tripleB said:Then the State of Virginia tells him he can't use Medicaid money, which he contributed into his entire lifeMediCare/Social Security is contributed into for your entire life

tripleB said:This Washington Post Article describes the story of a 107 year old man who has outlived his money "twice". Its interesting from a financial perspective but I found it interesting from a socio-political perspective:

"He lived alone in a Fredericksburg apartment until he was 102. Locals knew him as the older fellow often seen cycling around town. But in 2004, he fell off his bike and was taken to a hospital. Social workers determined that he could not safely return to his apartment. They found a place for him at Greenfield, a private-pay facility."

"Virginia is one of eight states that do not allow Medicaid -- a program to help low-income people obtain health care -- to be used for assisted living services, according to the Assisted Living Federation of America."

To summarize, the State of Virgina Social Workers, whose salary were paid by his tax dollars, told him he was not allowed to live alone in his home and required him to sell it and move into a private-care facility. Then the State of Virginia tells him he can't use Medicaid money, which he contributed into his entire life, to pay for the facility and he has to move into a crap nursing home.
How exactly can a state prevent someone from living in his own home?

BradMajors said:
How exactly can a state prevent someone from living in his own home?

Not a lot of people volunteer to go into a nursing home, sometimes family will make this decision for them, sometimes the state will.

BradMajors said:
How exactly can a state prevent someone from living in his own home?

Welcome to the era of Big Government. Social workers and bureaucrats are gaining increasing control over the lives of adults, supposedly for "their own good."

As more and more people become dependent on government programs (Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, UHC, etc.), the administrators of those government programs will use their authority to dictate lifestyles.

If this man is on a fixed income sourced completely from the government, and relies on the government for medical care, they can tell him exactly where to live if he is to continue to qualify for benefits.

minorthreat1 said:
How do you propose we provide 24 hour individual care for every bed-ridden, or mentally incapacitated person who refuses to leave their home?
I typically agree with you, but this seems far-fetched.

We dont. He has the right to die alone in his house. Then his estate gets the house and pays taxes on the estate. Everybody wins.

minorthreat1 said:
How do you propose we provide 24 hour individual care for every bed-ridden, or mentally incapacitated person who refuses to leave their home?
I typically agree with you, but this seems far-fetched.
The real problem is in who wields the power to declare a person mentally incapacitated or incapable of living on their own, and how they will exercise that power.

There are people who are truly mentally incapacitated, with limited ability to understand the world, and without the capacity to feed themselves or perform basic hygienic functions. I cannot believe that these people make up the majority of seniors forced from their homes into old age care, as many of these people were already in assisted living prior to aging. Alzheimer's victims are the one notable exception.

The problem with these definitions is how overbroad they are, and how they may be applied in a loose fashion by a government bureaucrat.

What is to be considered a mental health issue? Obviously, people who cannot feed themselves need care. However, what are you going to do with people who may be old and frail, and suffer from serious chronic conditions, but remain committed to their own independence and are able to make a rational choice between a higher standard of care and losses of personal freedom and dignity?

Do we assume that a person who refuses assisted living, when that program would better meet their needs and improve the quality of care they receive, must be mentally incompetent for not wanting to receive the "best" care for their circumstances? Do we assume that anyone who rejects care which, in the opinion of social workers or medical professionals, would allow them to live a better life must automatically be suffering from a mental defect?

This is the exact problem seniors are currently facing in the UK and other wealthy nations with extensive government social service programs. Seniors who choose independence over assisted living are deemed incompetent if the social workers feel that a person with their conditions would automatically want government care.

There is no question that assisted living helps seniors suffering from mobility problems or chronic conditions, but just because that confers a benefit, doesn't mean rejecting that benefit is proof of insanity. Rather, rational seniors frequently see a greater benefit in independence and dignity, and choose that lifestyle over one which might provide assistance with their physical needs, while ignoring their emotional well-being.

The test for mental capacity must be based upon that person's ability to understand and evaluate their situation, not based upon the fallacious idea that turning down the benefits of assisted living is prima facie proof of mental incapacity.

This isn't a widespread problem here in the US, yet. The danger lies in trends which are taking the US down that Orwellian path.

staci86 said:

. . .

This isn't a widespread problem here in the US, yet. The danger lies in trends which are taking the US down that Orwellian path.

With all due respect, I suggest you visit an assisted living home, I've volunteered and visited at many. If you see any who look normal and as if they are able to care for themselves sit down and talk to them for five minutes and see what you find out. Often times the family will choose that it is time for their relative to go into a home,it's a very hard decision to make. There is not a Ministry of Young that bangs on doors at a given age to whisk away the elderly, there's no Orwellian path here. The person has demonstrated at some point that they no longer can care for themselves and require 24 hour care. It would be wonderful if it were possible to provide 24 hour care for them in their own homes, but hiring 4 full time nurses per person and having thousands of dollars in equipment at each home just isn't feasible.

And you can be sure the Washington Post will then put up an article about how you died sitting in your own filth and starved to death when you were an obviously at risk individual who should have had 24 hour care. And your nephew, of course outraged, will take those responsible to court. Respecting the wishes of a 98 year old man with dementia? Where was the State!? Completely incompetent, all of them!

BrlDsguise said:hejustlaughs said:Moral of story: Don't live in Virginia.

Ironically my mother lived in Virginia for a short time and then moved to NJ where she has been catered to with assistance. She just moved into an assisted living facility which is paid for with medicaid + her social security. While I can understand a state not forcing assisted living facilities to accept medicaid why wouldn't they allow it?

Because the state has to pay for some of the medicaid money while the rest of it is free federal money (sic).