Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Estate recovery makes sense
[Editorial, "Payback?," The Lawrence Journal-World, 30 September 2004.]
This recent editorial hits the nail right on the head when it comes to what the state does and does not owe Kansans. The entitlement paradigm is unsustainable, and public officials should not be labeled heartless for working to restore Medicaid to its original role as a program for the truly needy:
What should we expect from our government?
In some cases, Americans' idea of what they are entitled to in the way of government services seems a little out of whack.
A state law that takes effect Friday apparently has triggered a fair amount of concern and criticism from people who receive state Medicaid payments. The law allows the state, under some circumstances, to claim assets from Medicaid recipients or their estates to help recover some of the cost of paying for their care.
There are many exceptions to the law. It only affects people who are 55 or older or who receive long-term care services through a nursing facility. For married people, any seizure of assets would be delayed until after the death of the person's spouse. Funds also couldn't be recovered from an estate that involved a minor child or a child with disabilities. The goal is not to leave anyone destitute, just to use whatever assets are left over to help the state meet its ever-growing Medicaid demand.
Medicaid is an important safety net for low-income Kansans, but the money to support it doesn't fall from heaven; it comes from taxes paid by hard-working Kansans with homes and medical costs of their own. Because we, as a state and a nation, think it's important to take care of those who are less fortunate, we fund Medicaid so people can receive needed medical care and, in some cases, continue to live in their own homes. It's not reasonable, however, to expect taxpayers to also provide an inheritance for a Medicaid recipient's family.
Where did we get the idea that we're entitled to have someone take care of us, whether that means providing medical care or even preserving our inheritance? Repaying the state or any other entity that has taken care of us in a time of need just seems like the honorable thing to do. It's almost too bad it takes legislation to force people to do the right thing.
[Matthew Hisrich, "Staying the Course: Medicaid Reform in Kansas," The Flint Hills Center for Public Policy, February 2004.
Charles W. Van Way, III, MD, "The Strength of a Really Bad Idea," The Flint Hills Center, 8 May 2004.]
[Editorial, "Payback?," The Lawrence Journal-World, 30 September 2004.]
This recent editorial hits the nail right on the head when it comes to what the state does and does not owe Kansans. The entitlement paradigm is unsustainable, and public officials should not be labeled heartless for working to restore Medicaid to its original role as a program for the truly needy:
What should we expect from our government?
In some cases, Americans' idea of what they are entitled to in the way of government services seems a little out of whack.
A state law that takes effect Friday apparently has triggered a fair amount of concern and criticism from people who receive state Medicaid payments. The law allows the state, under some circumstances, to claim assets from Medicaid recipients or their estates to help recover some of the cost of paying for their care.
There are many exceptions to the law. It only affects people who are 55 or older or who receive long-term care services through a nursing facility. For married people, any seizure of assets would be delayed until after the death of the person's spouse. Funds also couldn't be recovered from an estate that involved a minor child or a child with disabilities. The goal is not to leave anyone destitute, just to use whatever assets are left over to help the state meet its ever-growing Medicaid demand.
Medicaid is an important safety net for low-income Kansans, but the money to support it doesn't fall from heaven; it comes from taxes paid by hard-working Kansans with homes and medical costs of their own. Because we, as a state and a nation, think it's important to take care of those who are less fortunate, we fund Medicaid so people can receive needed medical care and, in some cases, continue to live in their own homes. It's not reasonable, however, to expect taxpayers to also provide an inheritance for a Medicaid recipient's family.
Where did we get the idea that we're entitled to have someone take care of us, whether that means providing medical care or even preserving our inheritance? Repaying the state or any other entity that has taken care of us in a time of need just seems like the honorable thing to do. It's almost too bad it takes legislation to force people to do the right thing.
[Matthew Hisrich, "Staying the Course: Medicaid Reform in Kansas," The Flint Hills Center for Public Policy, February 2004.
Charles W. Van Way, III, MD, "The Strength of a Really Bad Idea," The Flint Hills Center, 8 May 2004.]
Comments:
Post a Comment
