15
Sep
The concept of a “public option” in this current health care debate is not novel. It’s not new. It’s just taking what has been practiced in social service and medical care provision for decades and applying it to the insurance industry. That’s all. It’s also well-known that I oppose this. Here’s a reason why I do.
The company I work for provides completely non-medical in-home services to the elderly. Many of our clients suffer from Alzheimer’s and other mental illnesses associated with aging. Without going into a lot of math or detail, we charge about $10 for a “unit”. The state has decided they are running out of money. So, in order to provide more services to the elderly with the same budget, they are implementing a program that generally costs about $15 a “unit”. In addition, what the client got for free with no strings attached, they will now have to assign their estate to the state. And, in order to “save” the state even more by paying more for what they are getting now, the “employees” will have no workers compensation or liability insurance. The client will also not have to be concerned about liability insurance either, since the state will “own” their assets. The “upside” to this is that it gives the client an option of simply giving that money directly to their family. This according to the state, will allow family ( read deadbeat kids ) to “work” for four or five hours a week. There is practically no training at all for the “employee” on things such as moving morbidly obese clients or recognizing change of client condition. This endangers both the client and employee. And, since there is no workers compensation, the “employee” will file claims against Medicaid most likely. Anyone wanna guess what one back claim costs? That expense, according to Aging Services, doesn’t apply since they have never had any claims. They never will, Medicaid pays the claims.
The very obvious issues with this program are sending red flags all over the country. California was the first state to implement it to a large degree. They’ve had so much fraud with the program they have pretty much gutted it. Other states that have implemented it to any degree are also re-evaluating it. Based on the California AG’s report of massive fraud in a flawed system in California, Kentucky is now making efforts to implement it to a larger scale.
The “reform” in this case costs more, it provides fewer services, it has no legal protections for the client, it has no medical or legal protections for the employee, it has no checks and balances to assure the elderly are not being abused, it destroys the client’s estate, and it’s been proven to be a very easy target for fraud.
As FUBAR as this situation sounds, there is nothing that can be done to stop it since it is the state implementing it. Only until has been deemed a total catastrophe will the state even ponder going back to what it had before. If this were the private sector, as it is now, the state could oversee the program and contract with whoever they wish in order to get the best services for the budget. No one will be able to oversee this program since it will be overseen by the agency that decided they wanted it. No one will know the true cost of this program since all the major expenses will be shifted to other agencies.
Is that change you can believe in? Does that make sense to you? If I voice a concern about things like this, I am called everything but white. Now racism’s being tossed out there on top of disruptor and astroturfer. Bottom line, I think this program is a threat to the elderly I have been assigned to protect for fifteen years. No one wants to ponder that concept. And, because of the completely unfettered nature of the government providing a service directly that it pays for, there is nothing anyone will be able to do if they see these people are being abused by the program.
And what all of this boils down to is the state will now be giving money directly to the family of these clients as opposed to expecting them to take care of their own family. Self-responsibility is once again being usurped for socialist programs. Is that change you can believe in?
Comments
Comments:
Leave a Reply
