Being Disabled Means No Marriage Equality For Many People
June 29, 2015 10:32 AM   Subscribe

Getting married means losing life saving services for many people with disabilities. "How do you tell a person to choose between having food to eat and getting married? How do you tell a person to choose between their medication or their therapy or their wheelchair or their program that helps them to be more independent and self-sufficient and getting married?"
posted by Anonymous (47 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's Request -- frimble



 
Huh, I always assumed it was the opposite, given all the "will marry for health insurance" stories I've heard.
posted by Melismata at 10:42 AM on June 29, 2015


It took me a while to figure out the only relevant point, which this long, rambling article somehow avoided stating directly: that Medicaid is cancelled when you get married. Is that true?
posted by CaseyB at 10:42 AM on June 29, 2015 [7 favorites]


Tying this to marriage equality feels kind of thin.

Medicaid's eligibility requirements are apparently all kinds of messed up, but the article unfortunately doesn't really enumerate any specifics, or what specifically needs to change. Are there any better sources to read about this particular issue?
posted by schmod at 10:42 AM on June 29, 2015 [6 favorites]


that Medicaid is cancelled when you get married. Is that true?

I'm assuming that Medicaid's formulas likely take into account your household income and presence of an able-bodied spouse in your home, both of which would likely change if you got married.

I'd be interested to know how countries with national healthcare systems deal with this issue. In-home care is ridiculously expensive, so I'd imagine that there might be similar restrictions.
posted by schmod at 10:47 AM on June 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


Rumor is that this was part of the reason that The Captain and Tennille got divorced.
posted by SisterHavana at 10:49 AM on June 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


This piece describes the problem in a bit more detail. For instance:
However, various forms of disability benefits that we have between us put a constraint on the possibility of our legal marriage. For Supplemental Security Income, the total benefits between two individuals are automatically reduced 25 percent upon marrying, and if only one is receiving SSI and the other has more income, "deeming" — or as I call it, the "sugar daddy provision" — comes into play. Deeming assumes that a person who receives SSI and is married to a person with significant income or resources will be taken care of, and thus the benefits will be reduced or eliminated for the SSI recipient, no matter how much the richer spouse keeps their resources separate.
I work in a related field and from what I understand this is absolutely an impediment to people with disabilities who receive Medicaid services (which is, I think, the vast majority of people with disabilities) getting married.
posted by gauche at 10:49 AM on June 29, 2015 [9 favorites]


It only makes sense that once one's financial situation improves, that should be considered in evaluating whether one continues to receive government benefits.
posted by jayder at 10:55 AM on June 29, 2015 [3 favorites]


It isn't just the disabled. I was well advised when I returned to college to put off our wedding - one is eligible for a ton more aid as a single parent than as a married couple.

See also, WIC and SNAP and such.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:01 AM on June 29, 2015 [4 favorites]


In-home care is ridiculously expensive, so I'd imagine that there might be similar restrictions.

In other countries too, or just the US? Again, how much of this would be solved by working to control costs...?
posted by Melismata at 11:01 AM on June 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


This is a larger issue than just marriage (though that is part of it). If you are someone who is able to work but relies on assistive technology to function at that job and live independently, etc, then insisting on having a job can actually hinder your ability to live on your own. Paul Longmore goes into this in great detail in his book Why I Burned My Book and Other Essays on Disability where he talks about tough decisions he had to make in academia (as a man who required assistive devices to work and live, but could still teach perfectly well). There's a bad grey area between not quite broke enough for Medicaid, but also not able to live independently that a lot of people with disabilities can fall into, we even see this with the ACA subsidies where they have to draw some line but those just not eligible for subsidies wind up paying a really large amount, percentagewise, for their health care.

how much of this would be solved by working to control costs...?


In many places the "solution" offered to control costs is to have people live in group facilities or even hospitals just because they need assistive technology and could otherwise live independently. This is a state by state thing and some states (California) have decent though not great options while others (Alabama, Florida) have shameful "options"

Acting like people with disabilities should somehow have to bend over backwards to just to basic human rights things like live in their own home is a symptom of the US's bad relationship to disability culture but also highlighting what real accessibility--to housing, to institutions, to education, to food--might look like and how far we are from that.
posted by jessamyn at 11:08 AM on June 29, 2015 [47 favorites]


It only makes sense that once one's financial situation improves, that should be considered in evaluating whether one continues to receive government benefits.

