Posts Tagged ‘Ruling’
Boston, MA (PRWEB) August 21, 2012
In the majority of states throughout the United States, including Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California, a judge can sentence prison time to an adult child with resources who chooses not pay for their parents care. While these laws have been around, they were never enforced. States are now leveraging them to attack children with assets, but without Irrevocable Trust asset protection planning, in order to collect on their parent’s health care and nursing home bills.
Prison is still unlikely, but parents’ could easily cost their child their life savings. 29 states are now demanding children pay if their parents become unable to afford it. States are trying to find ways to save money and with Medicaid becoming an exploding part of their budgets, they are now using unenforced Falial laws to collect from adult children. It is going to become much more common, explains Rocco Beatrice, Managing Director of Estate Street Partners. “It is not going to stop there, however. Now that they have successfully litigated these cases, the floodgate will now open and I expect Medicaid to follow suit in most cases over $ 75,000.”
How This Affects Children with Aging Parents
Nursing home care can cost $ 100,000 a year. If mom is in a nursing home for 4 years with assets of 55,000 and she didn’t do Medicaid Asset Protection planning, she will have spent everything in a few months. After she passes the children will now be hit with a bill from the nursing home for $ 345,000. The bill is ignored because, even though asset protection planning was implemented incorrectly, the child believes the nursing home cant come after assets for a parents bills, right? The nursing home and Medicaid take the child to court under a filial responsibility law, making all of their financial statements a public court record for the world to see and ultimately winning a judgment for $ 345,000. Don’t think it can happen? It just did.
Dozens of cases are setting a new precedent on this issue. John Pittas of Pennsylvania didnt think it was his problem either, but the PA Appeals Court disagreed. They ruled that his mothers nursing home could go after John for the $ 93,000 bill. Additionally, all of Mr. Pittas financial information is a public record due to this case. How does one avoid this from happening? Stopping care when mom runs out of money and losing entire retirement savings are not realistic options for most.
Mr. Pittas had the money to pay, but defendants that won cases after being attacked by their state had insufficient assets to pay; reinforcing this fact: states’ expect the child to pay if they can. The best way to avoid having to foot the bill is to plan ahead, urges Mr. Beatrice. Only about half of adults have done estate planning, and 80% of those plans wont help. One must understand the difference between a revocable vs. irrevocable trust; asset protection is not gained with a revocable living trust. They only avoid probate; that doesnt help here. The threat of having to pay for your parents care can be easily alleviated by simply using the right type of high-quality trust; all trusts are not all the same.
With so many threats to your savings, including these filial responsibility laws, typical estate planning offers very little protection. With a expert-crafted Irrevocable Trust, one can enjoy their savings without losing sleep over what could happen, clarifies Mr. Beatrice.
About Estate Street Partners (UltraTrust.com):
Assets can be protected from frivolous lawsuits while eliminating your estate taxes and probate, and also ensuring superior Medicaid asset protection for both parents and children with their Premium UltraTrust
Incoming search terms:
- obama care - per emory atlanta
- Obama care- Per emory hospital in Atlanta
- snopes obama care per emory hospital atlanta
UCSF and UC Hastings experts convened to discuss the impact of the US Supreme Court ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s landmark domestic policy. The Supreme Court’s decision has wide-reaching consequences for health care in America. “What Now? Health Reform in the Aftermath of the Supreme Court Decision,” features experts who discuss the legal significance of the decision and the practical implications for health care. The forum is sponsored by the UCSF Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, one of the nation’s premier centers for health policy and health services research, in conjunction with UC Hastings and the UCSF-UC Hastings Consortium on Law, Science, and Health Policy. Part 1 – David Faigman, JD, director UCSF/UC Hastings Consortium, John F. Digardi Distinguished Professor of Law, UC Hastings Part 2 – Jaime King, JD, PhD, associate directors, UCSF/UC Hastings Consortium, professor, UC Hastings Part 3 – Andrew Bindman, MD, professor of medicine, health policy, epidemiology and biostatistics, UCSF Part 4 – Josh Adler, MD, chief medical officer, UCSF Medical Center and UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Part 5 – Q&A with Audience
Video Rating: 0 / 5
Obama Embraces Health Care Law After Supreme Court Ruling
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama, emboldened by the Supreme Court's affirmation of his health care overhaul, is now embracing the law while campaigning for re-election, just as Republican rival Mitt Romney steps back from it. Obama sees a …
Read more on Huffington Post
Medical center proves Obamacare not needed for affordable healthcare
Second, they altered the composition of health care spending. As the government covered a larger portion of the health care bill, the share of out-of-pocket spending decreased. The combined effects of the increase in federal funding and the decrease in …
Read more on Examiner.com
House Republicans Grill Douglas Shulman, IRS Commissioner, Over Health …
WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Thursday grilled the head of the Internal Revenue Service on the agency's decision to apply the health care law's tax credits in states that decide not to carry out a key provision of the statute. Commissioner Douglas …
Read more on Huffington Post
Incoming search terms:
- Snopes/Obama care Emory Hospital
- snopes-Per Emory Hospital Atlanta
- obamacare implantable microchip
- obama care section 2521 congress
- Obama Care per Emory Hospital Atlanta
- fact chek obama care per emory hospital atlanta
- Fact check: Obama Care - Per Emory Hospital Atlanta
- Obama Care-Per Emory Hospital-Atlanta Georgia
- obama passes the 666 bill to law
- Faaacts check Emory Hospital and Obama care
San Diego, California (PRWEB) July 03, 2012
Daniel Gilleon, a San Diego trial lawyer and a partner in the Mitchell | Gilleon Law Firm, appeared on Fox 5 TV San Diegos morning news broadcast on June 28, 2012 to discuss the United States Supreme Courts decision regarding whether or not the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as healthcare reform or Obamacare, was Constitutional and therefore able to be legally implemented. Mr. Gilleon appeared on the broadcast live as the decision was being announced and provided his feedback and perspective.
Specifically, Mr. Gilleon appeared on the Fox 5 TV San Diego broadcast with Attorney Gary Aguirre, and the two attorneys discussed some of the legal issues brought about by this Supreme Court decision as well as some of the potential reaction that Americans could witness in the coming days and weeks. This discussion was held as the decision was being released to the public. The case is officially known as NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL., Case No. 11-393 that was argued on March 26, 27 and 28, 2012.
After some initial confusion on the part of the broadcast team regarding whether or not the Supreme Court had upheld what is known as the individual mandate portion of the healthcare reform law, the team corrected itself and announced that the Supreme Court had in fact upheld the individual mandate and the law as a whole.
Mr. Gilleon provided insight into the decision by stating that when the bill originally was signed into law, most legal experts expected that the law would be found to be Constitutional. However, he continued, a federal judge issued a ruling not long thereafter that found the law unconstitutional, and that this opinion appeared to sway the public.
Mr. Gilleon continued on to state that the specifics of the ruling seemed to state that this ruling held that failing to purchase healthcare coverage would not be viewed as a penalty, but would rather be dealt with as a tax. Finally, Mr. Gilleon offered his opinion that while there will likely be many people who would be unhappy with this decision, there would also be many people who would benefit from it.
About the Mitchell | Gilleon Law Firm
The Mitchell | Gilleon Law firm is a team of San Diego trial lawyers who have been representing people in matters of litigation of several types for many years. The firm handles cases involving civil rights, traumatic brain injuries, San Diego personal injury matters, wrongful death, catastrophic injury, auto accidents, consumer rights, defective products cases, employment law disputes and many others.
