(full site)
Fark.com

Try out our new mobile site!


Back To Main
   Florida has now been accused of dumping sick and handicapped children in adult nursing homes. On the upside, little Jimmy finally gets to spend some quality time with grampa

06 Dec 2012 04:47 AM   |   3593 clicks   |   TampaBay.com (St. Petersburg Tim
Showing 1-36 of 36 comments
Refresh
Biscuit Tin    [TotalFark]  
I'll tell you what, "disability rights advocates" react to nursing homes the way Fred Phelps reacts to homosexuality - with full-on nuclear batshiat insanity. You can't even talk to them about the benefits (and there are many) of nursing home care. The only good nursing home is a dead nursing home! "Warehoused kids" my ass. I bet you every one of those kids requires complex medical management like trach care and positioning and splinting and feeding tube and catheter management and psych med management and seizure med management and management of behavior problems like screaming, head-banging, hitting caregivers, etc. Not to mention the total care they need re: feeding, bathing, toileting and dressing. Parents and siblings wear out. Even the 16 hour presence of a nurse nurse or nurse's aid can not help a family care for a kid when the family has reached the end of their rope. Nursing homes have shifts of caregivers, and these kids need shifts of caregivers. I totally believe that muckety-muck in the article who said 221 out of 222 families want their kid left in the nursing home. Plus, if you could get a disability rights advocate to stop hyperventilating long enough to talk to a real nursing home social worker (which I was for 12 years) or activity director, they would find out there are dozens of regulations in place that require patient-centered and pt-appropriate stimulation. The staff couldn't ignore these kids even if they wanted to. But, no. Put them back in the home with the families that can't cope. They'll be *so* much better off lying in the back bedroom of the home with the door shut than they ever would be in the nursing home.

05 Dec 2012 10:06 PM
ginandbacon    [TotalFark]  
"The state insisted it was 'already in full compliance" with all federal health laws, and called any oversight of the state's Medicaid program "unwarranted.'"

Not a red flag. Not at all.

05 Dec 2012 10:14 PM
ArkAngel    [TotalFark]  

Biscuit Tin: I'll tell you what, "disability rights advocates" react to nursing homes the way Fred Phelps reacts to homosexuality - with full-on nuclear batshiat insanity. You can't even talk to them about the benefits (and there are many) of nursing home care. The only good nursing home is a dead nursing home! "Warehoused kids" my ass. I bet you every one of those kids requires complex medical management like trach care and positioning and splinting and feeding tube and catheter management and psych med management and seizure med management and management of behavior problems like screaming, head-banging, hitting caregivers, etc. Not to mention the total care they need re: feeding, bathing, toileting and dressing. Parents and siblings wear out. Even the 16 hour presence of a nurse nurse or nurse's aid can not help a family care for a kid when the family has reached the end of their rope. Nursing homes have shifts of caregivers, and these kids need shifts of caregivers. I totally believe that muckety-muck in the article who said 221 out of 222 families want their kid left in the nursing home. Plus, if you could get a disability rights advocate to stop hyperventilating long enough to talk to a real nursing home social worker (which I was for 12 years) or activity director, they would find out there are dozens of regulations in place that require patient-centered and pt-appropriate stimulation. The staff couldn't ignore these kids even if they wanted to. But, no. Put them back in the home with the families that can't cope. They'll be *so* much better off lying in the back bedroom of the home with the door shut than they ever would be in the nursing home.


This. Ever since the time the federal government pretty much disbanded the mental health hospital care system, this has been happening with many other groups as well. Both home care and live-in care facilities have benefits, which must be weighed for each person in care. To demonize or lionize one over the other in every/nearly every case is ludicrous and dangerous.

05 Dec 2012 11:38 PM
Apos     
Is this FL derp contagion waterborne or airborne?

06 Dec 2012 02:42 AM
AverageAmericanGuy    [TotalFark]  
'handicapped'

06 Dec 2012 02:58 AM
othmar     
so what will happen in 5 years?

06 Dec 2012 04:49 AM
Uchiha_Cycliste     

Apos: Is this FL derp contagion waterborne or airborne?


genetic.