But there are a bunch of problems with this.

So, if you have more than X in your bank account, you're financial aid can be cut off. Well, it makes total sense that maybe the government shouldn't be giving money to people with 100k in the bank. But the number is much much lower than this. I'm not sure what the number is, but perhaps 5k. But what this does then, is prevent poor people from saving - they have a direct financial disincentive from doing so. Well shit, then what... Poor people are forced to not have any savings - which leads to their helplessness.

With virtually no savings, every poor person is but a single emergency away from catastrophic results... A simple thing like their car breaking down (you may say 'use public transportation', but most folks don't live in places well served by public transportation).

So these rules of kicking people off their services once they've reached 'x' level helps ensures that they will think long and hard before getting to a point where they will then be inelgible for services . Because once their not on public services anymore it can be a long and hard road to get back on.

I don't have any answers to this, but I think we as a society really need to rethink how we approach aid of various sorts.

This dynamic contributes to the lack of upward mobility the poor have.
posted by el io at 11:13 AM on June 29, 2015 [21 favorites]


Poor people are forced to not have any savings - which leads to their helplessness.

But there are also many people on the brink of poverty, who get paid too much to receive benefits but too little to save money, as well. So what should be done about them?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:15 AM on June 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


Yeah, Medicaid will pay for some things that Medicare won't. So I have SSDI, which isn't means tested, and I have eligibility for Medicaid for Workers with Disabilities if I don't marry my boyfriend. I'm fortunate to not need a PCA, but the thing that I need to stand up every day so my bones are less likely to turn into fragile toothpicks and so also I could someday ambulate without a wheelchair -- Medicaid covers that, Medicare doesn't.

So here, she's talking about PCAs. And I can see how that would argue against marriage. I guess I'm confused as to the agencies inquiring whether or not one is married if all the finances are separate -- this is like the old welfare 'man in the house' rule, which was thrown out as the bullshit it was.
posted by angrycat at 11:18 AM on June 29, 2015 [3 favorites]


Sorry, meant to say that "SSA's attitude toward her situation would inhibit marriage."
posted by angrycat at 11:23 AM on June 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


It only makes sense that once one's financial situation improves, that should be considered in evaluating whether one continues to receive government benefits.

This only makes sense if we think that medical care and a basic level of income for all is a "government benefit" that should be carefully metered out to only a few people, rather than a human right that should be guaranteed to all in a society as wealthy as our own.
posted by latkes at 11:25 AM on June 29, 2015 [26 favorites]


It only makes sense that once one's financial situation improves, that should be considered in evaluating whether one continues to receive government benefits.

This would make sense if and only if marriage were very likely to make the person enough better off that they could easily access the care they needed on their own nickel. But realistically, most major care costs far, far more than your average spouse could bring in. If the new partner were guaranteed to make enough money to cover the care plus a stable even if not luxurious standard of living plus saving for retirement, it would make sense, but otherwise, you're just pushing people into the poverty spiral.

If your annual care costs $75,000 and you marry someone who makes $60,000 after taxes (and god knows that I don't make $60,000 even before taxes, for example) your spouse could quit work and care for you...until their food stamps and short-term state aid and all their savings ran out....and then what?
posted by Frowner at 11:28 AM on June 29, 2015 [7 favorites]


But there are also many people on the brink of poverty, who get paid too much to receive benefits but too little to save money, as well. So what should be done about them?


Increase minimum wage to a living wage would be a start.
posted by el io at 11:31 AM on June 29, 2015 [6 favorites]


Basically, the point is that some people's problems are so serious that they can't be solved at the individual/household level, no matter how hard people work. Those problems need to be solved at a society-wide level. It doesn't matter - in the grand scheme of things - whether that's government or "it takes a village", but the fact is that government is the best we have to do this right now. We're not set up for "it takes a village" - our society doesn't work that way. So it has to be the state, unless we want people dying in the streets or some kind of Orwellian "How The Poor Die" charity hospital scenario.
posted by Frowner at 11:31 AM on June 29, 2015 [34 favorites]


This is absolutely such a fucking sucky thing. The way we determine benefits in the US is just crazy.
posted by OmieWise at 11:33 AM on June 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


The problem is that we as a society only deem the disabled as worthy of helping if they also live in miserable abject poverty, which is why until recently the disabled couldn't amass any savings and keep their social security, forcing them to live in some unstable conditions with no safety net. Otherwise how do able-bodied people look down on and pity you to feel better about themselves?
posted by FunkyHelix at 11:38 AM on June 29, 2015 [12 favorites]


Well, yes. And there are really good reasons why this is specifically harmful to people with disabilities. But knowing how our general admission to public benefits works in the US, I don't imagine that this is specifically targeted at people with disabilities.
posted by OmieWise at 11:47 AM on June 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


Well, it makes total sense that maybe the government shouldn't be giving money to people with 100k in the bank. But the number is much much lower than this. I'm not sure what the number is, but perhaps 5k.

In my county, there's an asset limit for housing assistance -- in other words, if you have more than $X in assets, you aren't eligible for housing assistance. The number I think is $5500 total, including checking and savings accounts and material assets, even your car. They verify eligibility monthly. Average rent for a 2 bedroom apartment in my county is, I believe, $1600 a month, which makes the move-in cash amount $4800 (first, last, and deposit). That means that if you're going to be able to save up enough money to ever get off subsidized housing, everything else you own, including your car, can be worth no more than $700 total.

This is the situation I'm most familiar with. I know medicaid works in a similar fashion. How the hell can you ever save up enough money to weather an unexpected crisis if doing so will cause you to lose health care and get booted out on the street with your children?
posted by KathrynT at 11:49 AM on June 29, 2015 [20 favorites]


Deeming assumes that a person who receives SSI and is married to a person with significant income or resources will be taken care of, and thus the benefits will be reduced or eliminated for the SSI recipient, no matter how much the richer spouse keeps their resources separate.

The thing is, we do this for other areas as well. We do this for taxes, for estimating college tuition/financial aid, etc. We constantly, in multiple areas of life, assume that people are the responsibility of the family in which they exist. If the lower earning spouse wants many kinds of assistance, as long as he or she is living with the higher earning spouse, they are ineligible for services. This is not confined to disabilities.
posted by corb at 12:00 PM on June 29, 2015 [3 favorites]


This is not confined to disabilities.

It certainly twists the knife further, though, considering the extraordinary cost of healthcare. It is really shocking how expensive everything is, if you're coming off Medicaid and trying to get your doctor visits and meds on your own dime. I can't even imagine what it must be like for people who require an assistant.

Disability benefits are society's way of reminding you that you're little better than cattle.
posted by mittens at 12:13 PM on June 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


But what this does then, is prevent poor people from saving - they have a direct financial disincentive from doing so. Well shit, then what... Poor people are forced to not have any savings - which leads to their helplessness.

They have a financial disincentive to have *documented* savings.
posted by smackfu at 12:28 PM on June 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


There's still a pretty big leap between "means-testing some government benefits makes sense" and "situations like the one described in the article are fine," or even "situations like the one described in the article are an unfortunate consequence of something necessary, but WYGD."
posted by en forme de poire at 12:29 PM on June 29, 2015 [4 favorites]


They have a financial disincentive to have *documented* savings.

That's a good point. Any many many social workers will help their clients engage in 'fraud' in order to server their clients. But this points to a broken system.
posted by el io at 12:40 PM on June 29, 2015


In my county, there's an asset limit for housing assistance ... I know medicaid works in a similar fashion.

Thanks to Obamacare, there is no longer an asset test for Medicaid for most children, parents and low income adults. Medicaid qualification now depends only on annual income, with the threshold being 133% of the poverty level. It does not matter how much you have in assets and does not discourage saving for the future.

However, this does not apply to red states that have refused Obamacare Medicaid extensions. It also does not apply to certain other Medicaid programs such as long term disability. Keep in mind that Medicaid is a complicated conglomeration of various state and federal aid programs accumulated over decades. Obamacare is the first step in streamlining these into one simplified Medicaid program without complicated asset testing. Work remains to be done.
posted by JackFlash at 12:57 PM on June 29, 2015 [6 favorites]




We do this for taxes, for estimating college tuition/financial aid, etc. We constantly, in multiple areas of life, assume that people are the responsibility of the family in which they exist. If the lower earning spouse wants many kinds of assistance, as long as he or she is living with the higher earning spouse, they are ineligible for services. This is not confined to disabilities.


