Under federal law, state Medicaid programs are required to cover nursing home care. But state officials decide how much to pay facilities, and states under budgetary pressure could decrease the amount they are willing to pay or restrict eligibility for coverage. “The states are going to make it harder to qualify medically for needing nursing home care,” predicted Toby S. Edelman, a senior policy attorney at the Center for Medicare Advocacy ... States might allow nursing homes to require residents’ families to pay for a portion of their care.
MAGA?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/science/medicaid-cutbacks-elderly-nursing-homes.html
Comments
make 'em all work again
big sunday piece somewhere today about how men generally will not do caregiving work no matter how desperate
and we all know that almost no one native-born will pick produce, no matter how desperate
future is gonna be brutal --- more videogames and more dope, and way more conflict
thanks in part to MFO I will be able to increase my charitable giving in my dotage
Everyone's needs will vary.
Note: all data believed accurate
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/insured-for-old-age-an-economi/
http://www.guidetolongtermcare.com/whopays.html
http://www.michigan.gov/difs/0,5269,7-303-12902_35510-383155--,00.html
The problem is long-term care insurance is too expensive for most Americans to afford and the newer policies cover far less than they did in the past. It's quite possible to have long-term care insurance today and still not have enough to pay for an extended nursing home stay.
Worse, an Alzheimer's epidemic is coming as people are living longer. The problem with Alzheimer's is that patients can be completely healthy in other ways yet require nursing home care because their mental faculties are impaired. That combination--physically healthy, mentally impaired--can lead to a nursing home stay that lasts for several years. I don't know of any long-term care policies covering extended stays that the average American can afford today.
Yes, I agree, about rates and coverage changes over the past several years. If I recall properly, some existing "old" policies had clauses that allowed changes (for the unknown?) in both pricing and coverage. So, some old policies were insurance with an "edge". One would almost need an attorney to read the wording on policies to fully understand the coverage, eh?
Regards,
Ted
The point is the officials elected to bring back your "fabulous fifties" will be kicking the elderly out of nursing homes if their proposed Medicaid cuts pass. That long-term care insurance won't help much with this problem is an ancillary elaboration to this legitimate news, albeit a necessary one as some MFO'rs seem to think it's a potential solution.
Speaking of the fabulous fifties: https://washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/how-nostalgia-for-white-christian-america-drove-so-many-americans-to-vote-for-trump/2017/01/04/4ef6d686-b033-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html?utm_term=.3b107a4e2a2e
regards,
Ted
Acknowledging the world is imperfect doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make it better and alleviate as much unnecessary suffering as possible. Asking does this help people or hurt people should be foremost in every lawmakers' mind or at least does this help more people than it hurts? Your philosophy is a recipe for apathy at best or cynicism and selfishness at worst.
Possibly relevant - We are a very wealthy country by most standards.
Interesting (Evangelical) link by LB. I've observed this phenomenon - more so in rural areas of my state, and particularily in areas where education/income levels lag. It's hard to explain rationally. Answer might be that humans aren't rational.
(If I'm getting too political feel free to admonish. I'll attempt to fall in line.)
Recent comment at Dr appt: "My next two patients are 101 & 103 respectively". Being 20 yrs younger I could only shudder. But consider: when we can make people live 30 yrs longer than anyone used to consider "expected", what do we do with those who cannot care for themselves - AND - have no living immediate family who can. I have LTC insurance for 3 yrs -- a lot more than most folks -- but what if in your 90's the brain conks out and after 3 years you are not dead and the "insurance" ends? Well, then "the family pays" -- but what if there is no "family", or the "family" is broke? I guess the idea is they put you on a $20 camp mattress & move you onto the sidewalk. (No, I am highly unlikely to ever be in that situation -- but I have friends that I could imagine someday being so.)
It seems to me that "LTC insurance" as a realistic solution for all but the very wealthy is a false "solution", but we really are not considering what may actually be the situation 10-20 years into the future. (Except total meanness to the 99%?)
Just thinkin'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/the-real-reason-republicans-to-pass-this-health-care-bill-so-much-has-little-to-do-with-health-care/
Big ultimate plan is to divide the states and undo the union. All pregnant to Delaware, all mentally ill to Missouri, etc.
All cuz BO's name was on it. Just wow.
I am not going to weigh in on the political discussion here, since I believe there is a middle-ground solution somewhere, if only the partisans and lobbyists for both sides would consider compromise. Remember that word? That was something politicians in the 1950s and 1960s were able to do once in a while. OK, time to get back to work.
https://csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2013/1028/The-irony-of-Republican-disapproval-of-Obamacare
As for the Pelosi quote, you have not been following the Trumpcare process at all, have you? Talk about not knowing, secrecy, not wanting to know.
I agree. Let's not reinvent history:
npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/23/451200436/mitt-romney-finally-takes-credit-for-obamacare
https://usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2015/10/23/mitt-romney-finally-admits-that-obamacare-came-from-romneycare
cnbc.com/2015/10/23/mitt-romney-admits-romneycare-had-to-precede-obamacare.html
"Don Ritchie, the historian emeritus of the Senate, said that the chamber has not taken such a partisan, closed-door approach to major legislation since in the years before World War I. A century ago, Senate Democrats, at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, drew up major tariff reforms while shutting out Republicans. But when Democratic leaders tried that again when they had large majorities during the Great Depression, rank-and-file senators revolted. It hasn’t happened since, he told the Los Angeles Times."
Much more in the full LA Times story ...
But you again need to dive deeper and farther back into actual history. Mandate, community rating, subsidy:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/conservative-origins-of-obamacare/
You know, individual responsibility and all that good stuff.
HF has spent a lot of time recently trying to walk back their proposals, saying oh and we also have rethought it and changed our mind, yada yada.
"There was a widespread feeling that emergency rooms were misused for non-emergency medical care (the misuse was and is undeniable, not unique to Massachusetts, and continues; the relation to healthcare insurance or lack of it was less clear and apparently did/does not exist)."
Now that's fascinating. But it's also interesting that that paragraph doesn't seem to have any footnotes indicating source material for the statements.