Leslilake1 at aol.com wrote:
>
> My point is that the emphasis on "informed consumers" and "consumer choice"
> comes, oddly enough, at a time when medical care is being increasingly sped
> up and fragmented, care for those without resources is being cut, and costs
> generally are rising for everyone.
Snip
> He came to the hospital because his entire hips, buttocks and thighs were
> ulcerated and bleeding - not from poor nutrition, but from poor circulation
> and sitting in one position for too many days. A visiting nurse comes
> quarterly, and she's the one who sent him to the hospital. In the hospital,
> we will give him some rehab until his backside heals, put him on a diet,
> hopefully give him some exercises he can do at home, (but this isn't certain
> because there is not regular physical therapist at the hospital), then send
> him back to the same situation.
>
> I think you and I are not in disagreement - I'm all for community living, but
> in its current incarnation it's not without problems. Especially for people,
> as in this guy's case, who don't really have much of a "community," though
> theoretically, he lives "in the community." In the world we currently live
> in, what would give the guy more choices is money.
>
Thanks for explaining your point. I think we are in complete agreement. Is there an Independent Living Center anywhere in your area? Sometimes they are called Centers for Independent Livng - or some variant. That might be of help to this person. sometimes with an advocate, people can get more hours of in home services if they show need. At least that is how it works in CA.
But it is a constant fight with the states to get adequate funding for these programs. No doubt that some crafty governors have taken funds marked for community services and moved it over into their pet projects, no doubt that the funds are too little to begin with. California's home services program is based on penury, disabled people must be very poor to quality for it. The program pays workers minimum wage in many counties, a bit more in some. The state set it up in as meager a form as possible to satisfy a few outraged disabled persons about twenty years ago but it was never treated seriously and given adequate funding. It is impossible to find a worker who will work for such low wages, so many disabled people living inthe community are constantly looking for one. But I see this as just one more area of disregard for disabled people's lives - we still don't command the political power necessary to force the state to do what is needed. The institutions like nursing homes lobby against home care, they are always in competition for that money. So are the long term care hospitals and those who work in them. ADAPT has worked hard to protest at every opportunity. We need many people to get up on the issue so they can confront the poor state of affairs their communities.
If the state were really committed, there would be a better outcome. It is about money at the top and money at the bottom. Then, there is the overall ideology here, this country just does not want to fund decent public social programs. It elected George Bush, after all.
Marta