Yes, and sometimes this has ridiculously bad results! As bad as they may be, however, there are still a few more options - if your family's financial situation is screwed up and your FAFSA is screwed up, you can get loans. Sure, that sucks, and it forecloses part of your future, but it's not in the same league as "oh my god, I am on a breathing machine and I need to have it suctioned every six hours and so I need virtually constant assistance and my spouse can't provide it all". You can't go in and say "I need a large loan because I am going to be taking care of my spouse rather than working for the foreseeable future"...which is precisely why it makes not just little but zero sense to withdraw services when someone marries.

This isn't stuff like "I need assistance to get me motivated to go to my organic basketweaving class because that keeps me from having seasonal depression" (not that people shouldn't be able to alleviate their depression!). This is stuff like "I can't get out of bed without help" and "I need to have the mucous suctioned out of my breathing apparatus every six hours or I'll choke and die".

I will never forget reading someone who blogged on Alas A Blog for a while - she was quadriplegic and required breathing assistance and her family got caught up in some horrible medicaid snafu where it was unclear whether they would be able to get the gold-standard parts for her breathing apparatus - the ones that didn't require virtually constant monitoring and suction - and she was in very real danger of choking events and potentially death. She had a couple of choking episodes or something similar and they also weren't getting the skilled in-home care that they needed to maintain the equipment, IIRC. And she was being cared for by her parents, and they had an absolutely shit time accessing services anyway. There's just no way that stuff like that should rest on one family, especially since we don't exactly work in a society where the "family wage" is the norm.
posted by Frowner at 1:07 PM on June 29, 2015 [14 favorites]


In other countries too, or just the US? Again, how much of this would be solved by working to control costs...?

Other countries, even those with much more expansive healthcare systems than the Us, aren't necessarily much better or at all for these sort of situations.

The UK government frex is determined to kill off its disabled people through incompetent by design processes to declare as many as possible people fit to work, with welfare sanctions if you don't. And of course a rightwing press to hound all those scroungers and welfare cheats.

Over here in the Netherlands we've had the pleasant situation that we're a) hassling elderly people to not go into retirement homes but stay with family, then cut their state pensions "because you're not living on your own".

We've also had about three decades of increasing harassment of disabled/long term ill people because back in the eighties we dumped a lot of people who'd otherwise be expensively unemployed into incapability benefits instead and then were shocked, shocked to discover a million people or so drawing them. Surely those must've been all workshy layabouts rather than people with real problems.
posted by MartinWisse at 1:37 PM on June 29, 2015 [4 favorites]


In my work world in IL we call this benefit management. I usually see this with the cut in SSI benefits. One person on SSI gets 723 a month plus foodstamps up to 194.00 . Two people married who are both on SSI get 1170 (?) A month and some more in foodstamps. It doesn't make practical sense to get married as they lose income.

Medicaid now covers adults at 133% the poverty line . People who are disabled are eligible in this state for 'spend downs' where if they spend ( income - 133% poverty level = )amount in medical expenses they get the rest covered. It just had to be billed not actually paid.

It is hard to navigate when you have a varible income, or are in a mix of SSI or SSDI and employment. The spend down changes every month. The benefits disappear.

In terms of saving in this state $2000 for people on SSI before SSI is cut completely until they fall under the threshold. Medicaid had that asset limit as well. Life insurance plans with cash out benefits count towards assets. Which is very annoying when a family member had purposely paid for years due to the disability in question, but with it they can't get the medical care they need and will die. It is insane.

I want disabled people to get married, but the goverment makes the formulas very weird when someone else income inters the picture. And SSI is a suppliment NOT a safetynet like SSDI which working individuals pay into as insurance if they become disabled. Things like having rent paid for you will and can decrease SSI payments because you don't need as much of a suppliment. I guess.

And whoever the hell came up with the SSI number 733 needs to rot in hell. Because that is not enough to live in without somebody else. But if you admit to somebody else they take the money away.

