#medicaid planning florida

[lemieuxjacoby1]

Top Guardianship Attorneys in Melbourne, Florida: Finding the Right Legal Support for Your Needs

Overview:

When navigating the complex and sensitive area of guardianship law, finding the right legal support is crucial. For residents of Melbourne, Florida, Lemieux & Jacoby stand out as premier guardianship attorneys who offer personalized and professional legal services. Their deep understanding of both the legal and emotional aspects of guardianship cases makes them an invaluable resource for families seeking guidance and support. Here's a closer look at how Lemieux & Jacoby can help you with your guardianship needs.

Why Choose Lemieux & Jacoby?

1. Expertise in Guardianship Law:Lemieux & Jacoby specialize in guardianship cases, which often involve protecting the rights and well-being of minors, the elderly, or those who are incapacitated. Their extensive knowledge of Florida guardianship law enables them to navigate the intricate legal requirements and processes involved, ensuring that their clients receive the best possible representation.

2. Personalized Legal Support:Understanding that every guardianship case is unique, Lemieux & Jacoby offer a personalized approach to legal support. They take the time to understand the specific needs and circumstances of their clients, providing tailored legal strategies designed to achieve the most favorable outcomes. Whether you are seeking guardianship of a minor, need to establish guardianship for an incapacitated adult, or are involved in a contested guardianship case, they are equipped to handle your situation with care and professionalism.

3. Comprehensive Services:Lemieux & Jacoby provide a comprehensive range of guardianship services, including establishing guardianship, modifying existing arrangements, and litigating contested cases. They also assist with related legal matters, such as estate planning and probate, ensuring that all aspects of a client's legal situation are addressed.

4. Compassionate Representation:Guardianship cases can be emotionally charged and stressful. Lemieux & Jacoby are known for their compassionate approach, offering support and guidance throughout the legal process. They prioritize open communication, ensuring that clients are informed and comfortable with each step of their case.

5. Community Reputation:With a strong reputation in the Melbourne, Florida, community, Lemieux & Jacoby are trusted legal advocates who have helped countless families navigate the complexities of guardianship. Their dedication to their clients and commitment to ethical legal practice make them a top choice for anyone in need of guardianship services.

How to Get Started

If you are considering establishing guardianship or need legal assistance with a guardianship issue, Lemieux & Jacoby are here to help. They offer initial consultations to discuss your case, answer your questions, and outline the next steps. Contacting their office is the first step toward securing the legal support you need to protect your loved ones and ensure their well-being.

For more information or to schedule a consultation, visit their website or call their office today. Lemieux & Jacoby are ready to provide the experienced, compassionate legal guidance you need for your guardianship case in Melbourne, Florida.

[ehrhardtlawpllc]

https://medium.com/@themedicaidapplicationfirmseo/comprehensive-guide-to-estate-planning-in-florida-safeguarding-your-legacy-and-loved-ones-c6aaa566bc8a

[rheinganslaw]

Florida Medicaid Planning

Unlock the best strategies for Florida Medicaid planning with our professional guidance. We specialize in helping you understand Medicaid requirements, optimize your benefits, and safeguard your financial future. Our expert team offers clear, comprehensive planning to ensure you make the most of your Medicaid options.

[zinniajones]

These "expert" pediatricians were paid by a far-right legal group to come up with evidence to attack the WPATH transgender standards of care

What this is: Leaked documents show the anti-LGBT legal group Alliance Defending Freedom paying manufactured experts to attack WPATH’s transgender standards of care, asking them to find evidence for harmful anti-trans myths that they knew were baseless and unsubstantiated. This is an original finding and report by Zinnia Jones (she/her), a transgender Florida resident of 11 years whose access to HRT is now jeopardized by the enactment of state law and policy based on work from these same experts.

Detailed summary: From 2019 onward, states across the US have been faced with an intensely active wave of reused anti-trans experts, recurring characters who keep repeating the same spurious arguments against gender-affirming care in court cases, legislatures, and other policy bodies. Where did they come from, and why did this start happening?

Due to the Florida-based anti-LGBT hate group American College of Pediatricians choosing to set one of their Google Drive folders to be publicly viewable by anyone, files were released this month showing the contents of their staff’s communications and other working notes over several years.

These documents included records of the Alliance Defending Freedom - another hate group who are also responsible for bringing the mifepristone case with ACP as a plaintiff - approaching ACP's leaders in 2018 and 2019 to offer them a grant of $10,000 or more. The ADF wanted the pediatricians “to draft a white paper that refutes the WPATH Standards of Care”, “for use in litigation and should also benefit many other allies at State and Federal Level”.

ACP’s president Quentin Van Meter and executive director Michelle Cretella promptly got to work on this “Special Project”, and the ADF hosted expert witness workshops at ACP's conferences. ACP members including Van Meter went on to present anti-trans testimony in several ADF-litigated cases and ADF-involved trans youth care bans.

In May 2022, Van Meter authored a sham report for Florida Medicaid to justify their trans coverage exclusion, mostly drawing from previous ACP position statements; court filings later revealed Michelle Cretella was recommended by the Florida governor’s office, and she pointed the way to all the other anti-trans experts hired by Florida in 2022 to support the Medicaid exclusion of transition care.

One notable document found in the ACP’s drive contains “Transgender Research Requests”, with the ADF asking Cretella and other ACP leaders to “substantiate” now-commonplace anti-trans talking points. These included bizarre claims by the ADF such as “it is normal during adolescence for children to go through a phase when they identify (to some degree) with the opposite sex”, and “For those who have undergone hormone therapy and genital change surgery, a paper that says they are no happier (and perhaps worse off if the research supports it)”.

The ADF was asking this anti-trans group to come up with anything that could support the arguments they were already planning to make.

This appears to be one of the very sites where those baseless myths about suicide, social contagion and other supposed harms, now regularly repeated in court cases and testimony and uncritically accepted by the mainstream right wing, were conceived and gestated.

These same experts then substantially reused these work products in their reports for Florida Medicaid, a public health agency whose accepted standards determination process is supposed to be a transparent and open-ended evaluation of peer-reviewed medical evidence.

Altogether, these documents appear to demonstrate a paid smear by a hate group and right-wing law firm against a leading professional transgender healthcare organization following the best available evidence and medical practices, as well as misconduct on the part of ACP experts who reused this work in their reports for a Florida public health agency.

(asks are open)

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A national physician group this week called for the complete termination of a Medicare privatization scheme that the Biden White House inherited from the Trump administration and later rebranded—while keeping intact its most dangerous components.

Now known as the Accountable Care Organization Realizing Equity, Access, and Community Health (ACO REACH) Model, the experiment inserts a for-profit entity between traditional Medicare beneficiaries and healthcare providers. The federal government pays the ACO REACH middlemen to cover patients' care while allowing them to pocket a significant chunk of the fee as profit.

The rebranded pilot program, which was launched without congressional approval and is set to run through at least 2026, officially began this month, and progressive healthcare advocates fear the experiment could be allowed to engulf traditional Medicare.

In a Tuesday letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) argued that ACO REACH "presents a threat to the integrity of traditional Medicare, and an opportunity for corporations to take money from taxpayers while denying care to beneficiaries."

The group, which advocates for a single-payer healthcare system, voiced alarm over the Biden administration's decision to let companies with records of fraud and other abuses take part in the ACO REACH pilot, which automatically assigns traditional Medicare patients to private entities without their consent.

CMS said in a press release Tuesday that "the ACO REACH Model has 132 ACOs with 131,772 healthcare providers and organizations providing care to an estimated 2.1 million beneficiaries" for 2023.

"As we have stated, PNHP believes that the REACH program threatens the integrity of traditional Medicare and should be permanently ended," Dr. Philip Verhoef, the physician group's president, wrote in the new letter. "Whether or not one agrees with this statement, we should all be able to agree that companies found to have violated the rules have no place managing the care of our Medicare beneficiaries."

Among the concerning examples PNHP cited was Clover Health, which has operated so-called Direct Contracting Entities (DCEs)—the name of private middlemen under the Trump-era version of the Medicare pilot—in more than a dozen states, including Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and New York.

PNHP noted that in 2016, CMS fined Clover—a large Medicare Advantage provider—for "using 'marketing and advertising materials that contained inaccurate statements' about coverage for out-of-network providers, after a high volume of complaints from patients who were denied coverage by its MA plan. Clover had failed to correct the materials after repeated requests by CMS."

Humana, another large insurer with its teeth in the Medicare privatization pilot, "improperly collected almost $200 million from Medicare by overstating the sickness of patients," PNHP observed, citing a recent federal audit.

"It appears that in its selection process [for ACO REACH], CMS did not prevent the inclusion of companies with histories of such behavior," Verhoef wrote. "Given these findings, we are concerned that CMS is inappropriately allowing these DCEs to continue unimpeded into ACO REACH in 2023."

While the Medicare pilot garnered little attention from lawmakers when the Trump administration first launched it during its final months in power, progressive members of Congress have recently ramped up scrutiny of the program.

Last month, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) led a group of lawmakers in warning that ACO REACH "provides an opportunity for healthcare insurers with a history of defrauding and abusing Medicare and ripping off taxpayers to further encroach on the Medicare system."

"We have long been concerned about ensuring this model does not give corporate profiteers yet another opportunity to take a chunk out of traditional Medicare," the lawmakers wrote, echoing PNHP's concerns. "The continued participation of corporate actors with a history of fraud and abuse threatens the integrity of the program."

[harriswalz4usabybr]

These are four of the surrogates that we plan to lean on heavily during the campaign. We've assigned surrogates to various regions and marked them as main or back-up, but both will be leaned on in ways that speaks to the strengths of the surrogate.

Mid-Atlantic (VA, NC, SC)

Main: US Representative Jim Clyburn—a civil rights icon, particularly in the African American community. His influence was pivotal in securing the Democratic nomination for Joe Biden in 2020, and his support for Harris-Walz will bring crucial credibility and trust to our campaign, especially in South Carolina and among older voters.

Back-up: Governor Roy Cooper—a governor with a proven track record of winning in a battleground state by appealing to both urban and rural voters. His leadership on issues such as Medicaid expansion, public education, and disaster response aligns well with the Harris-Walz platform, making him a valuable surrogate in the critical Mid-Atlantic region.

Deep South (AL, LA, MS, North Florida)

Main: Mayor Randall Woodfin—a vocal advocate for progressive policies, particularly in areas like criminal justice reform, affordable housing, and educational equity. His leadership in a deep-red state highlights the importance of building bridges and pushing for change even in challenging environments, making him a powerful voice for the campaign in the Deep South.

Back-up: Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba—known for his commitment to social justice, economic empowerment, and community-driven governance. His efforts to transform Jackson into a model of progressive policy at the local level make him an ideal advocate for the Harris-Walz vision of inclusive governance and grassroots activism.

[ridenwithbiden]

It’s often said that Donald Trump has a cultlike following. But that’s far too benign. “Star Wars” has a cultlike following. Taylor Swift has her cult of “Swifties.” A political organization that has no platform other than loyalty to the leader is not a cult, it’s an autocratic movement.

The tragicomic chaos in the House in the last week is the natural result of a political party that has lived under Trump’s thumb. It should end any pretense that the current Republican Party is a serious governing party.

As Hannah Arendt wrote in “The Origins of Totalitarianism”: “Total loyalty is possible only when fidelity is emptied of all concrete content, from which changes of mind might naturally arise. The totalitarian movements, each in its own way, have done their utmost to get rid of the party programs which specified concrete content and which they inherited from earlier, non‑totalitarian stages of development.”

It seems like another time in another galaxy, but not that long ago there actually was some ideological diversity within the Republican Party.

In 1966, Time ran a cover story highlighting the winners of the 1966 midterm elections as a “Republican Resurgence,” after the Goldwater defeat of 1964. Time’s editors selected six Republicans as being emblematic of this rebirth: California Gov. Ronald Reagan, Michigan Gov. George Romney, Illinois Sen. Charles Percy, Oregon Sen. Mark Hatfield, Massachusetts Sen. Edward Brooke and New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller.

The six governors and senators had differences of opinion on almost all major issues. Hatfield, deeply influenced by his service in World War II, never voted for a bill to authorize U.S. military engagement. He was one of only two Republican senators who voted against the 1991 Gulf War.

With Sen. George McGovern, Hatfield co-sponsored 1971 legislation calling for a complete withdrawal from Vietnam. Reagan, on the other hand, was consistently supportive of the Vietnam War and campaigned against the creation of Medicaid.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, the Republican governors who were pro-choice governed states with a larger collective population than the Republican antiabortion governors. Bill Weld of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania’s Tom Ridge, Arnold Schwarzenegger in California and New York’s George Pataki all were proudly pro-choice.

Today, there are no Republican governors who support abortion rights, and many are actively working to criminalize abortions in their states. The Republican Party three decades ago was overwhelmingly a white-dominated party, but it allowed for at least some dissent and disagreement.

While it is difficult to attribute any deliberate or methodical plan to Donald Trump, whose mind operates like an old-fashioned pinball machine on tilt, his basic antidemocratic, strongman instincts have crushed dissent in the Republican Party, empowering the underlying authoritarian impulses within the party. A once-center-right political party with core ideological principles is now marching toward the formation of an autocratic state.

It’s possible that Trump will not be the Republican nominee in 2024, but his success in molding the party to his image ensures that anyone who wins will continue down an authoritarian path.

When Ron DeSantis ran for governor of Florida in 2018, he aired a commercial showing his toddler daughter building a border wall with toy blocks, followed by a shot of him holding his infant son and reading from a book, “Then Mr. Trump said, ‘You’re fired.’” His wife also appeared in the ad, saying, “People say Ron is all Trump, but he is so much more.”

What’s unfolding in the Republican Party is an inevitable step in the cycle of authoritarian movements. What once was deemed sufficiently pure is judged to be inadequate and in need of purging.

The Night of the Long Knives, the murder of Leon Trotsky, the Red Guards, the Khmer Rouge — each was the result of a radical movement further purifying its core membership and ideology, and something very similar is taking place among today’s Republicans.

When Trump emerged in 2015, he was initially rejected by Republican voters. In May 2015, Donald Trump polled at 3% among Republicans and Republican-leaning independent voters. While it’s not unusual for a new and still-unknown candidate to start with a low number, Trump had almost a 100% name recognition among potential voters.

Republicans knew who he was; they just didn’t like him. A May 2015 Washington Post–ABC News poll found that just over 20% of Republicans viewed Trump favorably. By early December 2015 — and after his attack on John McCain’s war record, his mocking of a disabled reporter and his calling for a Muslim ban — Trump had surged to his largest lead during the Republican primary, opening up a 35%-to-16% margin over Ted Cruz.

Jeb Bush, who led the field in early polling, was by then at the same 3% level of support that Trump had in May. The media coverage of Trump’s rise evidenced an unwillingness to grasp Trump’s appeal. “Donald Trump Leads Florida Polls, Despite Call for Muslim Travel Ban” was the headline in the New Times Broward–Palm Beach. “Trump Poll Surge Continues Despite Backlash Over Muslim Ban,” trumpeted the Dec. 10, 2015, broadcast of Voice of America News.

This was like reporting that Jim Beam sold a lot of bourbon even though it contained alcohol. Trump was rising with Republican voters because of his racism and religious bigotry.

There was no backlash with the majority of Republican primary voters. The exact opposite was occurring. Trump’s hate was creating a surge of appeal.

Donald Trump understood the true nature of the Republican Party better than the party’s leaders. “This suggestion is completely and totally inconsistent with American values,” then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said as he denounced Trump’s proposed Muslim ban. “I do not think it is reflective of our principles, not just as a party but as a country,” then-House Speaker Paul Ryan said of the ban.

But it was his call for a Muslim ban that helped Trump clinch the 2016 nomination. McConnell and Ryan and the establishment donor class of the Republican Party would never admit publicly that the xenophobia and racism that appealed to Trump voters were far more motivating to Republican voters than the small-government, low-taxes, constitutionally conservative so‑called “values” they insisted were the true core of the party.

But their commitment to their deeply held beliefs was so weak that they now supported a man who bragged he was “the king of debt,” refused to release his tax returns to show he even paid taxes and whose Muslim ban was a religious test that was anathema to constitutional principles.

They didn’t care about anything but remaining in power, and they thought they could use Trump while controlling him.

There is a childlike need for many Republicans in what was once “the establishment” to believe that the Trump years were some aberration, that the party was “hijacked” by Donald Trump. The problem with this is that the passengers on the hijacked plane do not cheer for the terrorist. But in the Republican Party, the hijacker is the most popular person on the plane.

Trump and Trumpism dominate the Republican Party because he represents what the Republican Party wants to be. There is no “normal” for the party to return to. It is an autocratic movement, not a traditional American political party. To believe this movement cannot win and end democracy as we know it would be as dangerously naive as thinking that the Donald Trump who announced his candidacy in 2015 with 3% of support within the party could never be elected president.

None of us can choose history, but history can choose us. The fate of the American experiment is in our hands. America or Trump? The next 13 months will decide our future.

Stuart Stevens is an advisor to the Lincoln Project, a political consultant and the author of several books. This article is an adapted excerpt from his latest book, “The Conspiracy to End America: Five Ways My Old Party Is Driving Our Democracy to Autocracy,” which will be published Oct. 10.

[foreverlogical]

Nearly half-a-million children in Florida have lost Medicaid coverage over the past year, after the DeSantis administration and Florida Republican lawmakers chose to not extend Medicaid coverage as the COVID pandemic was declared officially over. Florida reportedly is the only state in the nation to not adopt the Biden administration’s strategies to “minimize terminations for procedural reasons.”

Thousands of children on Easter Sunday lost coverage, NBC6 reported.

“Florida has dropped over 1.3 million people, including 460,000 children, from its state Medicaid program since April 1, 2023, after the end of a pandemic-era policy that banned states from removing ineligible participants from the health insurance program for disabled and low-income people,” the Orlando Sentinel reports.

The reasons for Florida dropping 1.3 million from Medicaid are varied, including improvement in economic status, or just “red tape.”

U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra has issued strong criticism of Florida’s actions.

“Children in Florida have ‘without a doubt’ lost coverage due to paperwork snafus,” Secretary Becerra told the Sentinel. “Becerra previously sent a letter to DeSantis and eight other governors expressing concern about the large number of children who had lost coverage due to red tape.”

READ MORE: ‘Anti-Woke Not Especially Lucrative’: Truth Social Lost Millions Last Year New Filing Reveals

“It continues to not just disturb but confound, I think, a lot of folks that some states have chosen not to address the loss of health care by so many children,” Becerra also said. “… Denying that child those services is not just unconscionable, it’s a nightmare for the family.”

In January the Tallahassee Democrat reported, “the Sunshine State, with 2.5 million uninsured, also has one of the nation’s highest shares of residents without health coverage.”

“In turning back a program that could bring health coverage to roughly 1 million Floridians, Gov. Ron DeSantis and Republican supermajorities in the House and Senate also are rejecting about $5.6 billion in federal aid which would come in the first two years of expansion, and about $4.4 billion annually after that.”

Last year HuffPost‘s Jonathan Cohn reported Florida’s uninsured amounts to “about 12% of its population, which is well above the national average of 8.6%. It’s also more than all but four other states,” Cohn added. “Floridians without insurance suffer because when they can’t pay for their medical care, they end up in debt or go without needed treatment or both. The state suffers, too, because it ends up with a sicker, less productive workforce as well as a higher charity care load for its hospitals, clinics and other pieces of the medical safety net. DeSantis could do something about this. He has refused.”

Meanwhile. The Florida Policy Institute reported last month, “Florida is the only state that has not opted to utilize policy flexibilities offered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to reduce the number of children losing coverage due to system error or red tape.”

Florida has its own children’s health care alternative to Medicaid, Florida’s Children’s Health Insurance Program, or KidCare, which “offers free, subsidized and full-pay insurance for kids whose parents make too much money to qualify for Medicaid,” according to the Sentinel.

But coverage differs from Medicaid, as a report from WFLA shows. The DeSantis administration is suing to try to force the Biden administration to drop a federal policy that requires children to be allowed to stay on the state’s plan even if their parents miss payments.

Dropping 1.3 million people in Florida exacerbates an existing health care problem.

Late last month the South Florida Sun Sentinel reported, “More than 1,300 babies a year, about four a day, die in Florida.” That report, the first in a series of three is titled, “Born to die: Florida’s infant mortality crisis.”

“Health experts say the losses of new life will continue unless the state rethinks how it fails mothers before and during pregnancy,” the paper observed. “The biggest risk to an infant’s health is always the mother’s health. When mothers have preexisting conditions, like diabetes, obesity or heart disease, their babies face a higher risk of death. Everything from Florida’s impenetrable insurance structure to its ineffective investment in maternal and prenatal health contributes to the high rate of babies who die within their first year of life, sometimes within their first minutes.”

“Compared to a decade ago, pregnant women in Florida are older, less healthy and have more complications during birth, according to Florida Department of Health maternal health records. They also are living in a state where access to insurance — or the right insurance — is a barrier to primary and prenatal care.”

The Sun Sentinel also offered these statistics:

“Six of every 1,000 babies born in Florida die before their first birthday, a rate that exceeds the national average of 5.6. Florida babies die mostly from birth defects that affect eating or breathing, infections prevalent in preterm and low birthweight babies, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Most infants in Florida who die under the age of 1 die within their very first month. Black babies in Florida die twice as often as white non-Hispanic and Hispanic babies.”

The paper says insurance is a major factor.

“One-fifth of Florida women ages 19 to 44 have no health insurance, which is worse than 46 other states,” while “Florida is one of only 10 states where the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid for low-income adults has not been implemented. That means thousands of women of child-bearing age can’t get Medicaid health insurance for primary care who would have coverage in expansion states like Virginia or New York.”

[meandmybigmouth]

Far-right Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene might have accidentally realized Joe Biden is a good president.

The predominantly ludicrous lawmaker from Georgia did Biden an unexpected – and surely unplanned – solid this weekend in a speech at the conservative Turning Point Action conference in Florida, telling Republicans the Democratic president is fiendishly attempting to make people’s lives better.

She compared Biden’s "Build Back Better" plan to President Lyndon B. Johnson’s "Great Society," an array of programs from the mid-1960s aimed at combating poverty in America. Those programs included Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps, along with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

DAMN IT JOE!...REALLY? MAKING AMERICAN'S LIFE BETTER?. REBUILDING AMERICA'S INFRASTRUCTURE? HOW DARE YOU!

[queervegancryptid]

tl;dr – spoopy-valkyrie >>>>> queervegancryptid

update: 23 July 2024

Hi all. I’m Nik, and I’ve been on tumblr for a long time, mostly as spoopy-valkyrie. This blog is a new project, or a backup of sorts. I’m not sure yet.

A little about me: trans guy, age 35. vegan since age 16. disabled. PTSD, anxiety, anorexia, bulimia, ADHD, and like, 80 more things. I love learning new things, and I’m a super curious person and enjoy gabbing about a variety of different topics, and I will if given the opportunity. But I also love when other people do that, even if I don’t share the interest in particular, because it’s awesome to see people get so enthusiastic. That’s the goal of this whole tumblr thing for me, in general.

This blog is not designated “explicit,” but anything NSFW will be tagged as such. I have done and continue to engage in sex work, and I don’t apologize for it. This blog won’t be focused on that primarily, but it may be discussed, so minors please DNI. Otherwise, all are welcome. But if you’re going to harass me or if you’re in the habit of spreading bigotry, kindly fuck off. If you can’t be nice, I will block you.

I’ll edit/add to this pinned post as needed. If you use tag filtering and would like something tagged that isn’t, just send an ask/msg, and I’ll do my best to accommodate it.

ETA: I'm struggling with anorexia really bad lately, and I'm doing what I can on my own, but I'm trying to raise funds for dietitian visits so I can get some proper help in terms of meal planning. I've applied for funding with Project HEAL and have been searching for weeks, but my insurance is Medicare and Florida Medicaid, managed in one plan by UHC... I have told this story so many times, and to no effect, for the most part. It's a very bizarre experience.

I'm putting this here because I'm hoping people might see it, and maybe those folks will know something that can help my situation. Probably not, but I'm not ready to give up, so I have to try.

Anyway, nobody has to donate, but I'm thinking about a GoFundMe or something. In the meantime, if anybody feels like helping, my links are below.

PayPal: @niksnotdead

Venmo: @Nik-Hartsfield

Cash app: $niksnotdead

[lemieuxjacoby1]

Medicaid Planning Lawyer Florida - Lemieux Jacoby

Introduction

Medicaid planning is a critical aspect of financial and estate planning, especially for individuals seeking long-term care or assistance with medical expenses. In Florida, where the population of older adults is growing, the need for effective Medicaid planning has become increasingly important. This article delves into the significance of Medicaid planning, the role of a Medicaid planning lawyer Florida, and how firms like Lemieux Jacoby in Florida can assist individuals in navigating this complex terrain.

Understanding Medicaid Planning

Medicaid is a joint federal and state program that provides health coverage to individuals with low income and limited resources. For seniors or individuals requiring long-term care, Medicaid can be a crucial resource to cover medical expenses not typically covered by Medicare or private insurance. However, Medicaid eligibility is subject to strict income and asset limits, making proper planning essential to qualify without depleting one's life savings.

Medicaid planning involves a variety of legal and financial strategies aimed at structuring assets and income to meet Medicaid's requirements while preserving wealth for loved ones. This can include setting up trusts, transferring assets, and engaging in other financial planning techniques to ensure eligibility while maximizing benefits.

The Role of a Medicaid Planning Lawyer

A Medicaid planning lawyer Florida plays a vital role in assisting individuals and families in navigating the complexities of Medicaid regulations. These legal professionals have in-depth knowledge of Medicaid laws and regulations, allowing them to develop customized strategies that align with their clients' unique circumstances. By working with a Medicaid planning lawyer, individuals can ensure their assets are protected, and their long-term care needs are met without jeopardizing their financial well-being.

Lemieux Jacoby: A Trusted Partner in Florida

Lemieux Jacoby is a prominent law firm in Florida known for its expertise in Medicaid planning and elder law. With a team of experienced attorneys specializing in asset protection, estate planning, and long-term care planning, Lemieux Jacoby offers comprehensive services to individuals seeking to navigate the complexities of Medicaid.

Through personalized consultations and tailored solutions, Lemieux Jacoby helps clients understand their Medicaid options, develop effective planning strategies, and secure their financial future. By leveraging their legal expertise and deep understanding of Medicaid regulations, the firm assists clients in achieving Medicaid eligibility while safeguarding their assets for future generations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Medicaid planning is a crucial aspect of financial and estate planning, particularly for individuals in need of long-term care. By working with a reputable firm like Lemieux Jacoby in Florida, individuals can access the expertise and guidance necessary to navigate the complexities of Medicaid regulations successfully. Through strategic planning and proactive legal support, individuals can secure their financial well-being and ensure their long-term care needs are met. Whether you are planning for your own future or that of a loved one, engaging with a Medicaid planning lawyer Florida make all the difference.

[ehrhardtlawpllc]

Navigating Florida's Estate Laws: Why You Need a Local Attorney

At Ehrhardt Law PLLC, we understand the importance of thoughtful estate planning. As your estate planning attorney in Florida, we offer tailored strategies to preserve your wealth, minimize taxes, and provide for your loved ones. Start planning today with Ehrhardt Law PLLC and ensure your legacy endures.

[muddypolitics]

(via Sue's News: A Round-Up of Screw Yous)

Fuck you to the aforementioned motherfuckers—Mike Pence, Chris Christie, and Doug Burgum—for making the 2024 race even more of a clown show that could once again hand the nomination to Donald Trump.

Fuck you to the Florida lawmakers who passed the Stand Your Ground laws for which delayed the arrest of a white woman who shot and killed her unarmed Black neighbor through her locked door.

Twin fuck yous to presidential candidate Nikki Haley (R) for saying in the same town hall that it’s a middle-ground position that people who have abortions shouldn’t be executed, and for making the disgusting false claim that transgender student athletes are to blame for teen girls’ suicidal ideation.

Another double fuck you to the Republican governors of Texas and Missouri for signing bills to ban gender-affirming care for minors. The Missouri bill also bans Medicaid coverage of the care for adults. (Louisiana’s Democratic governor said he’ll veto a healthcare ban sent to his desk, but the Republicans hold veto-proof supermajorities in both chambers.)

Fuck you to the five Mississippi members of Congress who demanded that the Department of Veterans Affairs remove a temporary Pride flag from a cemetery in Biloxi, MS, claiming it’s disrespectful.

Fuck you to North Carolina State Rep. Tricia Cotham (R)—the woman who was vocally pro-choice before switching parties and voting to ban abortion—for telling reporters that abortion “never been an issue that I was always out there for at all.” Ma’am, we printed your Planned Parenthood endorsement questionnaire where you pledged to oppose any bill that restricted abortion access.

Fuck you to Utah Republicans and activists for getting mad that a school district used a book-banning law to remove the Bible from classrooms due to its references to incest, rape, and sex work. Fuck around and find out, you clowns.

Fuck you to the New York state prison system for thinking it would be fine to further restrict the ability of incarcerated people to create art, write, and produce journalism and to prohibit them from getting paid for that work. (Thankfully, they reversed the directive after swift backlash.)

Fuck you to presidential candidate Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), the only Black Republican Senator, for saying that the concept of systemic racism is a “dangerous, offensive, and disgusting message to send to our young people today.”

Fuck you to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for making the ludicrous claim that the $886 billion defense budget means the military “is radically underfunded related to the Chinese threat.”

Fuck you to whichever awful person tore down the temporary repairs at an Illinois abortion clinic under construction that a 73-year-old man plowed his car into weeks earlier. The clinic has a GoFundMe.

And I’d be remiss if I didn’t conclude this post with a hearty rest in piss to televangelist Pat Robertson, a terrible person and raging homophobe who blamed 9/11 on gay people, who died this week. Fuck you forever, Pat.

[pashterlengkap]

At last night’s Republican presidential debate, former Vice President Mike Pence said, “We’re going to pass a federal ban on transgender chemical or surgical surgery anywhere in the country.” LGBTQ Nation contacted his campaign asking if he intended to outlaw gender-affirming care for all people, regardless of age. His campaign hadn’t responded by the time of publication. While Pence’s comment also mentioned “protecting” kids from “radical gender ideology,” his response caught the attention of Alejandra Caraballo, a civil rights attorney and clinical instructor at the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic. Caraballo posted a video of Pence’s comment on Wednesday night and wrote via Twitter, “They’re going to ban care for trans adults too. It was never about protecting kids.” Related: LGBTQ+ group reveals national effort to “eliminate” queer people from public life Bans on drag and gender-affirming care are just the start… “While most anti-transgender healthcare bills in recent years focus on minors, anti-LGBTQ forces ultimately seek to ban all forms of transition-related care, regardless of age,” a recently released report by the Movement Advancement Project (MAP), an organization that tracks policies on LGBTQ+ issues and voting, stated. Get the Daily Brief The news you care about, reported on by the people who care about you: Subscribe to our Newsletter “They are pursuing this goal in a variety of ways,” the report added, “including: defining ‘minor’ to include at least some adults; by banning state funds from covering this medical care (e.g., in Medicaid, state employee health plans, and for those in incarceration); explicitly allowing private insurers to refuse to cover this care; and more.” They're going to ban care for trans adults too. It was never about protecting kids. https://t.co/aqXjDEfhj4— Alejandra Caraballo (@Esqueer_) September 28, 2023 Three in 10 bills introduced in state legislatures during 2023 sought to ban or restrict medical care for both transgender children and at least some transgender adults, MAP noted. This included bills re-defining a “minor” as including adults up to ages 19, 21, or 26. One in seven bills included provisions that either banned private insurers from covering transition-related medical care, or explicitly allowed them to refuse coverage for such care, regardless of age. At least nine states explicitly ban Medicaid coverage of trans-related health care, regardless of age. Medicaid is a state health insurance program for low-income individuals. These states include Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. “These provisions knowingly and intentionally seek to cut off access to this medically necessary care,” MAP wrote. “Without insurance coverage, most forms of health care, including transgender-related health care, are unaffordable to the average person. This is especially true for transgender people, who experience far higher rates of poverty and employment insecurity due to discrimination.” Movement Advancement Project A graph showing the increase in legislation targeting gender-affirming care for transgender adults Various right-wing politicians have described trans identity as a “delusion” and a “mental illness.” Far-right Daily Wire host Michael Knowles called for eradicating “transgenderism” during this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and House Republicans have expressed opposition to making bathrooms, workplaces, and the military more inclusive of trans adults. Other state legislation has also sought to erase trans adults from public life by increasing the difficulty of obtaining accurate identity documents that accurately reflect trans adults’ correct gender identity, banning trans people from using public bathrooms matching their gender identity, and rolling back other existing nondiscrimination protections for transgender people through new or expanded religious exemptions, MAP noted. http://dlvr.it/SwkjSb

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Republicans racked up big wins in more than a dozen state legislatures this fall — and now they’re planning to use their expanded power to crack down on abortions come January.

With sweeping abortion legislation having little chance in a divided Congress, conservative state legislators are stepping into the void, proposing to limit when the procedure can take place, enact new regulations on abortion pills and strengthen penalties for doctors who break the law. Taken together, the legislation could make it harder for tens of millions of people to obtain abortions — particularly in Southern states that still permit most abortions, like Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, which have become havens for access since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

The actions in state capitols come as most national-level Republicans have eschewed talking about abortion, a reticence that some in the anti-abortion movement say explains the party’s underwhelming performance in the midterm elections.

Many GOP lawmakers who sailed to victory in states with anti-abortion laws balk at the idea that Democrats’ focus on abortion rights is evidence the left’s message resonated with voters. Instead, they’re taking their electoral victories as a mandate to pass additional abortion restrictions.

“South Carolina had a huge red tidal wave in this election. We flipped eight seats in the South Carolina House of Representatives … We all ran on pro-life,” said South Carolina Republican Rep. John McCravy, who spearheaded efforts this summer to prohibit abortion in most cases starting at conception. “If anything, we need to ramp our efforts up.”

In North Carolina, GOP Senate leader Phil Berger said in an interview he believes a bill limiting abortion to 12 or 13 weeks with exceptions for rape, incest, life of the pregnant person and in cases where the fetus won’t survive is the “sweet spot as far as where the public would be.”

In Virginia, Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin backs banning most abortions at 15 weeks with exceptions in cases of rape, incest or if the pregnant person’s life is at risk, and tasked a panel of Republican legislators to draft a bill for consideration next year. And in Nebraska, lawmakers are expected to again take up abortion restrictions after failing to limit access to the procedure to 12 weeks this summer.

“The truth is, Virginians want fewer abortions, not more abortions,” Youngkin said in a statement. “We can build a bipartisan consensus on protecting the life of unborn children, especially when they begin to feel pain in the womb, and importantly supporting mothers and families who choose life.”

At the same time, Republican lawmakers are backing policies that would expand government support for families and children, such as providing housing to pregnant people, extending Medicaid postpartum coverage, and offering tax exemptions on household goods for babies and toddlers. In Florida, for instance, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has proposed a permanent tax exemption for diapers, baby wipes, clothing, cribs, strollers and other necessities for children under five.

While GOP lawmakers have pushed these kinds of policies in the past, they believe they need to do a better job about telegraphing them to the public to demonstrate to voters a positive agenda — not just what they’re against.

“It’s critical because the only way you’re really going to move people’s emotions and temperaments for having abortion as a first option is to change hearts and minds,” said Indiana Republican state Sen. Liz Brown. “This is winning the hearts and minds of women, saying, ‘They’re not your friends, they’re not on your side. They want you to be able to have an abortion up until the birth of the baby, but they walk away from you, and we are there to help you.’”

But the coming flurry of anti-abortion legislation also risks dividing the Republican Party as some state lawmakers take a no-compromises approach to new abortion restrictions, while others remain willing to negotiate to put a bill on their governor’s desk.

Those divisions played out during special sessions this summer in Indiana, South Carolina and West Virginia, where some anti-abortion Republicans were accused of being insufficiently “pro-life” because they supported exceptions for rape or incest, or were willing to compromise on prohibiting abortion after the detection of fetal cardiac activity, around six weeks into a pregnancy, instead of at conception.

“Now, could somebody demagogue that as insufficiently pro-choice or overly pro-choice, or insufficiently pro-life or overly pro-life? I think folks at the extremes will do that,” Berger, the North Carolina Senate leader, said of his support for a 12- or 13-week limit. “We just need to be careful how we approach this, and we need to be mindful of how personal some of the positions that members will take on this issue might be and be respectful of that.”

Abortion-rights proponents, however, argue that Republican electoral victories should be seen as no more than a byproduct of newly redrawn district lines — not as a mandate to enact anti-abortion policies.

“They’ve shown regardless that even when they do have majorities, they’re never satisfied with just one more abortion ban,” said Andrea Miller, president of the National Institute for Reproductive Health. “They keep doubling and tripling and quadrupling down, trying to find new ways to further punish and threaten those who provide and seek abortion care.”

Florida, Nebraska, North Carolina and Virginia — four states where there is a Republican governor or at least one GOP-controlled legislative chamber — are anti-abortion groups’ top targets for new limits on how far into a pregnancy someone can access the procedure. Abortion is currently legal until 15 weeks in Florida, 20 weeks in Nebraska and North Carolina and the third trimester in Virginia.

“You’re going to have to make a run for what you can get with the caucuses that you have. The other side has spent nearly 50 years trying to change our culture,” said Sue Swayze Liebel with Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America at a recent gathering of the National Association of Christian Lawmakers. “We have to work hard to get back hearts and minds, including in your own caucus.”

In North Carolina, for instance, Republicans secured a veto-proof supermajority this year in the Senate but fell one seat short of a supermajority in the House. Legislative leaders are hoping they’ll be able to get at least one Democrat to sign onto new abortion restrictions that would allow them to override an expected veto from Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, who opposes any changes to the state’s abortion law.

According to a report from the Society of Family Planning, North Carolina saw a 37% uptick in abortions between April and August, the largest of any state, which means a new abortion ban stands to have a significant impact not only on North Carolinians’ ability to access the procedure, but those in surrounding states as well.

“I believe that all of the Democrats elected in the statehouse believe that reproductive freedom is important, and I look forward to working with them to hold the line,” Cooper told POLITICO. “This is important in the southeastern United States. North Carolina has become an access point for many women throughout the Southeast.”

In South Carolina, lawmakers plan to try again to amend the state’s six-week ban and prohibit abortions starting at conception after legislators failed to agree on a path forward during the summer.

“I do think it’s possible,” said South Carolina Republican state Sen. Richard Cash. “If we get another bill through committee, the hope would be there would be enough grassroots pressure in the state to persuade the Senate leadership to put it on the floor and see if there aren’t a few votes that would be changed as a result of people having had time to reflect on everything that’s happened.”

Students for Life, another anti-abortion group, is encouraging lawmakers not to give in.

“Even if you’re against the exceptions for abortion in cases of rape — which we are, your parentage doesn’t determine your value — your constituents are actually much more in line — or closer in line — with your position than the Democrats’ position,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life.

The group is also pushing state lawmakers to introduce bills requiring doctors who prescribe abortion pills to collect and treat fetal tissue as medical waste, part of a broader strategy to use concerns around the environment to restrict access to medication abortion. They’re also encouraging red state attorneys general to prosecute doctors and abortion pill manufacturers.

In other states, lawmakers are eyeing legislation to support pregnant people, families and babies — proposals they believe will not only dissuade people from seeking abortions in the first place but could improve their standing with moderate voters who view their movement as more punitive than compassionate.

“We’re looking in a post-Roe world how can government be best optimized to allow families to flourish,” said Wyoming Republican state Rep. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams, who sponsored the state’s near-total abortion ban. “That’s why we’re looking at legislation that’s more pro-life family policies versus just independently pro-life.”

Abortion-rights proponents, however, argue that much of red-state spending on this issue has gone toward crisis pregnancy centers, which they say use deceptive and misleading tactics to encourage people to carry their pregnancies to term. Miller said funding such facilities “does not address the crisis in prenatal care.”

“The policymakes and advocates who have moved the ball forward on affordable housing, on prenatal care, on child care, on investments in education, on Medicaid expansion, on all of the policies that we know are part and parcel of reproductive freedom and reproductive justice have been moved forward by elected officials and advocates who support abortion care,” Miller said. “Do I want to see policies like that move forward? Absolutely. Do I question the motives? Absolutely.”

In Indiana, lawmakers allocated $75 million to support social services for families — including $45 million to establish a “Hoosier Families First Fund” that will allow the state to award grants to support families and $10 million in child care vouchers — at the same time they passed a bill prohibiting abortion except in cases of rape, incest and life endangerment this summer.

In Mississippi, where abortion is banned except to save the life of the pregnant person or in cases where a rape is reported to the police, Republican Gov. Tate Reeves recently announced a plan for “advancing the new pro-life agenda” that includes establishing a child care tax credit, removing the five-child cap on child support and allocating $3 million to hire more attorneys to clear the state’s adoption backlog.

In a statement, Reeves said he was hopeful the state would “make serious progress in advancing sound policies that strengthen families and simultaneously lay out a policy roadmap for other states to follow” next year.

And in Wyoming, lawmakers are eyeing expanding postpartum Medicaid coverage.

“We know that just because there’s no legal abortion in a state, that doesn’t mean there won’t be women who need help, who need support,” said Katie Glenn, state policy director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.

[darkmaga-returns]

For the one-issue voters honing in on abortion – do you know that the president does not have the power to overturn the Supreme Court ruling? Abortion is now in the hands of individual states. Kamala Harris has promised to codify Roe v Wade into the US Constitution, but it’s not possible at this time.

Harris would need the full support of both chambers of Congress. She knows that she could never secure enough votes which is why she would like to eliminate the Senate filibuster to allow legislation to pass with a majority of 51 votes instead of 60. There are people on both sides who do not agree with ending the filibuster for various reasons.

Harris would need to end the Hyde Amendment that restricts Medicaid coverage for abortions. Low-income individuals are more prone to seek out abortion services. She would likely need Congress to approve funding for abortion services, as the federal government already funds Planned Parenthood.

Restricting state-level bans would also need to happen. The Bible Belt will ensure that their states have separate legislation in their state Constitutions that Harris would need to override.

Then, whatever is passed is simply not enough. For example, on our local ballot in Florida, they would like minors to have access to abortions without parental authorization. Children are unable to undergo medical procedures without parental authorization, but the far-left believes they have the ability to choose whether it’s right to terminate a pregnancy or switch their gender. Roe technically applies to 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy, but individual journalists have shown that countless agencies have no problem performing abortions well into the third trimester.

Kamala Harris pledges to implement unrestricted abortion within her first 100 days of office. There is absolutely no way she could accomplish all of the above within a few months. It is simply not possible to mobilize public support for such a polarizing measure.