Professors Provide Roadmap for Supreme Court Healthcare Ruling
Sebelius, which recently upheld President Obama's healthcare law, closely resembles a constitutional theory developed by Berkeley Law professor Robert Cooter and his former student, Duke Law professor Neil Siegel '01. The Court ruled that the Patient …
Read more on UC Berkeley
Obama: Health-Care Law 'Here to Stay'
MAUMEE, Ohio – At his first campaign event since the Supreme Court upheld his health-care law, President Barack Obama bragged about the victory to supporters in this battleground state even as he tweaked his usual stump-speech message to appeal to …
Read more on Wall Street Journal (blog)
UAHuntsville professor explains logic behind healthcare ruling, shares top …
Roberts broke rank with fellow conservative justices and joined four liberal judges, writing the majority opinion that upholds the individual mandate — the heart of the healthcare law. Conservatives are outraged, and liberals for now are savoring a …
Read more on Medical Xpress
Kill Devil Hills, NC. (PRWEB) June 29, 2012
After the Supreme Court has announced that they have decided to uphold the historical US health care reform known as Obamacare, Viatical.org has announced a new guide to helping people navigate the sometimes confusing world of insurance. Obamacare is the Presidents landmark bill and legislation for his first term in the White House. The reform bill seeks to provide health insurance coverage to the many American citizens who are currently living without it. Some of the stipulations in the bill include allowing individuals up to the age of 26 to still be included on their parents health insurance plan and also another provision that ensures health insurance coverage to those who even have pre-existing medical conditionsan issue that has hampered many Americans from previously qualifying for health insurance before ObamaCare due to the fact that they have existing, known health conditions. The bill has caused much contention in Congress due to the fact that Republican members believe the bill to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has announced that Obamacare is not unconstitutional and it has upheld this historic piece of legislation. Even still, Congress has said that they plan to act to replace the law, as reported by Fox News.
While insurance and financial issues continue to bog down many American citizens, there are companies now offering to assist in the situation by purchasing patients pre-existing life insurance policies in order to supply them with up-front costs that they may need in order to cover home expenses, college tuitions or any other significant financial obligations. This transaction is called a Viatical. Viatical settlements, or a life settlement, allow patients to essentially sell their life insurance policy in order to finance any current expenses that they may have. A comprehensive resource to learn more about viaticals is http://www.viatical.org/.
Incoming search terms:
- clause in health care bill chips in people
- clause in health care bill for microchip
- qualification for obama\s healthcare bill and microchip
- was microchip struck from health care law
Tallahassee, Florida- July 6, 2012 A lot of questions still surround the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding most parts of the health care reform plan. Two recent polls: one from the Pew Research Center and the other from the Kaiser Family Foundation showed that less than 60 percent of Americans knew what the Supreme Court Decision was. “I understand that people might not understand the issues in depth, but the fact that people aren’t even aware is a little distressing,” said Marshall Kapp, the Director for the Center for Innovative Collaboration in Medicine & Law at Florida State University. Kapp didn’t lead this health care decision forum because of the poll results, but the goal of the briefing was to educate those out there that may not entirely understand how we are affected. “The issues are complicated. Each one is a potentially multi-billion dollar issue,” said Kapp. Health care providers will be affected by the bill. That’s why many med students showed up to see what they could learn. “I was hoping to get some of the impact towards physicians on insurance premiums and things of that sort being that I’m going to be a future physician,” said second year medical student Keniel Pierre. Kapp says that anyone with questions shouldn’t be afraid to ask around. “The more different perspectives that you can listen to and try to absorb and take into account, the better understanding you’re likely to have,” said Kapp.
Wayne, PA (PRWEB) July 02, 2012
On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act in a case called National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), et al. versus Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. The verdict is in Obamacare is constitutional, says David Edman, Managing Partner of Risk Management Partners, a Wayne, PA-based healthcare consulting and brokerage firm, and NFIB Pennsylvania Leadership Council member. This result surprised many people, including me, who believed that the Federal government exceeded its authority to regulate commerce, given limits to Federal powers per the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
According to Edman, there were two major constitutional questions under consideration in this case:
Incoming search terms:
Diana Dooley, California’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, the agency responsible for implementing healthcare reform discusses the impact of Thursday’s US Supreme Court ruling on The Affordable Care Act. The historic ruling enables California to continue its expansion of the state’s Medi-Cal program and create a health insurance exchange. An estimated 7 million uninsured residents will need to find insurance when the individual mandate is enacted.
Video Rating: 0 / 5
Incoming search terms:
- H R 3590 Sec 2521 Pg1000
- obama healthcare 2521 page 1000
- h r 3590 section 2521 pg 1000 paragraph 1
- pg 1000 sec 2521 of the obama healthcare plan
- obamahealthcarebill page 1000 1008 section2521
- obamacare pages 1000-1008 rfid chip
- obamacare page1001
- page 1008 obama care
- Obama health care plan pages 1001-1008
- pages 1000-1008 of the healthcare reform bill
Fair and Balanced: Fox News Promotes, You Decide!: www.politicalarticles.net
Video Rating: 0 / 5