EXCLUSIVE: Obama extends protections to gay couples under Medicaid

[Tarheel_Dem]

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/06/10/exclusive-obama-extends-protections-to-gay-couples-under-medicaid/

By Chris Johnson on June 10, 2011


The Obama administration is set on Friday to issue policy guidance to states expanding their ability to offer same-sex couples the same protections afforded to straight couples when they receive long-term care under Medicaid, the Washington Blade has learned exclusively.

Under the new guidance, dated June 10, states have the option to allow healthy partners in a same-sex relationship to keep their homes while their partners are receiving support for long-term care under Medicaid, such as care in a nursing home.

Medicaid kicks in for a beneficiary to receive care after an individual depletes virtually all of their money. To pay for the beneficiary’s expenses under Medicaid, a state could impose a lein, or take possession, of a beneficiary’s home to pay for Medicaid expenses.

However, federal law prohibits imposing this lein if beneficiaries are married to someone of the opposite-sex who’s still living in their home. The new guidance, signed by Deputy Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Cindy Mann, clarifies that states can offer this protection to the healthy partner of a Medicaid recipient in a same-sex relationship.

:applause:

[DURHAM D]

1. "states can offer"

Right - that should really make a big difference...



:sarcasm:

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. Sarcasm noted, but it sounds like the people at The Blade feel it's a major

step forward, but do carry on. :eyes:

[DURHAM D]

3. You think North Carolina will exercise the option?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vaberella]

13. They might not, but lawsuits that say this is part of the law will.

Not to mention they might not but other states will. That's the whole point.

[firehorse]

4. making changes one step at a time

[AtomicKitten]

6. Yes indeed.

:fistbump:

k&r

[flpoljunkie]

7. I'd say that's some good news today. Thanks!

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[flpoljunkie]

10. Hi, Tarheel_Dem! Thanks for your post.

[CakeGrrl]

8. A step in the right direction! Rec.

[namahage]

11. K&R.

[ClarkUSA]

12. Thank you, President Obama, for being the best pro-LGBT rights POTUS ever.

I'm surprised previous Democratic presidents haven't done this but it doesn't surprise me that Pres. Obama is walking the walk as usual while others just talked endlessly.

Better late than never.

[vaberella]

14. I agree with you. n/t

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Politicub]

31. +1 - anyone who disagrees isn't paying attention

Obama 2012!

[vaberella]

15. Thanks for this. Good move on the president. n/t

[Scuba]

16. Wow. Increased equality.

I guess every little bit helps.

[Doctor Hurt]

21. yes it does

[Behind the Aegis]

17. Yummy

[Tarheel_Dem]

18. Well the author, and HRC disagree. But then, who are they?

:shrug:

[Behind the Aegis]

26. Thankfully, I don't need them to think for me.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Aristus]

20. But...but...but...

President Obama hasn't done ANYTHING progressive since his term began! He's betrayed us liberals......right?

:sarcasm:

[dsc]

23. I will wait to see how this plays out

I would presume that some states have asked about this (maybe MA, VT, CA, or CT) and thus would act upon this. Frankly I don't think many others will. I would prefer that the same standard (must offer instead of can offer) be applied to both gay and straight couples. But again, I will wait and see on this. Some gay couples will likely be helped immensely by this but it is likely to be a very small number with many other similarly situated couples losing out.

[stevenleser]

24. You are right. But we need to vote with our feet and our dollars here.

I for one, will do my best not to spend any money in any state, or any products from any state that fights this.

I'd like to see one of the progressive LGBT groups start a movement that organizes LGBT'ers to vote with their feet and leverage their dollars. LGBTers tend to have more disposable income than the population in general, so if you guys move out of states that act bigoted, and refuse to patronize businesses from states that act bigoted, it will have a huge effect.

Just getting 5-10% of any part of the population of a state to move out of that state right now would completely collapse what is left of the housing and apartment industry in that state. If it is a group that tend to have more money, the effect would be greater than an average group of 5-10%.

[Amimnoch]

29. I see it as a stepping stone policy.

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but could President Obama make it mandatory without Congressional backing? As a policy guidance, it's true that this will only allow for states to choose for themselves if they will or will not extend the benefits.

Some states will, many others will not. The best thing about this policy guidance will be the historical effect of it. Some day in the future, this will be taken up by congress, and with some states having opted to support it, there will be history established to base the law on.

DADT was mentioned above in at least one of the replies. DADT was a huge compromise by President Clinton, and wasn't well received by either conservatives or liberals back when it was implemented. But, having joined the Navy in May 1989, and remembering all of the forms I had to sign saying I wasn't gay, and I didn't have gay thoughts, and that I could be prosecuted for stating falsely on those forms, DADT was a step forward. Frankly, had DADT not passed back then, I seriously doubt the step we are taking now in eliminating it, and allowing us to serve openly in the near future wouldn't be possible.


It may not be a HUGE step forward, but I do see it as an actual step forward, and not a red herring. But that is just IMHO.

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. Thanks for your respectful insights.

:thumbsup:

[Politicub]

30. Love it. President Obama is a friend to the gay communitya

And a poweful ally.

This news is huge.

[Number23]

32. Too late to rec. This was posted before

but it didn't get much attention. People seemed to be much more interested in talking about Tracy Morgan's revolting, stupid assed "jokes" than about this important policy change this weekend. How very interesting.

[Tarheel_Dem]

34. Hi #23. Very interesting indeed.

;)

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Heidi]

37. It's a positive step, but it's not a mandate.

Today’s announcement clarifies that state agencies can voluntarily extend these protections when the same-sex spouse or domestic partner of the Medicaid enrollee continues to reside in their home. While this is a positive step forward, the federal Defense of Marriage Act prevents today’s guidance from being a mandate, and same-sex couples in states that choose not to take these steps will remain vulnerable.
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2011/06/obama-administration-announces-two-important-steps-toward-equal-access-to-healthcare/

[Behind the Aegis]

38. 41 states prohibit same-sex marriage via statute or the state's constitution.

[Heidi]

39. Exactly.

I guess there's reason to celebrate if you're in one of those nine states where it is a mandate. Not so much if you're not. (Plus, I guess I don't get the congratulatory back-slapping with over a step in the right direction, but maybe I'm cynical.)