Do high-asset / low-income people qualify for free medical care in California? Can people with low incomes qualify for free medical care (Medi-Cal) in California regardless of their liquid assets? A document on the Department of Health Care Services site (pdf) notes off-hand: Note: Medi-Cal disregards property for individuals whose eligibility is determined utilizing your Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI). But on the other hand, calhealthadvocates.org says: To find out if you qualify for one of Medi-Cal’s programs, look at your countable asset levels. You may have up to $2,000 in assets as an individual or $3,000 in assets as a couple. Is there a basis for this policy in law, and do high-asset / low-income people qualify for free medical care in California?
Can people with low incomes qualify for free medical care (Medi-Cal) in California regardless of their assets? For some programs, but not others. The main exception, discussed below, is the Medicaid expansion component of Obamacare (a.k.a. the Affordable Care Act). One of the exceptions to the general rule considering property is as follows: The Affordable Care Act introduced a new methodology – Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) – to define a family’s size and count income in order to determine eligibility for insurance affordability programs. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(e)(14). As a result, household determination and income counting rules are largely aligned among Medi-Cal, the Medi-Cal Access Program (MCAP, the low-cost health insurance for moderate income pregnant women), and Covered California, with some exceptions. For Medi-Cal, the MAGI rules apply to the following programs: Expansion Adults (adults aged 19 through 64); Parents and Caretaker Relatives; Pregnant Women; and Children. Medi-Cal’s Tuberculosis Program and the Refugee Medical Assistance program also now use the MAGI income methodology. See Welf. &amp; Inst. Code 14005.20(b)(2) and ACWD 15-16 (Mar. 20, 2015), http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/medi-cal/eligibility/Documents/ACWDL2015/ACWDL15-16.pdf. These programs, however, are not considered MAGI Medi-Cal in the Medi-Cal hierarchy because they are limited in scope or duration and should only be used when an individual is not eligible for any other form of free Medi-Cal. In general, unless an individual gets Medi-Cal through a linked program such as SSI or CalWORKs, or due to former foster youth status, Medi-Cal eligibility is reviewed for the MAGI programs before looking to the Non-MAGI programs. Outside that Obamacare program, someone can have significant assets of types that are exempt from consideration (e.g. in the Medicaid nursing home program), but they cannot qualify regardless of their assets. The exact extent to which assets are disqualifying varies by subprogram, with ordinary Medi-Cal, the nursing home program, and the CHIP program for children, having different requirements. The key language is &quot;countable asset levels&quot;. This is defined in a combination of state statutes and regulations which in turn are enacted in order to comply with federal Medicaid program requirements. Only some assets count for purposes of Medi-Cal eligibility. In particular, a personal residence, a single motor vehicle, certain household goods, certain retirement assets, certain cash value in life insurance policies, and investment assets that don't generate current cash income and are impracticable so sell in a timely manner at anything approaching their true value because they are illiquid for some reason or other, don't count. Exactly what does and does not count as a countable asset for purposes of Medi-Cal eligibility is a rather technical and detailed matter because there are some many different kinds of assets out there and the rules address them on a type by type basis. The most common exemptions are set forth here: The main regulations for the Department of Health Services that govern this are found here and here. More legal sources are found here. These primary sources, alas, aren't organized in a very user friendly way. In part, this is because the Medicaid Rules incorporate by reference (with modifications) the rules for the Aid To Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) rules, rather than restating them with the modifications include in full. So the chart on the form is assembled from a mishmash of state and federal regulations in multiple locations. I didn't find a chapter and verse citation for a few kinds of non-countable assets but know they exist from continuing education classes and practicing in the area.
Generally a person can leave money to any person or organization that the testator pleases. In some US states, a minimum portion must be left to family (spouse and/or children). Aside from that, there is no requirement and no exclusions. US law prohibits gifts (and other support) to a few specific organizations which the government has officially listed as terrorist, and I suspect the Taliban is one of these. Gifts by will would be covered by this law just as gifts from a living person. But if a living person in the US can lawfully make a gift to an organization, a similar gift may be left by will. Even if a particular bequest was unlawful, that would not make the will as a whole invalid. Edit: It seems that the Afghan Taliban is not on the list of terrorist organizations maintained by the US, and so there would be no bar to a US citizen leaving money to that group. There would be to groups actually on the list. The general principle above holds.
A company can mandate getting a flu shot as a condition of employment. The government can do the same (for its employees) – Washington state has done so at least for covid. Some individuals qualify for a disability accommodation, so they would be exceptions (e.g. they could be moved to working away from the public). A sincere religious conviction also gives rise to a religious-accommodation exemption. This guidance addresses the question of what constitutes a sincerely held religious belief.
Yes. The term for this situation is a "civil dispute." It can be resolved via a civil claim. In New Jersey, for claims under $3000, you can use the Small Claims courts. The process is designed to be followed without the assistance of counsel. Let the internet be your guide.
