posted
I heard about this case on public radio this morning, and am quite intrigued by it.
Basically, members of a Hutterite colony were denied Medicaid benefits by the state because though they themselves met the poverty requirements, the state says the Hutterite community should pay for their healthcare.
I don't like the bias in the written form of the article I linked to - they keep mentioning that the families in question have access to $2.1 million in resources, not realizing that these "resources" are mostly huge amounts of land and farm equipment that the colony uses to feed and provide for the members. One can hardly say they have millions of dollars of disposable income.
What do you think? Can the government require religious organizations to pay the doctor bills for its members?
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, interesting case. I guess the law was intended to make it so that a group of people (who could afford their own healthcare) couldn't get together, put all their money into a trust, and then become eligible for goverment services while living high so to speak off of the trust money. In terms of the law it looks like the murky issue is if this is really a typical trust situation. If that get's worked out I guess it's pretty straight forward one way or another in terms of the legality. I think they shouldn't include infrastructure necessary for survival when figuring out if you have enough money to pay for health care and other, necessary services.
posted
Certainly they shouldn't count all the assets of the trust fully for each person. If the collective has $2.1 million in resources, and 210 members, then each member should be "allocated" $10,000 in assets for the calculation of eligibility.
I can't tell at all from the article if this is done or not.
posted
I don't know anything about trusts, so this is just a question but shouldn't there be some way to differentiate between money that's tied up and money that's just money?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Each Hutterite colony has to provide for between 60 and 160 persons. Most Hutterites are sustained through agriculture. Most colonies are crop producers and have fair-sized farms. They also raise a large amount of livestock. In addition to agriculture, manufacturing is gaining a lot of momentum on colonies. Diversification is becoming more important, due to high start-up costs associated with farming and often low commodity prices.
Every person on a Hutterite Colony is assigned a job. Some positions such as carpenter, chicken man, farm boss, etc, are elected by majority vote. All baptized male members (typically married) of the colony have a vote. The men in charge of these positions are usually married, and helpers are assigned as needed. These helpers are often younger men, typically unmarried.
quote: About 40 000 Hutterites live on 458 colonies in North America today.
They provide a chart that says there are 50 colonies in Mountana.
quote: All members of the colony are provided for equally and nothing is kept for personal gain. Hutterites do not have personal bank account; rather all earnings are held communally and funding and necessities are distributed according to one's needs.
That's all I can find that's relevant. It all comes from here.Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm realtively sure they include land in the nebulous category of "assets." This is a huge problem in my state. I have friends from rural areas who couldn't afford to attend college - their family's land "assets" made them ineligible for federal financial aid, but farming is by no means lucrative and the actual money available to the family was insufficient. I guess the government expected them to sell off a section of land to send a kid to college but the problem is that A) that lessens the ranch's productivity and ability to continue to support the family and B) property like rangeland isn't valuable in small amounts. No one's going to buy a section of Eastern Montana dry pasture when it takes 20 sections to make a decent livestock living.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Dag's point is the most important. Look at this quote from the article:
quote:‘‘Because this program is for the poorest of the poor, (losing federal funding) could really cause some damage to people who don't have $2.1 million in resources available,'' she said.
These people do NOT have $2.1 million in resources available. That is not their money to "draw from."
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since the colony is based on a religion - what is the difference of this, and say -- the LDS? I mean, where could the government cross the line here?
The LDS church I know owns great deals of land and farms and businesses in the Utah area, and others. The church itself. So could this, in the future, be also miscontrued to say members of that faith must look to their own community (the LDS organization) for payment of medical services?
I am fearful of the precedent something like this could set.
posted
Farmgirl, I think the religion element is a distraction. In these colonies, each adult has a legal beneficial interest in the property. Members of the Church of LDS do not have such an interest (I'm assuming). So that shouldn't be a problem.
Trusts are pretty simple in concept, but even the simplest have very complex implications.
I'm sure these trusts were created before the onset of Medicaid - certainly before the trust rules were implemented. They may need to look at how they are structured in order to not run afoul of these regulations.
posted
I think the main problem is that the trusts were created before healthcare got so damn expensive.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I think it would have been calculated that way, because if they DID sell it (not that they should have to) that is what they would get, I think.
That is what I got out of it, although I don't have any specifics to back that up.
I don't know if the religious aspects of it are enough to shield it from the government, to be honest.
I DO know that if I have an asset that is worth 2.1 million, but no cash, I don't qualify; I have the option of selling it and reaping the benefits. Medicare and Medicade are for people without any other potions, not for those who choose not to utilize those options available to them.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