06 Dec 2012 05:03 AM
steerforth     

AverageAmericanGuy: 'handicapped'


06 Dec 2012 05:24 AM
ExperianScaresCthulhu     

Uchiha_Cycliste: Apos: Is this FL derp contagion waterborne or airborne?

genetic.


it's latent, like the zombie gene in the walking dead. everybody carries it, but under the right conditions the full fury of the horror is unleashed. here, the right conditions are 'living in the wang of America'.

06 Dec 2012 05:24 AM
jtown     
I'm confused. Are they afraid the kids are going to catch Old?

Nursing homes aren't just for old people. They're for anyone who needs a level of care that is lower than a hospital but greater than they can get at home.

06 Dec 2012 05:32 AM
Mock26     

Biscuit Tin: I'll tell you what, "disability rights advocates" react to nursing homes the way Fred Phelps reacts to homosexuality - with full-on nuclear batshiat insanity. You can't even talk to them about the benefits (and there are many) of nursing home care. The only good nursing home is a dead nursing home! "Warehoused kids" my ass. I bet you every one of those kids requires complex medical management like trach care and positioning and splinting and feeding tube and catheter management and psych med management and seizure med management and management of behavior problems like screaming, head-banging, hitting caregivers, etc. Not to mention the total care they need re: feeding, bathing, toileting and dressing. Parents and siblings wear out. Even the 16 hour presence of a nurse nurse or nurse's aid can not help a family care for a kid when the family has reached the end of their rope. Nursing homes have shifts of caregivers, and these kids need shifts of caregivers. I totally believe that muckety-muck in the article who said 221 out of 222 families want their kid left in the nursing home. Plus, if you could get a disability rights advocate to stop hyperventilating long enough to talk to a real nursing home social worker (which I was for 12 years) or activity director, they would find out there are dozens of regulations in place that require patient-centered and pt-appropriate stimulation. The staff couldn't ignore these kids even if they wanted to. But, no. Put them back in the home with the families that can't cope. They'll be *so* much better off lying in the back bedroom of the home with the door shut than they ever would be in the nursing home.


And in a good nursing home where the staff actually cares about the patients, then that would be absolutely great (though I imagine there would be a lot of "get off my doormat" type of comments from the grumpier people), but how many nursing homes are like that? How many of these kids are put into nursing homes that are the stereotypical "horror story" nursing home? How many cases of abused elderly patients do you hear about each year? Putting a mentally handicapped person in there would not be good.

/Over all I agree with you
//Over all, I think that reality does not

06 Dec 2012 05:37 AM
Mock26     

Apos: Is this FL derp contagion waterborne or airborne?


I think it is both, but not everyone suffers from it. I think that people born and who spent a lot of time living elsewhere develop an immunity to it, and that this can be passed on to their children. Once infected, however, it becomes genetic. Fortunately, there is a cure. It is called moving away. The virus needs sustains itself on "teh stupid" that is in the air. So, while moving away is not guaranteed (if you move to another area full of "teh stupid" you are doomed), it is the only known cure. Well, that and death.

06 Dec 2012 05:40 AM
wildcardjack     
I personally would prefer the Spartan approach to feeble children. Pure chasing after sunk costs, I know I will be considered mean and insensitive, but a brief bit of family trauma followed by getting on with life would be better than to coddle a child that will never get better.

06 Dec 2012 05:41 AM
Uchiha_Cycliste     

ExperianScaresCthulhu: Uchiha_Cycliste: Apos: Is this FL derp contagion waterborne or airborne?

genetic.

it's latent, like the zombie gene in the walking dead. everybody carries it, but under the right conditions the full fury of the horror is unleashed. here, the right conditions are 'living in the wang of America'.


I'm gonna call it teratogenic then, and claim Florida's derp water releases the fury and eldritch horror of such stupidity.