GAH.
posted by AlexiaSky at 2:49 PM on June 29, 2015 [6 favorites]


Another thing about this bothers me very greatly. Nobody can dare to get married on SSI OR SS, but our society and most religions value marriage so much.
There is all this lip service for 'traditional marriage'
Frankly making it hard or impossible for poor people or disabled people to marry is an act of great hypocrisy in any society which does that.
It is absolutely wrong.
Frankly $733 a month plus food assistance and some medical is really barely enough for ONE person. It really only works if you can get into public housing.
Mr. Roquette and I can't really get legally married. Both of us are Muslim. We struggled even to get our nikah and we don't officially live together.
We had great difficulty even finding an imam who understood our situation and was willing to help us out. Most mosques will not do this out of fear of trouble.
I have seen people have to divorce in order for just ONE of them to be helped.
I have seen families break up so that the children could eat because both parents working wasn't enough money.
By breaking up families, or forcing poor people apart you ruin their moral fiber.
When what people are told is right thing to do is made hard or impossible you turn them into cynics.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 3:23 PM on June 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


An "alternative to documented savings" is one of the many driving forces behind the proliferation of owner-anonymous prepaid card systems that are outside the traditional banking system. Of course, they carry a ridiculously high level of risk that is akin to cash-stuffed mattresses (with transaction costs to boot).
posted by yesster at 3:46 PM on June 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


And whoever the hell came up with the SSI number 733 needs to rot in hell. Because that is not enough to live in without somebody else. But if you admit to somebody else they take the money away.

I wonder if part of the problem is that these things were designed for living situations, like rooming houses, that don't really exist as part of our society any more? Because 733, even adjusted, could most likely cover someone's room and board at a boarding house - but I don't know of a single place that offers that today.
posted by corb at 4:09 PM on June 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


I have MS, diagnosed 13 years ago next week. I've yet to incur any serious disability and generally feel pretty good, thanks in large part to the very risky drug I take to try to keep the disease progressing as slowly as possible.

I have no idea how long my relative good health will last; my MRIs every year show lots of brain and spinal cord lesions. Will I be in a wheelchair this time next year? Or next month? Or never? There's no way to know.

And I have this amazing partner. Seriously, I'm crazy about him. Six years in and I still can't think about him without cracking this goofy grin. I love him more than I could possibly explain, and I hope we end up as one of those couples that dies peacefully within hours of each other when we're super old.

Turns out he kind of digs me, too, and last Christmas Eve we got engaged. Hooray!

Except that I'm not sure that we can actually get married.

In order to qualify for the nursing home care that is a real possibility for me, maybe long before I get old, current Medicaid law says that I can have no more than $2,000 to my name. And that's fine, honestly. I clearly understand that Medicaid is a welfare program, and I would expect to actually need that welfare before it was offered to me.

But if the man that loves me marries me... In addition to being brave enough to face the sometimes-overwhelming terror of this disease hand in hand with me for the rest of our lives, he will also have to risk losing the majority of his own hard-earned money--money he made long before we'd even met--in order that I can qualify for Medicaid if I need it some day[1].

He could be made less financially stable because he made the mistake of falling in love with someone who has a shitty disease. He could be penalized for marrying me. His life could be made worse by being married to me, which I'm pretty sure is the opposite of what marriage is supposed to do for people.

So this March we'll have a ceremony and say our vows, and I'll wear a pretty dress and I'm sure I'll cry all over him. But we maybe won't sign a marriage license, or reap any of the benefits of legal marriage. We'll be married in every way but the actual, you know, married part.

And I will add legal marriage to the list of things MS may take from me.

[1] While there are some "spousal impoverishment" allowances in the Medicaid laws that intend to keep the healthy spouse from becoming destitute, the asset limits are small and the monthly expense allowances would barely cover the mortgage and property taxes for our very modest house.
posted by jesourie at 4:16 PM on June 29, 2015 [15 favorites]


SROs (single room occupancy)do exist and are not happy places to be. A single room contains no way to heat food aside a microwave at best. Some have adjoining bathrooms to another room and some just have hall bathrooms like a dormitory. Many people on SSI live in then or similar situations in large cities. I can name a few offhand in Chicago and one or two I've been in. The conditions are poor and the lifestyle so very difficult.
posted by AlexiaSky at 4:42 PM on June 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


SROs exist, but you don't get food at them, thus why the microwave sucks so hard. If you know of anyplace which has both, I'd be interested to hear about it.
posted by corb at 4:44 PM on June 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


Please note that SROs offer no services other than a room and can cost 300 to 500 here in Chicago a month with utilities (heat and electric) included.
posted by AlexiaSky at 4:44 PM on June 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


Thanks to Obamacare, there is no longer an asset test for Medicaid for most children, parents and low income adults. Medicaid qualification now depends only on annual income, with the threshold being 133% of the poverty level. It does not matter how much you have in assets and does not discourage saving for the future.

This is true if you are not receiving home health care paid for by the state maybe. I qualify for Medicaid based on income and disability and lose my Personal Care Assistance (PCA) as soon as I 1) pass the income threshold or 2) have more than $2000 of assets in my accounts for more than 3 months I think. This isn't a poverty-for-life equation for me currently, because I live with my upper middle class parents and they can afford to support me, but if I ever had to try to live independently I'd be screwed, state-sponsored help or no. Not allowing people to accrue savings is just a dumbass decision that does nothing to stop the cycle of poverty, and really, if my wheelchair broke down what's <$2000 gonna get me? This thing cost more than $15,000!
posted by clavier at 6:02 PM on June 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


I have a totally disabled relative, who became totally disabled before becoming reaching the age of 22 and after both of her parents died. Because she is disabled and has been since that time, she receives Social Security (not SSI) benefits from her late father's account: Her dad was raising her but died when she was 16 or 17, and the Social Security benefits of such an orphan continued because, the theory goes, her disability meant she never became independent .... She has a life-long disability.

Sadly, she cannot get married or she will lose her Social Security, something for which her dad paid by his withholding tax. Even when she had a child and would like to have married her long-time partner who was the father of that child, she could not get married without losing her Social Security benefits (and Medicare). This is humiliating for her and her child, and it seems "anti-family." As the Social Security Administration advises, "If he or she receives benefits as an adult disabled since childhood, the benefits generally end if he or she gets married."
posted by swlabr at 6:06 PM on June 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


It does not matter how much you have in assets and does not discourage saving for the future.

Link please? Because every Medicaid lawyer I've consulted recently has said the opposite.
posted by jesourie at 6:26 PM on June 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


Section 1902(e)(14)(C) of the ACA prohibits asset tests for people who are eligible for Medicaid based on MAGI -- those with income less than 138% of the Federal Poverty Level. This only applies if you're in one of the 30 states that accepted the Medicaid expansion, though.
posted by bradf at 7:22 PM on June 29, 2015


Section 1902(e)(14)(C) of the ACA prohibits asset tests for people who are eligible for Medicaid based on MAGI.

As pointed out above, while this rule applies to the majority of people who get Medicaid based on low income, it does not apply to other Medicaid programs where eligibility is based on disability. Obamacare has simplified the low-income portion of Medicaid. It does not address disability Medicaid.
posted by JackFlash at 9:26 PM on June 29, 2015


Nor does it change anything about qualifying for Medicaid assistance for nursing home care:

(iv) LONG-TERM CARE- Subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) shall not apply to any determinations of eligibility of individuals for purposes of medical assistance for nursing facility services, a level of care in any institution equivalent to that of nursing facility services, home or community-based services furnished under a waiver or State plan amendment under section 1915 or a waiver under section 1115, and services described in section 1917(c)(1)(C)(ii).

If you need to go into a nursing home because of a disability, your choices are: be rich enough to pay for it out of pocket without impoverishing yourself; have some money but use all of it to pay for nursing home care until you impoverish yourself to the extent that you can qualify for Medicaid and nearly impoverish your spouse in the process; or be impoverished enough that you already have Medicaid.
posted by jesourie at 9:35 PM on June 29, 2015


So, if you have more than X in your bank account, you're financial aid can be cut off. Well, it makes total sense that maybe the government shouldn't be giving money to people with 100k in the bank. But the number is much much lower than this. I'm not sure what the number is, but perhaps 5k.

The number is 2k. It is a pain in the ass to stay below; I've just recently moved heaven and earth to spend down with two of my clients so we could avoid the 2k top limit.
posted by Deoridhe at 12:28 AM on June 30, 2015




If you need to go into a nursing home because of a disability, your choices are: be rich enough to pay for it out of pocket without impoverishing yourself; have some money but use all of it to pay for nursing home care until you impoverish yourself to the extent that you can qualify for Medicaid and nearly impoverish your spouse in the process; or be impoverished enough that you already have Medicaid.

There is another option, which is: divorce your spouse so you can qualify on a non-joint income. Behold, the Medicaid Divorce.
posted by DarlingBri at 10:27 AM on June 30, 2015


« Older Define "wellness."   |   Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments