Is This Who We Really Are?

[GenSeneca]

Well I am willing to give her roughly %30 of my 60+ hours a week.

Wait.. Are you saying you'd give her 30% of your paycheck or are you offering her to come and work 30% (about 20 hours) of your 60+ hour week to earn the money for herself?

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Clearly you can all see that there is something fishy about the way this story is told.

Well, when you get to the 'TRUTH' and the bottom of this story then please rush right back here and fill us all in...because right now all you have is 'NUTTIN HONEY'...absolutely nothing

Are any of you really stupid enough to believe that a nursing home can kick a man out onto the streets and the laws would not already cover that situation?! There is something that is not being told here.

Well, well, well...and here you are removing any doubt that you don't know JACK about the LTC industry or the reasons why and how a resident can and will be removed from their facility. You might have wanted to check you 'assumptions' before you misspoke and put your foot into your mouth so eloquently!

The senator is right as far as the constition goes: there is no authority for the fed to offer help.

So you say that there were regulations for the nursing home and now your saying that there aren't...MAN MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

Whta does her state's constitutions say?
What does her local gov say?
What could her friends, family, community and chartity do to help?

When you've completed that fact finding mission, I'll be waiting to hear the details from your MISSION!

Do any of you really believe that there is not a charity set up to assist in needful situations? Why on a grass roots level it is not uncommon for me to read a news article about a family that raised cash to pay for a medical expense when they did not have the money.

And I can provide you with as many offset examples where the locals have been working for 'YEARS' to raise money for those ongoing medical expenses and they are still falling short and with the economy being so tight for 'ALL AMERICA' the donations are getting fewer and farther between too!

But if this woman did not have the money then obvioiusly the insurer that denied her was medicaid - a gov program.

You keep getting out on that 'LIMB' of your assumed knowledge about this woman's financial source and this is becoming very, very telling about what you DO NOT KNOW ABOUT MEDICAID and how people qualify for MEDICAID.

And if she did have the money then where is the problem? Don't we all save our money all our lives so we can afford to buy the things we need in old age?

JEEZ LOUISE...where have you been for the past 20 years...middle America hasn't had the 'GOLDEN EGG' savings accounts...what little was going into savings started getting eaten up by the high cost of: utilities, prescriptions, health care policies, gas to get around, food for the table, and a interest rate at the bank that wasn't worth putting money into a savings account

The article said "as if" she had not other resort. did the author say "as if" because he knew she did have at least TWO other resorts - her own finances and medicaid/medicare.

Finish that fact finding mission and you'll be able to answer you own question...maybe the person writing the article needed your input

Again is anyone stupid enough to think that the nursing home was going to discharge him with a feeding tube still in his throat.

Having had 7 years of Administration/Office Management at LTC Facilities...I can safely say you don't know DICK about this topic and you need to check out the facts about this prior to putting your feet into your mouth so efficiently!

Isn't it likely they were going to remove the tube and expect him to eat just like anyone else? isn't it obvous to all of us that if they did indeed release him with a feeding tube still in his throat that she would become wealthy beyond her dreams in the upcoming law suit?

CLUELESS and you keep providing the material that sustains my opinion about your ability to be 'CLUELESS'!

There are so many holes in the story I could drive a car through it. And if we had any other sources describing the details all would come to light.

Oh, a glimmer of light and cognitive understanding...as you drive your auto though those holes in the story, just keep heading in whatever direction it takes you, because you've just splattered the topic with more improbable misinformation and lack of understanding moments!
GOOD GRIEF...LMAO

 

[BigRob]

How exactly does Senator Coburn's plan constitute "the most help to this woman and her husband?" Just making a claim doesn't make it a fact. Fill in the details, if you actually have any. Be sure and include the details about Senator Coburn's plan that would let an individual with a pre-exisiting condition be able to purchase insurance. While you're at it, fill in the part about Senator Coburn's plan that would make health insurance actually affordable.

You made the claim. Now back it up with facts.

This bill (and HR 2520 as well) set up an insurance exchange in the private market. It eliminates Federal regulations that do not allow insurance companies to sell across state lines. It gives tax cuts to individuals to buy their own insurance from these companies that would be made to actually compete.

The idea is to buy health insurance early in life (on your own with tax cuts) before most people would have a pre-existing condition. That way if you lose your job, you are still covered, if you move, still covered.

Can there be someone that might fall through the cracks? Sure. However, this plan offers a chance for private market reform that would eliminate the problem of pre-existing conditions for most people.

Of those with pre-existing conditions, they still can qualify under Medicare and Medicaid for help to help with those problems. The bill also brings backs and reforms health care savings accounts, as well as offers low-income assistance for healthcare purchasing.

Obviously the plan is not perfect, but I think it is much better than HR 3200 and the Kennedy proposal that is coming out of the Senate.

The Bill can be found here.

 

[Greco]

"However, this plan offers a chance for private market reform that would eliminate the problem of pre-existing conditions for most people.
Of those with pre-existing conditions, they still can qualify under Medicare and Medicaid for help to help with those problems."

Totally false claim. I'm not saying you're lying, simply once again you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Medicade is for low incomes, it varies state by state how it's administered. It has nothing to do with pre-existing conditions. Unless someone is disabled, until they reach age 65 they can't qualify for Medicare even with a pre-existing condition.

"The idea is to buy health insurance early in life (on your own with tax cuts) before most people would have a pre-existing condition. That way if you lose your job, you are still covered, if you move, still covered."

Actually that's not Coburn's idea at all. His idea is to eliminate the expense for the companies that over health insurance, either fully paid or partial, and transfer the full cost to individuals. For individuals and families, that increases the cost of paying for health insurance.

 

[Dr.Who]

You make all these grand assumptions, and state them as if they're facts.

We'll just take a few of 'em to showcase your buffoonery.

"The senator is right as far as the constition goes: there is no authority for the fed to offer help."

The Consitution also doesn't grant authority to operate the FAA, NASA, or build federal highways. That's not an acid test, unless you want to return us to the 1700's. However, the Constitution doesn't say that federal laws should grant favor to insurance companies, but that's what's happened.

I believe it does grant the authority for federal highways. We could easily do away with the FAA (and replace it with something consitutional assuming your are right), and NASA, and favors to special interests and not return the the 1700 at all. In fact if we did away with all unconstitutional instruments we would be better off. Don't you agree we would be better off without those?

But even if they are helpful and useful would that be justification for keeping them in violation of the constitution? The precedent that the constitution can be violated at will would be one of the most dangerous things that could ever happen to this nation. If we really really need something and it is unconstitutional then the only right path is to write an amendment.

"But if this woman did not have the money then obvioiusly the insurer that denied her was medicaid - a gov program."

Your "obvious" assertion illustrates you lack of knowledge about Medicaid. It's administered differently, state by state. In Oklahoma only the poverty line and below can quality. If you're earning a massive $25,000 annual household income, you're too wealthy.

My statement stands. If she had $25,000 dollars then she should use it pay for the care he needs. If not then she has already spent it and qualified.

"Again is anyone stupid enough to think that the nursing home was going to discharge him with a feeding tube still in his throat."

Are you so stupid you don't even bother to check facts before making your claims? Here in Oklahoma, the nursing home lobby has bought and paid for our wingnut legislators over and over. Almost weekly there are nursing home abuses reported in the news. Issues like selling someone's medicine, rape, thefts of assets, etc. Very few ever result in criminal proceedings because our legislators have protected them with bills. So yes, it's well within the realm of possibility that the scenario, just as it was described, happened in Oklahoma. No one from here doubts it, even the wingnuts.

Silly me for assuming that government should do the one thing it is supposed to do and actually protect the rights of the citizens. We want them to be in charge of health care why? Legislators protecting abusive nursing homes with bills (first lets see a link): the legislators deserve to be ousted if not prosecuted themselves and we need to keep the separation between the private sector and re-establish gov as the agent that polices these situations.

 

[BigRob]

Totally false claim. I'm not saying you're lying, simply once again you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Medicade is for low incomes, it varies state by state how it's administered. It has nothing to do with pre-existing conditions. Unless someone is disabled, until they reach age 65 they can't qualify for Medicare even with a pre-existing condition.

The bill offers assistance to people who might fall through the cracks, as I described above. Additionally, you can get on Medicaid (in almost every state) with a pre-existing condition.

And if someone can afford their own insurance, and does not need the assistance the bill would provide, then they can go buy their own policy.

Actually that's not Coburn's idea at all. His idea is to eliminate the expense for the companies that over health insurance, either fully paid or partial, and transfer the full cost to individuals. For individuals and families, that increases the cost of paying for health insurance.

And to pay for that cost the bill outlines a big tax credit to go buy insurance. The idea is to allow companies to compete and give tax credits so people could afford any short term cost increases.

 

[Dr.Who]

Hospitals put people into taxis and pay for them to be taken downtown and turned out, facilities do have the right to turn out people who can no longer pay. This is capitalism, ain't it great?

They have that [legal] right? So you are saying that the government caused this?

But I bet if we examine the details of the so called "turning out" we will find that it is either prosecutable, the result of gov corruption, or not bad.

What we will not find is corrupt nursing homes getting away with this in the presence of a just government.

 

[Dr.Who]

She certainly can't expect any help from you!

... Or any of the other hypocritical whiners that spend their time crying about how helping these people is a moral imperative but you're to much of a cheapskate to fork your own money out of your own wallets to help those who need assistance...

Nah, you'll just piss and moan that Conservatives are standing in your way of having Big Government pick-pocket taxpayers to fund a waste and fraud-filled-feel-good program that will make you even more smug and pretentious than you are now.

If the government does take the funds from the taxpayers to provide care for people we will need to decide how much they should take. The cost of the amount of care people will want is infinite so the amount taken will always be less than what is needed.

So how do we decide how much to take? We could all vote to tell our reps how much to take. And the amount will be exactly what we as a nation want to give. It will be unconstitutional but the amount given will be the amount that the voters decide upon.

Or people could donate generously from their own pocketbooks and the amount will also be exactly the amount we as a nation want to give. But this time it will not be unconstitutional.

Furthermore, if we give from our own pocketbooks we know exactly what the need is and if we have given too little. We can adjust quickly to give more. When gov takes taxes it always hides what it is doing so we never know.

 

[Greco]

Looney assertions about only following the exact language in the Constitution, and anything not specifically mentioned is "un-Constitutional" is just baloney. If there was even a trace of merit to this wacko belief, all your tribe needs to do is file a federal lawsuit and the U.S. Supreme Court would rule in your favor.

Wanna know why that hasn't happened? It wrong and the case wouldn't even be accepted.

"My statement stands. If she had $25,000 dollars then she should use it pay for the care he needs. If not then she has already spent it and qualified."

A gross family income of $25,000 does not equate to $25,000 you can spend. Ever hear of taxes, food, housing, clothing, utilities, etc?

"We want them to be in charge of health care why?"

Duh, those conceptional issues are a bit challenging for ya, aren't they? The concept is about having the option (that means free will choice) to obtain insurance coverage through a federal administered program. No body is suggesting, except you, that the federal government would be in charge of health care. Do you think Blue Cross is in charge of health care for their customers. Flash... they're not. It's insurance, affordable insurance, that allows individuals with pre-existing conditions to purchase it. That means individuals pay premiums.

 

[Dr.Who]

At what cost? That is the biggest problem right now. My father has private health insurance. He went in to get some day surgery just last week. With his health insurance, and deductible it is still going to cost him 4,000 bucks!

He was of sound mind when he chose that policy?

With a high deductible like that I am sure he saved a ton on his premiums. Did he save it for a rainy day? After all, at his age he knew he was going to have some kind of expense, right?

Perhaps he was too poor to save the money after his living expenses. You are his son and you love him right?

 

[Dr.Who]

Well, when you get to the 'TRUTH' and the bottom of this story then please rush right back here and fill us all in...because right now all you have is 'NUTTIN HONEY'...absolutely nothing

If the article does not give me enough to make one point then clearly it does not give you enough to make the other.

Well, well, well...and here you are removing any doubt that you don't know JACK about the LTC industry or the reasons why and how a resident can and will be removed from their facility. You might have wanted to check you 'assumptions' before you misspoke and put your foot into your mouth so eloquently!

I noticed that you have not helped us to understand how a LTC can abuse people. Go ahead tell us.

So you say that there were regulations for the nursing home and now your saying that there aren't...MAN MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

I am being consistent. The constitution gives the gov the power to stop people from harming each other. It does not give gov the power to actually help in this way.



When you've completed that fact finding mission, I'll be waiting to hear the details from your MISSION!

The author conveniently did not provide enough information to get those facts. Maybe the author is hiding something. But if anyone here can give just one example of a person with details showing that they can't get their medical needs met I will recant. I have made this challenge before and it won't happen.

And I can provide you with as many offset examples where the locals have been working for 'YEARS' to raise money for those ongoing medical expenses and they are still falling short and with the economy being so tight for 'ALL AMERICA' the donations are getting fewer and farther between too!

Whenever I have seen cases that did not get enough support it was because people recognized that the need was not really that great.

But if Americans are not willing to donate enough funds to help others what makes you think they will be willing to vote enough funds to help others?

I personally have more faith in my fellow man. If there is a need Americans will fill it.

You keep getting out on that 'LIMB' of your assumed knowledge about this woman's financial source and this is becoming very, very telling about what you DO NOT KNOW ABOUT MEDICAID and how people qualify for MEDICAID.


I was an administrator (in a private company) for medicaid benefits in Illinois for about five years. I know full well that there are income and asset criteria.

My statement stands. If she had the money she should pay it herself and if she did not have the money then she would have qualified. If she did not have the money then the program that denied her was medicaid.

JEEZ LOUISE...where have you been for the past 20 years...middle America hasn't had the 'GOLDEN EGG' savings accounts...what little was going into savings started getting eaten up by the high cost of: utilities, prescriptions, health care policies, gas to get around, food for the table, and a interest rate at the bank that wasn't worth putting money into a savings account

Even the poorest of Americans are swimming in material wealth. Middle class America even more so. The vast vast majority of middle class Americans own so much crap that if they just did not buy it they could easily save money.

Finish that fact finding mission and you'll be able to answer you own question...maybe the person writing the article needed your input

I don't need to do any fact finding to answer that one. EVERY SINGLE American has those two resorts. They either have money or they qualify for medicaid (or their states version of it). If they have the money then when they spend it they will qualify for medicaid.

Having had 7 years of Administration/Office Management at LTC Facilities...I can safely say you don't know DICK about this topic and you need to check out the facts about this prior to putting your feet into your mouth so efficiently!

If you have any stories with details that can be checked about LTC's discharging people when that would endanger their lives post them here.

Because it is the governments job to protect people from getting their lives endangered by the actions of others.

CLUELESS and you keep providing the material that sustains my opinion about your ability to be 'CLUELESS'!

Go ahead and show us how a LTC facility can endanger the life of a person it discharges and not get sued without demonstrating that it is the fault of government.

 

[Dr.Who]

The idea is to buy health insurance early in life (on your own with tax cuts) before most people would have a pre-existing condition. That way if you lose your job, you are still covered, if you move, still covered.

Isn't that [buy insurance early] what everybody is supposed to do now?

And who is responsible for tying health insurance to employers? Congress.

 

[Dr.Who]

Looney assertions about only following the exact language in the Constitution, and anything not specifically mentioned is "un-Constitutional" is just baloney. If there was even a trace of merit to this wacko belief, all your tribe needs to do is file a federal lawsuit and the U.S. Supreme Court would rule in your favor.

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
--James Madison

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
-- President Grover Cleveland vetoing a bill for charity relief (18 Congressional Record 1875 [1877]

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
-- President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.
-- James Madison

"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.
-- James Madison

" The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-- James Madison

"My statement stands. If she had $25,000 dollars then she should use it pay for the care he needs. If not then she has already spent it and qualified."

A gross family income of $25,000 does not equate to $25,000 you can spend. Ever hear of taxes, food, housing, clothing, utilities, etc?

Let me restate:

If she had [insert any dollar amount you care to here] dollars then she should use it pay for the care he needs. If not then she has already spent it and qualified.

"We want them to be in charge of health care why?"

Duh, those conceptional issues are a bit challenging for ya, aren't they? The concept is about having the option (that means free will choice) to obtain insurance coverage through a federal administered program. No body is suggesting, except you, that the federal government would be in charge of health care. Do you think Blue Cross is in charge of health care for their customers. Flash... they're not. It's insurance, affordable insurance, that allows individuals with pre-existing conditions to purchase it. That means individuals pay premiums.

Creating a government option will in no way make government more trustworthy.

What it will do is create a conflict of interest in which the government has the role to both police private industry and compete with it at the same time.

And there is no doubt that the intent of this administration is not just to create a public option but to usher in universal single payer health care as the only health care option (with few exceptions).

 

[Greco]

Post all the quotes you want. They're totally irrelevant. Again, if your looney assertion has merit the U.S. Supreme Court would have ruled on it and we wouldn't be having this absurd discussion.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

If the article does not give me enough to make one point then clearly it does not give you enough to make the other.

Awwww touché. But I've worked in the industry, I did the billing, I know the qualifiers for private pay, medicaid, medicare (100 days) and if you are not a resident in a 'non for profit' LTC facility then you are very likely to be placed out of the LTC facility if your 'head in the bed' isn't being paid!

I noticed that you have not helped us to understand how a LTC can abuse people. Go ahead tell us.

Since you asked:
Private payer > runs approximately $5,000 dollars month per person: {this may very according to the number/amount of meds that each resident will require} this does not include any: therapy services, beauty/barber shop visits, no private phone, no cable TV. And the billing cycle is invoiced by the 10th and payable by the 15th and will accrue late fees & interest once it is 30days past due and on the 45th day the facility will be looking to place you at the curb if you and your responsible person have not found a new place to relocate too! And by the 90 day in arrears you will be out the door!
Medicaid payer> you have to meet the criteria for this to qualify and that basically means you are indigent: No property, no vehicles, no savings account, no IRA, no 401K, no trust, no annuities and your basic income does not exceed $18,000 per person or $25,000 married. I will preface this with this disclaimer: the Kansas Dept of Health & Human Services, Area Agency on Aging, AARP were trying to come up with some more equitable solution to the previous years of forcing a man & wife to divorce one another to save the family home/savings account/retirement funds but there was still a 5 year period that they had to meet the guidelines before one or the other could qualify for MEDICAID assistance. In other words they were screwed and it was horrible to get assistance once you lost your health insurance coverage if you couldn't divorce the other spouse then the illness of the sick one can and will destroy you financially (until death you do part). Medicaid billing was just going on line via Blue Cross & Blue Shield during my LTC time and it was a nightmare! We were forced to bill semi-monthly and had to wait for verification for that billing period for days and if there was an error on their computer receiving you might be behind by the next semi-monthly billing period rolled around, and then they would not cut checks for that billing cycle until the 15th and the 30th of each month, so the LTC facility was at least 45 days waiting for A R checks to roll into the bank from automatic bank transfer and if there was an error it would and could take months to correct the incorrect check that was deposited. "NIGHTMARE"
Medicare payer > 100 days is all any one instance of a medical claim gets paid by Medicare {never-ever go over those 100 days you will not get paid for that head in that Medicare bed in that or any nursing facility} So you hope that the Hospital told you correctly the number of days that they are billing for prior to the resident being transferred to your facility and that the medical codes for that specific injury/illness/combination of problems are documented correctly or you will not get paid. There are specific beds on specific hall ways that have to be set aside as 'MEDICARE BEDS' {so if any resident is in that specific bed and they run out of those 100 days they will be moved and moved quickly...sorry, you like that roommate will that isn't what you are in there for, and you're out of medicare days so we have to move you today, but we'll try to find you someone 'NICE' to shove you in with}. While this resident is in a MEDICARE BED they will be receiving therapy: OT/PT/RT and that is all provided in house but billed at a 125% mark up that Medicare allows. Medicare billing is handled the same way as Medicaid via Blue Cross & Blue Shield and it takes every bit as long to wait for your money and they are very, very slow to pay. Once the 100 days is up the resident becomes a billable to either: Medicaid, Medicare part 'B', Private Payer w/Insurance, Private Payer w/no insurance.

I am being consistent. The constitution gives the gov the power to stop people from harming each other. It does not give gov the power to actually help in this way.

If that was true then why would we have federal funded agencies such as: HUD, HHS, Soc.Sec.A., VA, Medicare, Medicaid, CIA, FBI, etc., etc., etc.,

The author conveniently did not provide enough information to get those facts. Maybe the author is hiding something. But if anyone here can give just one example of a person with details showing that they can't get their medical needs met I will recant. I have made this challenge before and it won't happen.

Oh, BOY

Whenever I have seen cases that did not get enough support it was because people recognized that the need was not really that great.
But if Americans are not willing to donate enough funds to help others what makes you think they will be willing to vote enough funds to help others?
I personally have more faith in my fellow man. If there is a need Americans will fill it.
You keep getting out on that 'LIMB' of your assumed knowledge about this woman's financial source and this is becoming very, very telling about what you DO NOT KNOW ABOUT MEDICAID and how people qualify for MEDICAID.
I was an administrator (in a private company) for medicaid benefits in Illinois for about five years. I know full well that there are income and asset criteria.

Well, that certainly sounds so, well just so pat answer and easily said, but unfortunately humans and their view points about what 'charity and welfare' that they want to accept are as far apart as Sara Palin and the TRUTH {as she sees it}.

My statement stands. If she had the money she should pay it herself and if she did not have the money then she would have qualified. If she did not have the money then the program that denied her was medicaid.

Very, Very understanding about those older folks and how they understand these hard choices, aren't you

Even the poorest of Americans are swimming in material wealth. Middle class America even more so. The vast vast majority of middle class Americans own so much crap that if they just did not buy it they could easily save money.

Here is where you really, really loose touch with reality and I leave you standing in your own quicksand!

I don't need to do any fact finding to answer that one. EVERY SINGLE American has those two resorts. They either have money or they qualify for medicaid (or their states version of it). If they have the money then when they spend it they will qualify for medicaid.

Tied all up in a pretty verbal ribbon and just laid out on the table like that is the TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH AS YOU SEE IT...

If you have any stories with details that can be checked about LTC's discharging people when that would endanger their lives post them here.

As BOOBTHEBUILDER SAID "do your own googling" the stories are out there and in every nursing home in every state in every location, just open your ears and do your own research...the stories abound {if they are lucky enough to get printed press for the stories} but look and you shall find!

Because it is the governments job to protect people from getting their lives endangered by the actions of others.

Absolutely, that's why there are patient advocates and 800 phone numbers listed at each and every LTC facility in America...but not every nursing home is a 'non profit' facility and they do not have to keep residents who are unable to pay and are not a Medicaid payer source!

Go ahead and show us how a LTC facility can endanger the life of a person it discharges and not get sued without demonstrating that it is the fault of government.

As with Hospital dumping that was illuminated in the media, LTC facilities are quite capable of doing the same thing...just try to catch them at it and that is a slippery worm to hang onto, but it is done...go stake out some inner city LTC facility.