06 Dec 2012 05:56 AM
Yes this is dog    [TotalFark]  

AverageAmericanGuy: 'handicapped'


Thank you, that was just glaring at me.

06 Dec 2012 05:59 AM
cherryl taggart     
Seeing how this is about foster kids, trying to move them out of facilities and into foster homes is already a problem. There's this little concept, called leveling, which is used to determine just how little the state can provide to a foster kid and not get in trouble. Facility based care, be it a hospital, a juvenile incarceration locale, or a group home with a separate wing is expensive, very expensive. So for the state to use this level of care, there has to be something triggering this level of intervention. Say, the fact that there is no foster home equipped to care for said kid, or all the foster parents have reviewed the kid's file and say, thanks but no thanks. If the parents or home are not equipped, then an in-home nurse has to come in, which is somewhat costly, and intrusive. A foster home does have the right to put a limit on the number of strangers in their home, for privacy and protection of other residents. Believe me, the state would love to never use the upper levels of intervention, because the daily reimbursement rates to families is even less than the pittance paid to facilities.

06 Dec 2012 05:59 AM
missiv     
media.salon.comView Full Size

"At the core, today's "pro-choice" liberals are deeply pessimistic. They denigrate life and offer fear of the present and the future-fear of too many choices and too many children. Rather than seeing children and human beings as a benefit, the "pro-choice" position implies that they are a burden. Despite the "pro-choice" label, liberals' stance on this subject actually diminishes choices, lowers goals, and leads us to live with less. That includes reducing the number of human beings who can make choices.

In contrast, pro-life conservatives are natural optimists. On balance, we see human beings as assets, not liabilities. All conservatives should find it easy to agree that government must uphold every person's right to make choices regarding their lives and that every person's right to live must be secured before he or she can exercise that right of choice. In the state of nature-the "law of the jungle"-the determination of who "qualifies" as a human being is left to private individuals or chosen groups. In a justly organized community, however, government exists to secure the right to life and the other human rights that follow from that primary right.
"

06 Dec 2012 06:32 AM
Billy Bathsalt     

missiv: [media.salon.com image 460x307]
"At the core, today's "pro-choice" liberals are deeply pessimistic. They denigrate life and offer fear of the present and the future-fear of too many choices and too many children. Rather than seeing children and human beings as a benefit, the "pro-choice" position implies that they are a burden. Despite the "pro-choice" label, liberals' stance on this subject actually diminishes choices, lowers goals, and leads us to live with less. That includes reducing the number of human beings who can make choices.

In contrast, pro-life conservatives are natural optimists. On balance, we see human beings as assets, not liabilities. All conservatives should find it easy to agree that government must uphold every person's right to make choices regarding their lives and that every person's right to live must be secured before he or she can exercise that right of choice. In the state of nature-the "law of the jungle"-the determination of who "qualifies" as a human being is left to private individuals or chosen groups. In a justly organized community, however, government exists to secure the right to life and the other human rights that follow from that primary right."


Right up until that unborn person is born.

06 Dec 2012 06:42 AM
missiv     

Billy Bathsalt: missiv: [media.salon.com image 460x307]
"At the core, today's "pro-choice" liberals are deeply pessimistic. They denigrate life and offer fear of the present and the future-fear of too many choices and too many children. Rather than seeing children and human beings as a benefit, the "pro-choice" position implies that they are a burden. Despite the "pro-choice" label, liberals' stance on this subject actually diminishes choices, lowers goals, and leads us to live with less. That includes reducing the number of human beings who can make choices.

In contrast, pro-life conservatives are natural optimists. On balance, we see human beings as assets, not liabilities. All conservatives should find it easy to agree that government must uphold every person's right to make choices regarding their lives and that every person's right to live must be secured before he or she can exercise that right of choice. In the state of nature-the "law of the jungle"-the determination of who "qualifies" as a human being is left to private individuals or chosen groups. In a justly organized community, however, government exists to secure the right to life and the other human rights that follow from that primary right."

Right up until that unborn person is born.


I'm guessing, Pro-lifers believe once you're born you've made your first official choice. Every new born is responsible and has to accept their own failure or success.

06 Dec 2012 07:22 AM
MemeSlave     

ArkAngel: Biscuit Tin...

This. Ever since the time the federal government pretty much disbanded the mental health hospital care system, this has been happening with many other groups as well. Both home care and live-in care facilities have benefits, which must be weighed for each person in care. To demonize or lionize one over the other in e ...


So its a lack of federal government oversight? THAT is the problem?

/weeping for the future

06 Dec 2012 07:27 AM
HotWingConspiracy     
I'm kind of outraged they didn't drug test them first. I mean, what those sick kids are selling their taxpayer-funded diapers for drug money?

06 Dec 2012 07:58 AM
Arthurgoboom     

missiv: [media.salon.com image 460x307]
"At the core, today's "pro-choice" liberals are deeply pessimistic. They denigrate life and offer fear of the present and the future-fear of too many choices and too many children. Rather than seeing children and human beings as a benefit, the "pro-choice" position implies that they are a burden. Despite the "pro-choice" label, liberals' stance on this subject actually diminishes choices, lowers goals, and leads us to live with less. That includes reducing the number of human beings who can make choices.

In contrast, pro-life conservatives are natural optimists. On balance, we see human beings as assets, not liabilities. All conservatives should find it easy to agree that government must uphold every person's right to make choices regarding their lives and that every person's right to live must be secured before he or she can exercise that right of choice. In the state of nature-the "law of the jungle"-the determination of who "qualifies" as a human being is left to private individuals or chosen groups. In a justly organized community, however, government exists to secure the right to life and the other human rights that follow from that primary right."


Whiskey. Tango. Fark. Is anyone else's head spinning?

/ 8/10

06 Dec 2012 08:14 AM
minoridiot     

Biscuit Tin: I'll tell you what, "disability rights advocates" react to nursing homes the way Fred Phelps reacts to homosexuality - with full-on nuclear batshiat insanity. You can't even talk to them about the benefits (and there are many) of nursing home care. The only good nursing home is a dead nursing home! "Warehoused kids" my ass. I bet you every one of those kids requires complex medical management like trach care and positioning and splinting and feeding tube and catheter management and psych med management and seizure med management and management of behavior problems like screaming, head-banging, hitting caregivers, etc. Not to mention the total care they need re: feeding, bathing, toileting and dressing. Parents and siblings wear out. Even the 16 hour presence of a nurse nurse or nurse's aid can not help a family care for a kid when the family has reached the end of their rope. Nursing homes have shifts of caregivers, and these kids need shifts of caregivers. I totally believe that muckety-muck in the article who said 221 out of 222 families want their kid left in the nursing home. Plus, if you could get a disability rights advocate to stop hyperventilating long enough to talk to a real nursing home social worker (which I was for 12 years) or activity director, they would find out there are dozens of regulations in place that require patient-centered and pt-appropriate stimulation. The staff couldn't ignore these kids even if they wanted to. But, no. Put them back in the home with the families that can't cope. They'll be *so* much better off lying in the back bedroom of the home with the door shut than they ever would be in the nursing home.


In my area, some nursing homes double as "Skilled Nursing Facilities" (aka SNF). Generally speaking, they do a good job -- I know because I spent an extended period of time in one.

06 Dec 2012 08:21 AM
IamPatSajak     
I find it hard to believe it costs less to have a child in a nursing home versus home health care, isn't that the point of the Katie-Beckett Waiver? Bring medically fragile children home? I understand that parents have the choice a lot of time (and of course, many children with special needs are abandoned by their parents), but if your nursing hours are being cut despite an actual need- it's very difficult for a parent to keep a child at home. I am the parent of a child who receives medicaid-based home nursing, I have used that time to do things like start a thriving business and sleep. The quality of care we receive is outstanding, these people become like family. Of course I am biased, but there has to be a better place to cut spending, so few children qualify for this level of care and those who do truly need it.

06 Dec 2012 08:41 AM
Zeb Hesselgresser     
the parents of children whose care is paid for by Medicaid, the insurance program for needy and disabled people, make the decision as to where they will live.

AHCA has spoken with the parents of all 222 or so children in nursing homes to help them change locations if they are unhappy with their care, she said. Only one parent asked for a change.

"Let's focus on the poor-performing providers to bring them up or get them out of the system," she (Dudek)said.

Obviously we need wreck this, she's clearly got her priorities mixed up.

06 Dec 2012 08:47 AM
BolloxReader     

minoridiot: Biscuit Tin: I'll tell you what, "disability rights advocates" react to nursing homes the way Fred Phelps reacts to homosexuality - with full-on nuclear batshiat insanity. You can't even talk to them about the benefits (and there are many) of nursing home care. The only good nursing home is a dead nursing home! "Warehoused kids" my ass. I bet you every one of those kids requires complex medical management like trach care and positioning and splinting and feeding tube and catheter management and psych med management and seizure med management and management of behavior problems like screaming, head-banging, hitting caregivers, etc. Not to mention the total care they need re: feeding, bathing, toileting and dressing. Parents and siblings wear out. Even the 16 hour presence of a nurse nurse or nurse's aid can not help a family care for a kid when the family has reached the end of their rope. Nursing homes have shifts of caregivers, and these kids need shifts of caregivers. I totally believe that muckety-muck in the article who said 221 out of 222 families want their kid left in the nursing home. Plus, if you could get a disability rights advocate to stop hyperventilating long enough to talk to a real nursing home social worker (which I was for 12 years) or activity director, they would find out there are dozens of regulations in place that require patient-centered and pt-appropriate stimulation. The staff couldn't ignore these kids even if they wanted to. But, no. Put them back in the home with the families that can't cope. They'll be *so* much better off lying in the back bedroom of the home with the door shut than they ever would be in the nursing home.

In my area, some nursing homes double as "Skilled Nursing Facilities" (aka SNF). Generally speaking, they do a good job -- I know because I spent an extended period of time in one.


SNF means the nursing home meets federal requirements for Medicaid and limited Medicare reimbursement. This is distinct from assisted living facilities which are private-pay and are intended to help people who can't live on their own but don't need full time medical treatment.

SNF is used because entirely private pay facilities don't have to be certified by CMS, and many nursing homes try to not call themselves nursing homes. People go there either to get better or to die; average time spent at a SNF is measured in months rather than years, but it's the exceptions that catch people's attention.

This is a big problem, by the way. What do you do with a young person who needs a SNF? Things that used to kill merely leave people severely handicapped and needing constant medical care. They get tossed in with the old folks.

Remember that once someone is on Medicaid they lose control of their situation. If your case looks like you need to be in a SNF because it's cheaper than renting all the portable equipment and hiring in-home medical care, you get put in a SNF. And the beneficiary is put wherever there is a Medicaid bed available. This is why "Medicaid planning" should be a last resort because one literally loses complete control once one goes into a facility.

Young people get treated no differently by the systen than old people. They just are in it for far longer. Why anyone is surprised by this I don't know. You're 17 and in a motorcycle accident and you are paralyzed with chronic health complications and no insurance? Chances are damned good you're going to spend the next 70 years of your life at a SNF as a guest of the taxpayers until you die of pneumonia.

06 Dec 2012 08:57 AM
Jiro Dreams Of McRibs     
Thank god the Senate passed the UN treaty regarding the humane treatment of the disabled. Too bad the Chinese Communists wouldn't do it.

Oh wait...

06 Dec 2012 09:06 AM
Insaniteus     
www.wwe.comView Full Size

06 Dec 2012 09:06 AM
EyeballKid     
Who'd've thunk that the HCA CEO who had to pay to stay out of jail on fraud charges would allow funny business to go on with the health care industry in the state in which he's elected governor?

Oh, I know who wouldn't have thought. The majority of Floridians who vote.

06 Dec 2012 09:14 AM
Sultan Of Herf     

Apos: Is this FL derp contagion waterborne or airborne?


Id like to propose its more of a "Mecca" sort of thing. FL attracts people for many reasons. Thats fine, at first appearance there would be plenty of reasons to want to live here. Then you, and what happens next is the separating factor. Old/retired people arent counted in the following.

One group realizes that FL sucks, is not at all a good place to live, and they want out. These are the sane ones. Sadly many times its easier said than done getting out, especially in this economy. We have tried twice in the last year. My parents who dragged me here managed to get out, but they are much better off than we are financially.

Then theres the other group. These are the people who get to FL and think its absolutely great. They love the place. These are the derp. Also in this group are the vast majority of native Floridians...Ive never met one who doesnt think FL is the greatest place ever...but then most or all of them have never lived anywhere else.


A guy I used to work with (originally from Ohio) had another theory...that excessive long term exposure to the sun bakes some peoples brains. Plausible, as it would also explain Texas and California.

06 Dec 2012 11:17 AM
Igor Jakovsky     

Insaniteus:


I was hoping someone would post that.

06 Dec 2012 11:25 AM
Taylor Mental     
Can they run a weed whacker?

24.media.tumblr.comView Full Size

06 Dec 2012 12:05 PM
Clemkadidlefark     
Obamanomics™

06 Dec 2012 12:34 PM
Duke_leto_Atredes     

Arthurgoboom: missiv: [media.salon.com image 460x307]
"At the core, today's "pro-choice" liberals are deeply pessimistic. They denigrate life and offer fear of the present and the future-fear of too many choices and too many children. Rather than seeing children and human beings as a benefit, the "pro-choice" position implies that they are a burden. Despite the "pro-choice" label, liberals' stance on this subject actually diminishes choices, lowers goals, and leads us to live with less. That includes reducing the number of human beings who can make choices.

In contrast, pro-life conservatives are natural optimists. On balance, we see human beings as assets, not liabilities. All conservatives should find it easy to agree that government must uphold every person's right to make choices regarding their lives and that every person's right to live must be secured before he or she can exercise that right of choice. In the state of nature-the "law of the jungle"-the determination of who "qualifies" as a human being is left to private individuals or chosen groups. In a justly organized community, however, government exists to secure the right to life and the other human rights that follow from that primary right."

Whiskey. Tango. Fark. Is anyone else's head spinning?

/ 8/10


NSFW

06 Dec 2012 03:26 PM
plewis     

wildcardjack: I personally would prefer the Spartan approach to feeble children. Pure chasing after sunk costs, I know I will be considered mean and insensitive, but a brief bit of family trauma followed by getting on with life would be better than to coddle a child that will never get better.


The Pro Life people are in vehement disagreement with you. Remember them, the people who wanted Terri Schivo, the woman with no brain, continue to be fed like a prize pumpkin rather than let her die as god had intended? And these people want that kind of thing etched into the law. But of course, they would still not want to pay for it, because freedom and all...

I would agree with you in that children who will be persistently immobile should never be born. That's a horrible life. Then again, how many of them are there? There are far more traffic accidents and plummets from ladders than natural flukes.

06 Dec 2012 03:52 PM
ArkAngel    [TotalFark]  

MemeSlave: ArkAngel: Biscuit Tin...

This. Ever since the time the federal government pretty much disbanded the mental health hospital care system, this has been happening with many other groups as well. Both home care and live-in care facilities have benefits, which must be weighed for each person in care. To demonize or lionize one over the other in e ...

So its a lack of federal government oversight? THAT is the problem?

/weeping for the future


No, it's a demonization of institutionalized treatment by the federal government

06 Dec 2012 08:42 PM
Showing 1-36 of 36 comments
Refresh
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined