state + local

I find it just INSANE that the State of Minnesota can't, or won't, modify the MA-EPD rules a bit here in order to keep disable folks working past age 65. Even MORE INSANE is the fact that the State of Minnesota will, most likely, be using our tax dollars for a new Vikings stadium. Something is WRONG with this picture. The "Rich" sports boys get public subsidies, while the "Poor" working disabled get dumped. Unfair to the MAX!

Been there, doing that - and it really sucks. You people making the laws - wait until it's your turn. You never know how your health can do a 180 and how fast it can happen. Bet you won't be playing with your phone then, or be able to afford one for that matter. Everything you worked for your entire life goes down the drain for medical and that's it. You now scrape by with what little is allowed you each month. Well, you get the idea. Now get to work and fix this mess!

Obviously an old law that is now getting the attention it needs and an update to reflect modern times. Nothing else to see here - it will be fixed - now move along.

Before a judgement call can be made, I think there are a few facts or details missing and I am not sure if we are able to find the answers as many things are kept a secret. Why can't he use the $$ he has obviously saved and pay the balance of his medical costs and in doing so can stay right where he is in his own home until he reaches that $3,000 mark? What is his job for the School System? How does he function during the day by himself? Also, the lady who is retiring from the University? Just wondering~~~

shamwowvince: How do you know it will be fixed? What do you mean "move along?" This is only one of many inequities and injustices in our system for persons with disabilities. Anyone who has paid half attention to how state government has balanced its books on the backs of the disabled, the poor, and our schools would know that our "modern times" has moved us backwards, not forwards. Forcing working people with disabilities who want to work past age 65 into poverty is just one example of a messed up system.

Just a clarification: the two individuals are not losing their health care coverage altogether. They still have Medicare which is available for folks who have been deemed eligible due to a disability after 24 months of receiving that determination. And if they continue to work, they would still be eligible for their employer's health insurance. The unfortunate, and devastating point I believe the author is trying to make, is that neither insurance covers for services that these indivuals so desperately need after they turn 65 without spending down their savings (assets) to qualify for the state administered Medical Assistant program by way of Elderly Waiver or Alternative Care Waiver that provides home health aids, nurses, personal care assistats, transportation services, meal options, etc. This is a state and a federal dilemma that I too hope gets the attention it needs as these brave and resourceful individuals are just a sampling of the many employed persons with disabilities that contribute to our society.

A good article, but one thing was left out that I think a lot of people who are so 'down' on giving anyone the help they need to be independent, and to stay out of a nursing home, need to know: The Ma-Epd program has a monthly premium that must be paid by the individual just like any other 'medi-gap' insurance program. They pay a good percent of their earned income, and also a chunk of their unearned income (SSDI)..those percents are taking a big jump in the next few years, also. This is a 'hand-up', not a 'hand-out'

The reality is these folks have disabilities that are severe enough that they are not really "independent". The currently require government subsidy to fund attendants/assistants, which must cost more than the premiums they are paying for the MA-EDP "gap" insurance. And there ARE programs to help fund, even after age 65, after they've used their own assets to a certain point. There is no such thing as a free lunch -- someone else (taxpayers) are already paying for help and will continue to do so.

well, cjbrum, I am pretty sure the asset limit for these folks is twenty thousand, vs. the three thousand for the regular medical assistance. If you want to begrudge these folks the pca aide assistance they need to be independent (and keep working, and paying taxes) then they will end up in a nursing home...so their assets will be gone in short order, and medical assistance will then take over their nursing home bills, for years and years and years to come. Guess you'd prefer that?

There's a word for these cases - anomolies. And it's never a good idea to make public policy based on anomolies.