Home

TS Radio Network: Tanya TalkS w/Gretchen Hammond & James Treat

Leave a comment

Join us Sunday evening February 10, 2019 at 7:00 CST!

More

There’s No Place Like Home…Especially if they can take yours!

14 Comments

Marti Oakley

 

Medicare Advantage: Only an advantage for those glorious “stakeholders”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

“It isn’t the patients who are bankrupting Medicare….its the service providers on all levels. If the states and insurance companies need to “recapture” their expenses…why not start with those who are gaming the system?”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

According to the US Census Bureau, annual home ownership rates between 1982 and 2017 shows the population of those 65 or older represented just over 80% of all homes owned. This statistic has made the elderly prime targets for estate theft by predatory guardians and attorneys, and now under Medicare Advantage, the state/insurance companies can attack the estate because for some reason they have to be able to recapture the costs of long term care that you financed to begin with.

Now, ask yourself why, after investing in Social Security and Medicare over your lifetime, and….having to pay in most cases exorbitant premiums each and every month once you retire, along with co-pays, deductibles and a host of non-covered services, what you could possibly owe to the state or the insurance company?

But under Medicare Advantage, the combining of Medicare and Medicaid, after you having invested a portion of your earnings over your working lifetime, paid premiums, co-pays, deductibles and paid taxes to support these healthcare programs, these “stakeholders”, the [state/insurance company] must recapture the costs associated with long term care you might have needed, once you pass away.

Now think about this. You worked all your life and invested in Social Security and Medicare. You paid income tax every year which helped pay for medical care for the poor called Medicaid. You bought your home and have been assessed property taxes every year just for doing so, and continue to pay property taxes while you remain there, and long after the mortgage has been paid off. If you hadn’t paid those property taxes they would have already taken your property from you!

Currently, the bills in each state covering this “recapture”, prohibit the state from seizing property if there is a surviving spouse living in or on the property. But once the surviving spouse dies or are themselves put into long term care, the state/insurance company can attack the estate in order to recover those costs. Even if there is joint tenancy or co-ownership of property by those who are not otherwise responsible for, or legally bound to the deceased, the state/insurance company has first rights to the assets. And this recapture takes place before any inheritance can be received by the beneficiaries of the estate. Of course there is no intention of anything to remain for heirs. More

JASON HANSON v. JARED E. SHAFER, et. al. Current Hearing Schedule:

Leave a comment

JASON HANSON v. JARED E. SHAFER, et. al.
Current Hearing Schedule:
Case No. A-17-758506-C
Location: Department 10, Clark Co. Regional Justice Center
12/21/2017 Status Check (9:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Jones, Tierra) IN-CAMERA REVIEW
12/21/2017 Motion for Judgment (9:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Jones, Tierra)
LAS VEGAS: Guardianship exploitation victim Jason Hanson will appear on Thursday, Dec. 21 at 9:30 AM in Dept 10 of Clark County District Court to hear Judge Tierra Jones’ ruling as to whether his case should be dismissed based on the statute of limitations, or continue on to trial by jury.
Defendants argue that Hanson should have filed his lawsuit against his guardians and trustees/attorneys in 2007 upon his 18th birthday, but instead waited until 2016 to file suit following his testimony before the Nevada Supreme Court Guardianship Commission, at which time Hanson argues that he, for the first time, realized he had been severely taken advantage of and misrepresented by court appointed private guardians and trustees.

IN JASON’S OWN WORDS:

 At a previous hearing, Judge Jones ordered Family Court videos of Jason appearing in 2007 before Guardianship Hearing Master Jon Norheim when Hanson requested, and was refused, a court paid for attorney. Judge Jones reviewed the court videos to determine if Hanson was able at that time to understand the proceedings, and if so, realize he should file a lawsuit then, not years later.

More

%d bloggers like this: