Skip to main content

View Diary: Why Grandma Will Be At The Door, Suitcase In Hand (168 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Incontinent, Incompetent and Home for the Holidays (44+ / 0-)

    I know that is both harsh and terribly 'insensitive'.

    But guess what, by the time we're in the nursing home, we too will largely be described by one or both of those terms (as well as a host of other terms known primarily only to trained health care professionals.)  

    It does little good for us to join in the fantasy that most nursing home residents could do just fine with a little help from their adult kids who would be more than happy to share their home.  Gramma won't walk up to the door with her suitcase, she'll be wheeled up in her wheel chair or gurney and if we're lucky, she'll come with all the medical equipment and transfer equipment we'll need to at least try to keep her from experiencing a rapid decline and at least try to help her move from one location to another within our house or from house to her frequent medical appointments without injuring her, ourselves or both.

    The level of care and near-constant attention necessary for most nursing home residents is far beyond what a normal family could provide and would rapidly deplete both the health, wealth and pateience of any untrained family who tried to provide even a small portion of the required levels of care by themselves or by hiring trained, qualified outside help.

    For decades now, we have defined the "uninsured" to exclude those "unisured" for nursing home care, who, lacking such insurance, are forced to exhaust their own meager savings with the "goal" of qualifying for Medicaid so that after their savings are gone, they will at least have the care they need.  

    And contray to Rep. Ryan's budget-fantasy platitudes, the "goal" of the Medicaid welfare program that provides payment for roughly 2/3 of all nursing home days, is not to find these welfare recipients a job or get them out of their "hammock" that we have allowed the safety net to become.  

    The folk who the Republcans are talking about shorting in their Medicaid budget cuts have fought and died and built and made this country what it is.  

    The Republicans may be fine with honoring our obligations to foriegn bankers and other global lenders before (or in place of)  honoring our obligations to these seniors.  

    I for one am not.

    We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

    by Into The Woods on Tue May 31, 2011 at 03:05:15 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  You wanna see rioting like in Madison, (9+ / 0-)

      but only worse...

      Allow MedicAid to get gutted, and the consequences begin to settle in.

      You would likely see some people building actual guillotines in their backyards.

      •  Except No One Really "rioted" in Madison (17+ / 0-)

        Rioting is what they do in Ireland and Greece or what we did in the 60s.

        To call Madison "rioting" is like calling Sarah Palin "presidential material".  

        That said, if the Republican Budget got passed, we would soon come to more clearly understand what FDR said

        We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

        State of the Union Message to Congress  January 11, 1944  (Second "Bill of Rights" speech)

        We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

        by Into The Woods on Tue May 31, 2011 at 05:42:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I did write "but only worse". nt. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Julie Gulden, Into The Woods
          •  I agree with the "only worse". You are right. (0+ / 0-)

            We just have to be careful not to adopt the terminology of the the RW/Republican/Global Thieving Class.

            A "riot" is a powerful thing and in some people's eyes even a justfiable response to certain levels of oppression and abuse.

            I am particularly alert to its incorrect use to describe Madison as I would be to describe Egpyt's Tahrir Square.

            Both were near text-book examples of Nonviolent Action and both went to great effort to avoid both violence and destruction of property (the hallmarks of "riots").  

            By "loosely" using words like that to describe any kind of protest, the legitimacy of non-violent protest is diminished and the legitamacy of the groups that strive for nonviolent action and oppose violent riots is also diminished.

            We must fight against that "loose" useage in part because I believe that the source of such useage (and/or its amplification) is neither accidental nor unintentional.

            The reactions to passage of the Republican Budget (including but not limited to TEOMAWKI) would lead to an even more passionate and widespread response than Madison showed.

            My hope is that it too would follow the path of Nonviolent Actions, not merely because it would be more consistent with our values, but also because it would be far more effective on a bottom-line basis.

            I'd highly recommend the following to you and anyone who is interested in change without violence:

            Albert Einstein Institution   -  dedicated to advancing the study and use of strategic nonviolent action in conflicts throughout the world. It is committed to the defense of freedom, democracy, and the reduction of political violence through the use of nonviolent action.

            We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

            by Into The Woods on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 11:10:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Tahrir was nonviolent because the army agreed (0+ / 0-)

              with the protesters.

              If you look at Egypt now, after Mubarrak has been ousted from power, you'll see that the egyptian military sat back and let the people do the work and that the military is now in charge.

              Now, after Mubarrak is gone, the army no longer agrees with the protesters. The army has acted violently at times to clear the protesters from Tahrir square by force.

              Egypt was not a two-sided event in the manner you seem to have thought.

              As far as the effectiveness of nonviolence...

              I suggest you read this diary. And if you find you cannot, then please at an absolute minimum read this book written by a history professor at Tulane, published by University of North Carolina in 2006.

              If you cannot be bothered to have your current notions of the practical supremacy of nonviolence, then think on the hundred-ish nonviolent years between the end of the civil war and the civil rights movement. A time that was filled with The Klan, with strange fruit hanging from the old hangin tree, with nonviolent blacks being kept in a lowly place. A hundred-ish years from the surrender of the confederacy. By the time of that fiftieth year, blacks knew only that they were citizens by technicality but in reality their equality was not in hand. And they were not going to stand up and be 'uppity', because they were nonviolent while the Klan was very violent.

              Nonviolence only works if it is a choice, and not a mandate. Once a bully knows a punch is never going to provoke a counterpunch, then the bully knows there is no reason to stop bullying.

        •  There is protesting and than there is rioting. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mike08, Matt Z, Into The Woods

          When protesting becomes violent, it is rioting.

          Words are important.

          Progressives will win when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

          by auapplemac on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 01:27:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  What happened to the bedridden elderly before (0+ / 0-)

        Medicaid?

        There are families who with the consent of their parent(s) transfer their savings to their children just to take advantage of Medicaid for nursing home care - even though that money could cover the needed care.

        I does have to be done well before the parents become incompetent or in need of a nursing home, but it does happen. I think these laws have to be tightened and applied to prevent cheating Medicaid and the rest of us.

        Progressives will win when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

        by auapplemac on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 01:17:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think this is a serious problem. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Julie Gulden

          Even though states want the money, they also understand that tightening up the rules past a certain point doesn't yield enough to be worth the trouble.

          For most people, we're talking about a house and maybe modest savings (if anything).  People will just sell the house and spend the money earlier.

          I'd like Republicans better if they weren't such assholes.

          by monkeybox on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 04:37:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  If 2/3 nursing home days (0+ / 0-)

          are paid by Medicaid, it tells you something is wrong with the system.

          It just seems out of whack.. out of proportion with what Medicaid was originally intended to do.  It wasn't intended as a vehicle that allows you to dump Grandma off so you don't have to be responsible for her.

          •  So everyone is (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jfromga, Into The Woods

            qualified to to be a caretaker for the elderly?

            Which spouse is going to quit their job to be a full time caretaker of grandpa's dementia?

            I live in FL and every once in a while you see a rescue helecopter circling the area where I live because a person with alzheimers is lost and people are out looking for them - and of course some of these people are found dead.

            It's not so easy as you make it out to be.  

            Are there no prisons? No workhouses?

            by meatballs on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 07:24:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Into The Woods

              there is so much of the care of the truly infirm elderly that ordinary people aren't qualified to do, or if part of a two person working family, aren't there to do 24/7.  People just died in the old days, either pneumonia, heart failure, cancer.   Now we can keep them alive.   Which moral choice is the wrong one, let nature take its course in short order, or practise life prolonging medicine that creates serious burdens on families for elder care for decades sometimes.  If we choose life, then we need to have mechanisms to pay for the care given that most people don't have enough money or can't given salaries vs. cost of living for intensive medical care, drugs and supervision, without a government system.

          •  The System is Out of Whack. Profit Driven HC (0+ / 0-)

            does not, cannot provide an answer to this problem.

            If it could, over the last 50 years, it would have.

            What is "out of whack" is that we force middle class and low income familes to completely eimpoverish themselves in order to get this kind of coverage.

            Other countries include this level of care in their universal coverage.

            In our "health care reform" the merest of trinkets was tossed its way.   CLASS.  And the GOP wants to repeal even that token attempt at addressing the problem.  

            We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

            by Into The Woods on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 11:32:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Obama looted 1/2 Trillion dollars from Medicare (0+ / 0-)

              that could have gone for this.

              While I agree that Medicare Advantage should be scaled back as it was, those funds should never have been removed from the Medicare system to pay for younger people.

              •  Forcing Big Ins and HMOs to Give Up Subsidies (0+ / 0-)

                according to their own agreements made back in 2003 that the subsidies would no longer be needed in 2010 is hardly "looting".

                Before you go off on a GOP-fueled rant, try digesting some facts:

                The subsidies were requested to try and spiff up a previously unsuccessful experiment in "privatizing" Medicare.

                They were agreed to for a set period - agreed to by the insurance companies.

                They were intended to help pay for additional services, over and above standard Medicare that will soon be part of the standard Medicare package and so not deserving of special add-on pricing.

                More here, if you are actually interested in discussing facts instead of echoing GOP talking points.  

                We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

                by Into The Woods on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 02:27:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  How do you support "pay for younger people" (0+ / 0-)

                The ObamaCare accounting did not draw that straight line.

                In fact, closing the donut hole cost money last I checked.

                And those in their 50s and 60s facing denial of coverage due to prexisting conditions and loss of group coverage due to unemployment might think they're getting some benefit out of the deal.

                In addition, changes to the basic Medicare package enhanced the standard package provided without additional premiums.

                The "pay for younger people" is just an invitation to generational civil war, unsupported by the facts and inconsistent with an approach that fights for all of us, not just some of us.  

                We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

                by Into The Woods on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 02:31:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  In MA there is a five year "look back" period. (4+ / 0-)

          I am guessing that this or something similar is true in most states.

        •  Studies Have Shown Little Evidence of This (0+ / 0-)

          especially after the changes in law that have occurred over the last 10 years tightening up the rules.

          The number of those who 'cheat' the system via "Medicaid Planning" and the dollars involved, almost certainly pale beside the numbers of people and amounts of money involved in other forms of cheating especially by the Global Thieving Class.  

          What happened to the bedridden elderly before Medicaid?

          They died.  They lived in county "rest homes" where they recieved bare minimums of care and comfort and were too often subject to abuse, poor conditions or both.

          The other thing that happened is that for those who could afford it, hospitals provided a much more extended period of care both for the elderly and for rehabilitating non-elderly at much greater costs per day.

          We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

          by Into The Woods on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 11:17:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  A choice between Gramma & the Pentagon. (14+ / 0-)

      God forbid, we should stop funding a war or two and have Gramma get some care. At least according to those republican family and/or financial values.

      War profiteers first, banksters second and third??? Well, according to republican think, there is no third.

      Gramma's gotta go.

      And I want to scream at the Dems for not bashing the metphorical crap out of the opposition on this one. From the American dream to the American scream

      Excellent comment, ITW.

      It's only water. What could go wrong???

      by MrSandman on Tue May 31, 2011 at 04:55:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And how many veterans get punished for being old? (15+ / 0-)

        Or poor?
        Or homeless?
        Or disabled?

        Under the GOP budget, "support the troops" is pretty much like "pro-life", as soon as the concept behind the slogan no longer buys votes, it no longer gets funding.  

        We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

        by Into The Woods on Tue May 31, 2011 at 05:08:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  many of the veterans (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Into The Woods

          and their families are dependent on the same programs that the Republicans are cutting, some qualify for SNAP, use Medicaid, etc.

          •  The Republicans' Real Motto is Support the War (0+ / 0-)

            and screw the troops.  

            There are many documentable instances in which this is true, from sending the into combat without sufficient forces or arms/equipment to fit the task; engaging in conflicts that necessitate a frequence and duration of tours of duty in combat zones that have been known for decades to unacceptably heighten the risk of PTSD and related disabilities, the fudging of discharge assessments to avoid such disability status, the fighting against pay raises, the fighting against funding increases for troops (vs war) and now cutting the programs that many rely on.  

            We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

            by Into The Woods on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 11:23:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site