Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you look at Europe where nursing homes are of the past and family members have to take care of the elderly as the money goes to ... refugees!
Why is the left complaining about Trump as the left loves Europe so much so just sit tight and wait for that to happen unless we keep President Trump to avoid that from happening.
The left can keep their scare tactics and scare themselves but not smart people who have seen it in Europe and lived it.
Many Republicans know that this is true as many of them travel and have their eyes open while the left will travel to a gay parade and walk into the coffee shop to be HAPPY!
In Europe there is a trend toward deinstitutionalisation, that does not mean the elderly are abandoned or left to fend for themselves. They employ a number of approaches depending upon the Country and the condition of the elderly person. Some can live at home with nursing care, others live in assisted living communities, but you are wrong about family members being left to take care of the elderly. But while we are at it, what does a gay parade have to do with nursing homes? Geez...
I'm curious about is who is so brazen that they buy the latest phones, buy new cars, buy fancy homes and all kinds of fancy stuff they don't need, going out to eat in nice restaurants, never saving for the future, then look at others and start complaining, "What about me? Where's MY free government money to pay for my twilight years? Who will pay for my healthcare, my nursing home expenses? Who will pay to bury me?" What kind of person does that?
You could go through life without ever buying a phone or eating in a restaurant and the savings probably wouldn't pay for a year in a nursing home. There are millions of hard working people in this country who just scrape by, they don't have money to save. And they will get old and they won't have money to pay for their own long term care, so what do you want to do with them "very passion8" line them up in the street and shoot them?
Perhaps these nursing homes could reduce their prices and/or run their operations as a charity instead of getting the government to rob their patients' grandchildren to pay for them to stay in their warehouse where they rot to death. Given the substantial Social Security checks that could be surrendered as well as the great outpouring of sentiment in favor of aiding indigent elders we see in this thread, I'm sure they would manage - that is, if the whiners in this thread actually cared about the indigent elderly. This would provide them with a very strong incentive to keep their prices down and satisfy their customers instead of trying to drug and blackmail them into Medicaid enrollment (which is commonplace) and the associated mandatory "estate recovery" extortion scheme that robs the middle class blind. The "dying industry" and the state run one of the biggest rackets around today.
Just think, people - indigent elders were not killed or thrown out on the street before Medicaid was created, and plenty of treatment options existed for them beforehand. Since that was 50 years ago, I'm sure that the power of innovation and all the technology and technique we've accumulated since then would enable us to do much better.
Also, indigent elders' eligibility for Medicaid wasn't even affected by the expansion as far as I know, and even if it was it's not like nursing homes were throwing out legions of patients before 2010 anyway.
Perhaps these nursing homes could reduce their prices and/or run their operations as a charity instead of getting the government to rob their patients' grandchildren to pay for them to stay in their warehouse where they rot to death. Given the substantial Social Security checks that could be surrendered as well as the great outpouring of sentiment in favor of aiding indigent elders we see in this thread, I'm sure they would manage - that is, if the whiners in this thread actually cared about the indigent elderly. This would provide them with a very strong incentive to keep their prices down and satisfy their customers instead of trying to drug and blackmail them into Medicaid enrollment (which is commonplace) and the associated mandatory "estate recovery" extortion scheme that robs the middle class blind. The "dying industry" and the state run one of the biggest rackets around today.
Just think, people - indigent elders were not killed or thrown out on the street before Medicaid was created, and plenty of treatment options existed for them beforehand. Since that was 50 years ago, I'm sure that the power of innovation and all the technology and technique we've accumulated since then would enable us to do much better.
Also, indigent elders' eligibility for Medicaid wasn't even affected by the expansion as far as I know, and even if it was it's not like nursing homes were throwing out legions of patients before 2010 anyway.
Ok, a few things here.
Nursing homes are not going to start operating as a charity, why would you expect them to? Do you also think Doctors should operate as a charity, Nursing homes depend on their private pay patients to offset the lower amount that medicaid pays, if they have over 65% medicaid patients they generally can't afford to stay open unless the state increases the money the medicaid money they receive.
About those 'substantial Social Security checks' that you mentioned..those are taken from you if you are on medicaid and in a nursing home, your SS money is given to the nursing home and you are only allowed to keep $60 a month. To get on medicaid you have to have spent all of your own money but so far people have been able to keep their home, but in the house bill they want to limit home equity to $560,000 so even if your spouse still lives in the home they would be required to sell it or borrow against it and use the excess equity to pay down the nursing home bill.
There were no cuts made to medicaid before 2010 so I am unable to determine how that comment is relevant to the discussion.
As I see it, the cuts in Medicaid will ultimately force States to contribute more than their share to the pot. It's pretty simple IMO, Medicaid is paid partially by the States and partially by the Feds...if States are worried about funding shortages and roll backs...simply make up the difference, which shouldn't be too difficult considering that State's should know what their budgetary constraints should be and adjust accordingly.
The real hollering by politicians about all of this is due to the fact that States know that they will have to do more for their own people than the Feds. Places like NYS will have to rethink the whole "free college" and $20 minimum wage hikes.
What I don't understand, is that if certain States prefer what Obamacare does for it's people, then what's to stop them from creating their own State funded form of Romneycare???
Perhaps these nursing homes could reduce their prices and/or run their operations as a charity instead of getting the government to rob their patients' grandchildren to pay for them to stay in their warehouse where they rot to death. Given the substantial Social Security checks that could be surrendered as well as the great outpouring of sentiment in favor of aiding indigent elders we see in this thread, I'm sure they would manage - that is, if the whiners in this thread actually cared about the indigent elderly. This would provide them with a very strong incentive to keep their prices down and satisfy their customers instead of trying to drug and blackmail them into Medicaid enrollment (which is commonplace) and the associated mandatory "estate recovery" extortion scheme that robs the middle class blind. The "dying industry" and the state run one of the biggest rackets around today.
Just think, people - indigent elders were not killed or thrown out on the street before Medicaid was created, and plenty of treatment options existed for them beforehand. Since that was 50 years ago, I'm sure that the power of innovation and all the technology and technique we've accumulated since then would enable us to do much better.
Also, indigent elders' eligibility for Medicaid wasn't even affected by the expansion as far as I know, and even if it was it's not like nursing homes were throwing out legions of patients before 2010 anyway.
Sure, that sounds great. I'd also like it if the insurance companies halved their prices, and same with drug companies. How do I force these companies to turn into charities, or reduce their prices? While we're at it, why not force all sorts of companies to lower their prices... sounds like a great trick.
Have you ever wondered WHY "indigent elders were not killed before Medicaid was created?" The average cost of nursing home care was about $8k in 1977 and it was $60k in 2004 (NIH study). That $8k is $24k in 2004 dollars, adjusted for inflation (inflation calculator). So costs basically tripled during that time. Health care costs have skyrocketed, and THAT is why people can't just pay up the way they used to.
Sure, that sounds great. I'd also like it if the insurance companies halved their prices, and same with drug companies. How do I force these companies to turn into charities, or reduce their prices? While we're at it, why not force all sorts of companies to lower their prices... sounds like a great trick.
Have you ever wondered WHY "indigent elders were not killed before Medicaid was created?" The average cost of nursing home care was about $8k in 1977 and it was $60k in 2004 (NIH study). That $8k is $24k in 2004 dollars, adjusted for inflation (inflation calculator). So costs basically tripled during that time. Health care costs have skyrocketed, and THAT is why people can't just pay up the way they used to.
Costs increase because they are designed to. These business are typically held by stock holders. They expect year over year revenue increases. This is why health care for profit will always increase - because it has to or it's a failing business. There will never be "cost decreases" in a for profit business because if the costs are reduced, the owners will keep that as additional profit.
As I see it, the cuts in Medicaid will ultimately force States to contribute more than their share to the pot. It's pretty simple IMO, Medicaid is paid partially by the States and partially by the Feds...if States are worried about funding shortages and roll backs...simply make up the difference, which shouldn't be too difficult considering that State's should know what their budgetary constraints should be and adjust accordingly.
The real hollering by politicians about all of this is due to the fact that States know that they will have to do more for their own people than the Feds. Places like NYS will have to rethink the whole "free college" and $20 minimum wage hikes.
What I don't understand, is that if certain States prefer what Obamacare does for it's people, then what's to stop them from creating their own State funded form of Romneycare???
Simply make up the difference? That would be great if states could print currency when they need it like the feds do. Where do you think the money will come from? When states don't have it who is going to get medicaid and who isn't? Will it be the frail elderly or severely disabled children? Or maybe we could have a lottery every year and just pick the winners and the losers?
This is what Oklahoma says they will have to do:
Some of the programs and benefits being considered are pharmacy, behavioral health, durable medical equipment, the breast and cervical cancer treatment program, the waiver-funded Medically Fragile program and Program of All-inclusive Care for the Elderly, private duty nursing services, adult organ transplants, dialysis, hospice services, physical and occupational therapy, and speech, hearing and language disorder services.Drastic cuts could be coming for Medicaid patients in Oklahoma | KFOR.com
Simply make up the difference? That would be great if states could print currency when they need it like the feds do. Where do you think the money will come from? When states don't have it who is going to get medicaid and who isn't? Will it be the frail elderly or severely disabled children? Or maybe we could have a lottery every year and just pick the winners and the losers?
This is what Oklahoma says they will have to do:
Some of the programs and benefits being considered are pharmacy, behavioral health, durable medical equipment, the breast and cervical cancer treatment program, the waiver-funded Medically Fragile program and Program of All-inclusive Care for the Elderly, private duty nursing services, adult organ transplants, dialysis, hospice services, physical and occupational therapy, and speech, hearing and language disorder services.Drastic cuts could be coming for Medicaid patients in Oklahoma | KFOR.com
That really is terrible. But they voted for it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
