said I spent the money on silly teenage things. It probably wouldn't have even changed my financial aid package that much. It's tempting to want to game the system sometimes and easy to find ways to justify it, but at least your FIL has a place to live and some money to live on. Some of the taxes that the government wants to take from his savings pay for this.
|
|
NancysSummerSip
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 19:19:42 GMT -5
Posts: 36,651
Today's Mood: Full of piss and vinegar
Favorite Drink: Anything with ice
|
Post by NancysSummerSip on Oct 16, 2015 11:39:27 GMT -5
Did the hand-off of the money already occur? Katy man arrested with $1.2 million hidden in trailerA Katy man is in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service after a serious chunk of change was found inside his tractor trailer along the Texas-Mexico border Roman M. Sanchez, 51, of Katy, was driving at about 6:45 a.m. Monday in Hidalgo County, just north of the Mexican border, when he was pulled over by a Texas Highway Patrol trooper for a routine traffic violation. However, when the trooper inspected the trailer which Sanchez allegedly was towing, he discovered 12 hidden bundles of cash, totaling $1,239,755. Sanchez was arrested and charged with federal money laundering and taken into custody by the U.S. Marshals Service. Katy man arrested with $1.2 million hidden in trailer It did occur, but it was substantially less than that. And FWIW...Lena, it's not that any of us think the law is a good one or a bad one or a fair or unfair one. It is what it is, as they say, at this time. And given what Loony has told us, her FIL did break the law.
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Oct 16, 2015 11:40:16 GMT -5
Nobody is saying it's TLooney's fault. But yes, it is fraud and it is illegal. It doesn't matter if everyone here agrees or disagrees. He shouldn't have been taking food from the food bank (food that could have gone to actual needy people) in order to save his welfare checks that were intended to cover his basic needs. But, what's done is done and it sounds like you now have some snowflake money.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,600
|
Post by Ombud on Oct 16, 2015 11:40:12 GMT -5
I have no idea what the restrictions are for his subsidized housing. But I have worked with SSD/SSI and their guidelines are pretty clear: Once your assets exceed $2,000 (excluding your house, a paid-off car, clothing, and personal items), you no longer qualify for SSI. It is a need-based program, and singles with more than $2,000 in assets are not considered "needy" per the Social Security Administration. If you receive some sort of windfall, you're usually permitted some time to spend down these extra assets to avoid being booted out of SSI... but first you have to disclose them. The Social Security Administration is a lot less understanding when they think you've been attempting to hide assets. So in your FIL's case, once he hit $1,999 in cash, he should have stopped saving it or spent it on items he needed. Once he hit $2,000, he needed to disclose to the SSA. If he has $25K saved from the $100/mo your husband sent, he's been receiving SSI payments to which he is not entitled for more than 19 years. Am I the only one who thinks that is a very stupid and irresponsible law ? Yes. As long as we are footing the bill the intent is to provide food, shelter, medical. 2k is enough to cover extraordinary incidentals as there isn't a need for an emergency fund to cover loss of income (there won't be a loss of income as long as you're within the asset guidelines). Now if you want to say $50 month for personal expenses for those in a facility covered by government payments is too restrictive, I'll agree. I think they should be left $100 a month But that's a different topic
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 16, 2015 11:47:37 GMT -5
I have no idea what the restrictions are for his subsidized housing. But I have worked with SSD/SSI and their guidelines are pretty clear: Once your assets exceed $2,000 (excluding your house, a paid-off car, clothing, and personal items), you no longer qualify for SSI. It is a need-based program, and singles with more than $2,000 in assets are not considered "needy" per the Social Security Administration. If you receive some sort of windfall, you're usually permitted some time to spend down these extra assets to avoid being booted out of SSI... but first you have to disclose them. The Social Security Administration is a lot less understanding when they think you've been attempting to hide assets. So in your FIL's case, once he hit $1,999 in cash, he should have stopped saving it or spent it on items he needed. Once he hit $2,000, he needed to disclose to the SSA. If he has $25K saved from the $100/mo your husband sent, he's been receiving SSI payments to which he is not entitled for more than 19 years. Am I the only one who thinks that is a very stupid and irresponsible law ? There are absolutely some problems with it, but since SSI is designed to be a subsistence-level program, there needs to be some asset test in place. If you're too disabled to work, haven't worked enough quarters to qualify for Social Security Disability, but have $1M in the bank (or even $25K), why should the taxpayers support you? I think that there are a lot of issues with "cliffs" on these types of programs ($1,999 and you're fine, $2,001 and you're out), but the SSA does allow you time to spend down assets or even try to return to work without losing your benefits if you're not successful. In that way, it's structured better (IMO) than some other types of assistance that will immediately boot you once you've hit the income or asset limit.
|
|
|
Post by mojothehelpermonkey on Oct 16, 2015 11:52:43 GMT -5
Argghhh, I know I am going to regret this..... Where is all the outrage about all the social programs that actually support this kind of fraud? Without these social programs you can expect to see an unpleasant increase in human suffering. At the same time, if I could come up with a flawless system to eliminate fraud and make these programs more efficient, I would probably never have to worry about myself or any of my loved ones ever needing them.
|
|
tloonya
Junior Associate
What status?
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 16:22:13 GMT -5
Posts: 8,452
|
Post by tloonya on Oct 16, 2015 11:53:57 GMT -5
It isn't just me. It is substential portion of posters here. Who? Start from the beginning. We were having fun talking about how to hide the money (which I had never even thought about) and how anyone have rights to have cash etc. All of a sudden someone came with 'morals and knowledge of the law' and screwed up the fun!
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Oct 16, 2015 11:56:32 GMT -5
There is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge gap between 2K and 1M.
It's no secret that I am no a fan of welfare, but if a single disabled individual needs a car repair or dental work or even move from one place to the next or need to buy a car or have a house repair- $2K is nothing!
Also, a lot of medical expenses are not covered - so then what?
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,600
|
Post by Ombud on Oct 16, 2015 12:01:03 GMT -5
And a huuuuuuuge gap between 2000 - 25,000
Dental work is covered by Medicaid
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Oct 16, 2015 12:03:34 GMT -5
Argghhh, I know I am going to regret this..... Where is all the outrage about all the social programs that actually support this kind of fraud? Without these social programs you can expect to see an unpleasant increase in human suffering. At the same time, if I could come up with a flawless system to eliminate fraud and make these programs more efficient, I would probably never have to worry about myself or any of my loved ones ever needing them. the problem with most social programs that there are either many many loopholes or they create "criminals" (as described in OP) or they simply don't make any sense. I mentioned this before - when my husband lost his job a few years ago, we had 2 kids under 3 and I was pregnant with our 3rd. I was very much qualified to receive WIC. When I had my 3rd, I could have gotten tons of formula on WIC that I could sell for cash. We are no millionaires, but we definitely didn't need the assistance. So, how does it make sense - means testing for some programs and not for others??
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 16, 2015 12:04:41 GMT -5
There is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge gap between 2K and 1M. It's no secret that I am no a fan of welfare, but if a single disabled individual needs a car repair or dental work or even move from one place to the next or need to buy a car or have a house repair- $2K is nothing! Also, a lot of medical expenses are not covered - so then what? I do think the limit is due for an adjustment. It has been $2K since I was working in SSD/SSI, and that was close to a decade ago. I would set it at $5K, perhaps +/- a few K to adjust for cost of living, or $10K for a couple. That should be enough for most car repairs, purchase of a used car, minor home repairs, and out of pocket medical expenses (I know very little about Medicaid so not sure how much that would be). The average SSI benefit is around $600/mo, so the current limit is basically a quarter's worth of payments.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Oct 16, 2015 12:04:44 GMT -5
There is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge gap between 2K and 1M. It's no secret that I am no a fan of welfare, but if a single disabled individual needs a car repair or dental work or even move from one place to the next or need to buy a car or have a house repair- $2K is nothing! Also, a lot of medical expenses are not covered - so then what?Actually, Medicaid pays for more than most health insurance companies. You don't want to go here, because I have a step sibling on Medicaid who has had millions paid by Medicaid on her behalf (some self induced medical problems). She has not paid a dime. My medical bills required that I cough up about $13K.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Oct 16, 2015 12:06:54 GMT -5
And a huuuuuuuge gap between 2000 - 25,000 Dental work is covered by Medicaid Not all dental work is covered. And car repairs are not covered. And home repairs are not covered. And transportation is not covered. As I said - I am no fan of welfare, but if a person is able to save a few grand, I don't see a problem with that, bc EF funds can disappear very quickly with one emergency.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Oct 16, 2015 12:11:06 GMT -5
There is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge gap between 2K and 1M. It's no secret that I am no a fan of welfare, but if a single disabled individual needs a car repair or dental work or even move from one place to the next or need to buy a car or have a house repair- $2K is nothing! Also, a lot of medical expenses are not covered - so then what?Actually, Medicaid pays for more than most health insurance companies. You don't want to go here, because I have a step sibling on Medicaid who has had millions paid by Medicaid on her behalf (some self induced medical problems). She has not paid a dime. My medical bills required that I cough up about $13K. So that kind of goes along with what I am saying - we have this insane programs and we go from one extreme to another. I get it that it's impossible to create a perfect system and perfect programs, but there is just so much waste and and the same time restrictions.... The state of ME is trying to create a means testing for foostamps and/or welfare - if you have $5K - you are out. I understand the reasoning, but like I said - I think it either creates fraud or makes it harder for honest people to climb out of poverty or survive if they are disabled.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,026
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Oct 16, 2015 12:12:29 GMT -5
Galt I totally agree with you that a lot of welfare programs are set up so it makes it impossible to work even if you want to.
I do think there should be a way to taper down rather as your salary increases as opposed to a few bucks kicking you off completely.
Looney's dad on the other hand is using it to bank cash and now give it to his grandkid. You shouldn't be able to use welfare to build up an inheritance.
Even if it wasn't spent it should at least have to be put aside for emergencies in some fashion. I am not sure how you'd go about that but I would agree a $2k EF isn't going to go far and you wouldn't be able to easily build it back up.
So the next emergency is going to leave taxpayers holding the bag resulting in a vicious cycle.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,600
|
Post by Ombud on Oct 16, 2015 12:37:09 GMT -5
And a huuuuuuuge gap between 2000 - 25,000 Dental work is covered by Medicaid Not all dental work is covered. And car repairs are not covered. And home repairs are not covered. And transportation is not covered. As I said - I am no fan of welfare, but if a person is able to save a few grand, I don't see a problem with that, bc EF funds can disappear very quickly with one emergency. oh. I live in California. It's all covered here
|
|
tloonya
Junior Associate
What status?
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 16:22:13 GMT -5
Posts: 8,452
|
Post by tloonya on Oct 16, 2015 12:38:07 GMT -5
Galt I totally agree with you that a lot of welfare programs are set up so it makes it impossible to work even if you want to.
I do think there should be a way to taper down rather as your salary increases as opposed to a few bucks kicking you off completely.
Looney's dad on the other hand is using it to bank cash and now give it to his grandkid. You shouldn't be able to use welfare to build up an inheritance.
Even if it wasn't spent it should at least have to be put aside for emergencies in some fashion. I am not sure how you'd go about that but I would agree a $2k EF isn't going to go far and you wouldn't be able to easily build it back up.
So the next emergency is going to leave taxpayers holding the bag resulting in a vicious cycle. The next step from here is a cash police who will have rights to enter your home and search for cash? GOVERMENT said this amount is given. One saves, another spends. One that saves gets the cash. So government gives and then takes back if one saved?
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,600
|
Post by Ombud on Oct 16, 2015 12:39:28 GMT -5
And a huuuuuuuge gap between 2000 - 25,000 Dental work is covered by Medicaid Not all dental work is covered. oh. I live in California. It's all covered here as is low cost transportation ($1 a ride, $24 transit cards for $9)
|
|
|
Post by mojothehelpermonkey on Oct 16, 2015 13:44:07 GMT -5
Without these social programs you can expect to see an unpleasant increase in human suffering. At the same time, if I could come up with a flawless system to eliminate fraud and make these programs more efficient, I would probably never have to worry about myself or any of my loved ones ever needing them. the problem with most social programs that there are either many many loopholes or they create "criminals" (as described in OP) or they simply don't make any sense. I mentioned this before - when my husband lost his job a few years ago, we had 2 kids under 3 and I was pregnant with our 3rd. I was very much qualified to receive WIC. When I had my 3rd, I could have gotten tons of formula on WIC that I could sell for cash. We are no millionaires, but we definitely didn't need the assistance. So, how does it make sense - means testing for some programs and not for others?? I wish I knew. Since quitting my job, I have been surprised to find out that I do qualify for a few things even though I quit voluntarily (for good reasons) and have enough money saved up to last a while. On the one hand, I want to save my money in case my job search takes longer than I anticipated. At the same time, it feels wrong to let someone else foot part of the the bill for something I can technically afford. Right now, my aversion to paperwork has stopped me from pursuing the free and discounted stuff. However, my childhood would have been a depressing mess if there had been no safety net at all for my mom's parents. I also think my grandpa wouldn't have ended up being an expensive drain on the taxpayers at the end of his life if he would have been a little more open to trying to get some help before things got really bad.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 16, 2015 14:09:14 GMT -5
Galt I totally agree with you that a lot of welfare programs are set up so it makes it impossible to work even if you want to.
I do think there should be a way to taper down rather as your salary increases as opposed to a few bucks kicking you off completely.
Looney's dad on the other hand is using it to bank cash and now give it to his grandkid. You shouldn't be able to use welfare to build up an inheritance.
Even if it wasn't spent it should at least have to be put aside for emergencies in some fashion. I am not sure how you'd go about that but I would agree a $2k EF isn't going to go far and you wouldn't be able to easily build it back up.
So the next emergency is going to leave taxpayers holding the bag resulting in a vicious cycle. The next step from here is a cash police who will have rights to enter your home and search for cash? GOVERMENT said this amount is given. One saves, another spends. One that saves gets the cash. So government gives and then takes back if one saved? Tloonya, it doesn't matter one bit whether you like the law, or not. It's still the law and you're still trying to find ways to break it. This man lived on other people's earnings, not his own. He wasn't saving his money to give to the grandkid. He was saving other people's money to give to the grandkids. The right thing to have done was to have given it back to those from whom it came. In other words, don't take from others more than you need. If he'd worked for the money it would be different. He didn't. So, since he took money that he didn't earn from the government, the government has every right to take it back if he didn't need it.
|
|
|
Post by mojothehelpermonkey on Oct 16, 2015 14:46:48 GMT -5
So that kind of goes along with what I am saying - we have this insane programs and we go from one extreme to another. I get it that it's impossible to create a perfect system and perfect programs, but there is just so much waste and and the same time restrictions.... The state of ME is trying to create a means testing for foostamps and/or welfare - if you have $5K - you are out. I understand the reasoning, but like I said - I think it either creates fraud or makes it harder for honest people to climb out of poverty or survive if they are disabled. Your user name almost made me assume otherwise, but I think we agree on this issue.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,600
|
Post by Ombud on Oct 16, 2015 15:25:10 GMT -5
Thankfully SSI is more understanding as Bonny can attest to. If you come upon a windfall that puts you over the limits, you have a 6 month spend down period to get back within limits. HOWEVER if you create that overage and shield it, there is NO spend down time. You will be eligible again once within limits
|
|
whoami
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 12:43:49 GMT -5
Posts: 1,292
|
Post by whoami on Oct 16, 2015 15:33:37 GMT -5
Actually, Medicaid pays for more than most health insurance companies. You don't want to go here, because I have a step sibling on Medicaid who has had millions paid by Medicaid on her behalf (some self induced medical problems). She has not paid a dime. My medical bills required that I cough up about $13K. So that kind of goes along with what I am saying - we have this insane programs and we go from one extreme to another. I get it that it's impossible to create a perfect system and perfect programs, but there is just so much waste and and the same time restrictions.... The state of ME is trying to create a means testing for foostamps and/or welfare - if you have $5K - you are out. I understand the reasoning, but like I said - I think it either creates fraud or makes it harder for honest people to climb out of poverty or survive if they are disabled. I grew up in ME and can attest to the fact that in the town I grew up in, there are more Work Comp and welfare/food stamp scammers than people who have jobs. Its absolutely ridiculous. They are perfectly capable of "cash" jobs but one that involves a W2? LOL. They also all have late model ATVs and sleds, huge 4x4 trucks to haul them and have lots of time to go riding and hunting. People have created their own little ecosystem with family members as "caregivers" (they get checks too as do the kids) while the taxpayers foot the bill for all the toys. Its just a different version of the "inner city" lifestyle.
|
|