New Jersey is not a community property state, but it is an equitable distribution state. This means that in a divorce marital property is divided, not automatically 50-50, but in a way that seems financially fair to the supervising judge, or according to an agreement entered into by both spouses. This also means that the state considers a car bought during the course of the marriage "marital property". There are also special rules for property bought before May 28 1980, which do not seem to apply in the case in the question. However, "marital property" mostly applies when a marriage ends which the question says is not in view here. NJ does allow for a car to be titled to only one, or to both. A title with both names may read "John Doe OR Mary Doe" or "John Doe AND Mary Doe". In the AND case both spouses must sign to sell or borrow against the car, in the OR case either signature will do. If only one name is on the title, that person must sign to sell or borrow. If it comes down to a dispute, the person whose name is on the title can decide where it is to be garaged, and who has permission to drive it. If the "sporty" car is in the name of both parents, either could move it to some other location, and either could move it back. Going back and forth could easily get ugly. If both names are on the 'sporty' car's title with an OR, the husband could sell it without consulting the wife. if there is an AND he would need her to agree. If the older car is in the husband's name alone, he could deny the wife or the son the right to drive it. The wife could, of course, buy a different older (used) car and allow the son to use it. Obviously it would be a good idea if the husband and wife came to a voluntary agreement about all this, but no law requires them to do so.
No. This is governed by the HIPAA Security Rule which was a regulation that the HIPAA statute required the Department of Health and Human Services to adopt. The Rule does require someone covered by HIPAA to have a "Business Associate Agreement" (BAA) and a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with any cloud storage provider (which would be the usual way that a U.S. health care provider subject to HIPAA would have a foreign server), but the Rule does not require that a server be physically located in the United States. The lack of this requirement is a good one, because when you are transmitting data (which the Security Rule requires be done in a secure fashion), you can't know which servers the information will end up on in a trip from source to destination. Email and all other Internet content travels through what amounts to a pony express. It goes through a variety in intermediate server nodes which can change during the course of a session, and generally speaking, you never know which intermediate nodes are used. You could be seeing this answer via a server in China, for example, and you would never know it.
"No fault" is a term of art in this case. In a "no fault" insurance regime, such as the one in place in Utah, minor car accidents are covered by the insurance company of the person who suffers the damage, and not by the person who is at fault in the accident. Utah's "No-Fault" Insurance System Utah is a "no-fault" car insurance state. This means that when a car accident occurs, the people injured in the crash turn to their own insurance coverage first (and sometimes exclusively), filing what is known as a "first-party" claim. This insurance is required to pay at least $3,000 in Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits, regardless of who was at fault for the accident. For minor accidents, that may be the extent of the process -- an injured person receiving a settlement from their own car insurance carrier. Because Utah is a no-fault state, its laws limit the situations in which people injured in car accidents can step outside the no-fault rules and file a liability claim or lawsuit seeking compensation from others who may have caused the accident. Before filing a lawsuit after a car accident in Utah, an injured person must first have incurred $3,000 in medical expenses stemming from the accident, or must have suffered certain kinds of serious injuries as a result of the accident. In Utah, the kinds of injuries that qualify under this "injury threshold" are: - permament disability - permanent impairment - permanent disfigurement, or - dismemberment Without knowing more details about the damages suffered and the terms of the respective policies, it is hard to determine if your claim is or is not beyond the threshold where private lawsuits are allowed. It could be that property damage is not covered by "no fault" at all, or that it could be covered by "no fault" but that you have waived that coverage. If this is a case where private lawsuits are allowed, someone who is injured would hire a private personal injury lawyer, unaffiliated with their insurance company, to sue the person at fault in the accident to recover the damages not covered by your no fault coverage due to the other driver's fault. This would not be the responsibility of your insurance company, unless you have uninsured motorist coverage and the other driver was uninsured, which does not seem to be the case. In non-no fault states and in cases in a no fault state where a lawsuit is allowed, your insurance company (after paying any PIP benefits) would not be involved and cannot help you sue the other driver. If you sue the other driver, the other driver's insurance company will hire a lawyer to defend him and would have authority to settle the case up to the policy limits of the other driver's insurance policy. The insurance company has a duty to affirmatively help you obtain the rights you are entitled to under your policy and if they fail to do so this is called a "bad faith breach of insurance contract". But, they are not obligated to help you with respect to harm not covered by your policy.
As noted in your update, Cal. Civ. Code section 1947.3 says (a) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a landlord or a landlord's agent shall allow a tenant to pay rent and deposit of security by at least one form of payment that is neither cash nor electronic funds transfer. Paragraph 2 related to cases of recent bounced checks, and it sounds like you don't have that problem. From the personal finance angle, if you liked the convenience of the online service but don't trust the new ACH agent, your bank may have an "online bill pay" service where they can withdraw money at a designated time each month and send it. Chase has such a service, no charge, they do an electronic transfer if the payee accepts them and otherwise mail a paper check.