I have been trying to find housing for my family (wife, daughter and I). My wife and I are both in wheelchairs.
I originally applied through the Eureka Housing Authority for assistance, both Public Housing and Sction 8, November/December 2008.
I was checking on availability of housing this morning and listening to the Authority's recording it was stated that they had one- and two-bedroom accessible units available.
At the end of the recording I was then directed to a representative of the Housing Authority by dailing "0". I inquired about the housing and mentioned what I was in a wheelchair asking about the recording stating there were units available.
The representative responded that they openings with accessible units for wheelchairs put never seem to find individuals needing them. I reafformed that I was in a wheelchair and my wife was as well as I recorded in the original application.
The representative then stated I will note this in the computer that you are in a wheelchair.
Wow! This last remark just blows me away about providing housing to those looking for it and needing accessibility. Needs of the disabled (wheelchair bound) and how to contact them really needs to be demonstrated there at the Housing Authority. You wouldn't happen to have a vacant seat on the Housing Authority Board, would you?
Charlie Bean
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
IN HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
IN HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICESCLAIMS OF MASSIVE FRAUD ARE BOGUS
By Doug Moore 2:00 a.m. August 21, 2009
In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) is a vital, cost-effective government program that cares for hundreds of thousands of elderly, blind and disabled Californians in their own homes rather than in far-more-costly nursing homes or other institutions. According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, it costs taxpayers at least six times less to care for a person under IHSS than for institutional care.
In recent months, however, partisan ideologues, ambitious district attorneys and even some in the media have engaged in a campaign of misinformation aimed at weakening the program.
They claim that there is “massive” fraud in IHSS. They cite recent grand jury reports expressing concern about the lack of program safeguards. They breathlessly repeat details of individual cases of fraud. Some even imply that there must be fraud in the program because IHSS home care providers are represented by unions.
This smear campaign reached its low point on July 2, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told a news conference in Sacramento that the IHSS program is “riddled” with fraud. He cited claims that the fraud rate in IHSS was an unbelievable 25 percent. He bragged that eliminating fraud from the program would save “hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars” and help solve the state's budget crisis.
Following the news conference, the IHSS specialist in the Legislative Analysts Office, Virginia Bella, told reporters: “I've never had anyone tell me where that number comes from.” The Sacramento Bee accused the governor of: “Spouting misleading rhetoric about waste and fraud,” while the San Jose Mercury-News called his allegations: “phantom claims.”
Here's why: In Sacramento County during fiscal year 2006-2007, there were fewer than 400 reports of suspected fraud from more than 17,000 IHSS clients. That's a rate of only about two percent. Of these reports, 31 cases were deemed worthy of prosecution. That means the rate of prosecutable fraud in Sacramento County for that year was approximately two-tenths of one percent.
That's hardly a fraud “epidemic.” (Despite this, Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully was an eager participant in the governor's July 2 dog-and-pony show.) In San Bernardino County, a grand jury found approximately 60 fraud cases a year referred by investigators, in a universe of nearly 20,000 IHSS clients. Even if all 60 cases were eventually proven to be fraud, that would represent a rate of three-tenths of one percent. Even the governor's own “Quality Assurance” survey in 2007 found a less than one percent incidence of fraud in IHSS.
Sadly, the state Legislature bought the governor's unsubstantiated fraud claims hook, line and sinker. The regressive and unfair budget agreement passed late last month will throw nearly 100,000 people out of IHSS. But it also brands all the clients and providers who remain in the program as potential “fraud criminals.”
Under the budget agreement, all home care clients and providers must be fingerprinted — only amputees are exempt. It's a wonder the governor and Legislature didn't demand retinal scans for these unfortunates. In addition, all home care workers, most of whom make little more than minimum wage, must obtain criminal background checks at their own expense.
While any fraud in IHSS is wrong and should be punished, the facts show no evidence of “massive” fraud in the program. The projections of budget savings that will come from these so-called anti-fraud provisions are illusory at best. Yet the majority of Democrats in the Legislature chose to serve as enablers for the governor and his right-wing allies rather than showing the moral courage to stand with IHSS consumers and their caregivers.It is a sad day for California when we treat our elderly, blind and disabled citizens, and those who care for them, like common criminals and call it “reform.”
Moore is executive director of the statewide UDW Homecare Providers Union, which is headquartered in San Diego.
By Doug Moore 2:00 a.m. August 21, 2009
In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) is a vital, cost-effective government program that cares for hundreds of thousands of elderly, blind and disabled Californians in their own homes rather than in far-more-costly nursing homes or other institutions. According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, it costs taxpayers at least six times less to care for a person under IHSS than for institutional care.
In recent months, however, partisan ideologues, ambitious district attorneys and even some in the media have engaged in a campaign of misinformation aimed at weakening the program.
They claim that there is “massive” fraud in IHSS. They cite recent grand jury reports expressing concern about the lack of program safeguards. They breathlessly repeat details of individual cases of fraud. Some even imply that there must be fraud in the program because IHSS home care providers are represented by unions.
This smear campaign reached its low point on July 2, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told a news conference in Sacramento that the IHSS program is “riddled” with fraud. He cited claims that the fraud rate in IHSS was an unbelievable 25 percent. He bragged that eliminating fraud from the program would save “hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars” and help solve the state's budget crisis.
Following the news conference, the IHSS specialist in the Legislative Analysts Office, Virginia Bella, told reporters: “I've never had anyone tell me where that number comes from.” The Sacramento Bee accused the governor of: “Spouting misleading rhetoric about waste and fraud,” while the San Jose Mercury-News called his allegations: “phantom claims.”
Here's why: In Sacramento County during fiscal year 2006-2007, there were fewer than 400 reports of suspected fraud from more than 17,000 IHSS clients. That's a rate of only about two percent. Of these reports, 31 cases were deemed worthy of prosecution. That means the rate of prosecutable fraud in Sacramento County for that year was approximately two-tenths of one percent.
That's hardly a fraud “epidemic.” (Despite this, Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully was an eager participant in the governor's July 2 dog-and-pony show.) In San Bernardino County, a grand jury found approximately 60 fraud cases a year referred by investigators, in a universe of nearly 20,000 IHSS clients. Even if all 60 cases were eventually proven to be fraud, that would represent a rate of three-tenths of one percent. Even the governor's own “Quality Assurance” survey in 2007 found a less than one percent incidence of fraud in IHSS.
Sadly, the state Legislature bought the governor's unsubstantiated fraud claims hook, line and sinker. The regressive and unfair budget agreement passed late last month will throw nearly 100,000 people out of IHSS. But it also brands all the clients and providers who remain in the program as potential “fraud criminals.”
Under the budget agreement, all home care clients and providers must be fingerprinted — only amputees are exempt. It's a wonder the governor and Legislature didn't demand retinal scans for these unfortunates. In addition, all home care workers, most of whom make little more than minimum wage, must obtain criminal background checks at their own expense.
While any fraud in IHSS is wrong and should be punished, the facts show no evidence of “massive” fraud in the program. The projections of budget savings that will come from these so-called anti-fraud provisions are illusory at best. Yet the majority of Democrats in the Legislature chose to serve as enablers for the governor and his right-wing allies rather than showing the moral courage to stand with IHSS consumers and their caregivers.It is a sad day for California when we treat our elderly, blind and disabled citizens, and those who care for them, like common criminals and call it “reform.”
Moore is executive director of the statewide UDW Homecare Providers Union, which is headquartered in San Diego.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
City Council meeting 8/18/09 Public Comments
Hi,
I was listening to your Council Meeting this evening and heard about presenters during the "Public Comment Period" of your agenda that was interesting.
First, I thought it interesting regarding the 14th and Broadway crossing and the signals. As I understand it, this intersection was pointed out as one of concern regarding "Safety" from a study I partially participated in last year.
It was explained to me by a Caltrans Engineer that the signal for crossing the street was set appropriately for pedestrian crossing. When I explained to the engineer that the caution lights flashed prior to me crossing, it was explained that was the way it was supposed to work. This just meant if you were in the crosswalk you needed to get across. It was also explained that it was not right to begin crossing when the caution lights flash.
As an individual using a manual wheelchair, this intersection is one of the most difficult to cross. The crown is steep, three of the curb-cuts are very narrow and the fourth is set back from the road creating further distance to travel. This does not consider the water that sits at the curb-cuts during rain and the roughness of the route that chairs must take, let alone an older individual that is not exactly quick crossing Broadway.
But, I also realize you know this and I have the understanding that Caltrans plans to address this as further development of Broadway is being planned and changed.
***************
The other item that caught my attention was the group from Tri-County Independent Living. This group was just recently formed and has some interesting views. I pretty much agree with most of the thoughts regarding access to various businesses and City facilities that are not accessible (I also understand much can not be done without funding.). But what disturbs me the most are instances such as I presented to the City's Planning Commission a couple of weeks ago (below):
"I realize you may not have anything to do with the new houses built at the very end of 7th Street, particularly the house at 1653 7th Street with a Disabled Parking Space in front of it.
Remembering I am in a wheelchair and when I went past the newly finished homes I noticed the Disabled Parking Space in front of a two story family unit.
I understand that the inside design of these newly finished units are very nice. They have three bedrooms, a master bathroom and a smaller bathroom upstairs, while downstairs there is a small water closet with a toilet, a kitchen, dining and living rooms. Of course, a staircase to get to the second floor is included. (This description comes from a neighbor of the new units.)
I was wondering how an individual confined to a wheelchair would get upstairs. Did they build a ramp? Provide a heavy duty lift? Or did they provide an elevator?
And again, I could be very wrong about the design and layout of the unit built.
I also ask, is the Disabled Parking Space for guests? Or it could be this unit is designed for only ambulatory individuals with disabilities? Of course, this could not be true, because it would be definitely discrimination, yes?
I hope you are smiling and take this with the humor I found in the concern I have for the newly finished units. I know that this could bite the City if you had an individual with a disability wishing to live there because they saw that parking space and discovered it was not designed for a wheelchair.
I also noticed that there is a gate and path from the upper units that provides pedestrian access to 6th Street. The gate and path are not accessible to wheelchairs or many seniors. The gate's handle is too high and the path is made of large cement pads with big gaps in between them sunk in redwood compost, I believe.
Remembering when I first met the planner working on the General Plan, I shared with them how folks built things that supposedly are usable by individuals with disabilities, but in truth were not functional for every day living. This housing project is an example of this. If it is funded with public funds, they should look for advice from individuals like myself or other groups representing people with disabilities. This, I believe could be included in the housing element of the City's General Plan, "Get advice from the user or their community representative."
I admit, I could be wrong in my assumption of the design of the unit I mentioned, but I am very sure of the access provided at the gate.
To correct these kinds of situations from happening, I hope the City looks for more advice from the community of individuals with disabilities. What I described above, I hope is a misunderstanding, but if it isn't, if planners and builders looked for advice from users of accessible needs, much can be saved in the future, yes?
I was listening to your Council Meeting this evening and heard about presenters during the "Public Comment Period" of your agenda that was interesting.
First, I thought it interesting regarding the 14th and Broadway crossing and the signals. As I understand it, this intersection was pointed out as one of concern regarding "Safety" from a study I partially participated in last year.
It was explained to me by a Caltrans Engineer that the signal for crossing the street was set appropriately for pedestrian crossing. When I explained to the engineer that the caution lights flashed prior to me crossing, it was explained that was the way it was supposed to work. This just meant if you were in the crosswalk you needed to get across. It was also explained that it was not right to begin crossing when the caution lights flash.
As an individual using a manual wheelchair, this intersection is one of the most difficult to cross. The crown is steep, three of the curb-cuts are very narrow and the fourth is set back from the road creating further distance to travel. This does not consider the water that sits at the curb-cuts during rain and the roughness of the route that chairs must take, let alone an older individual that is not exactly quick crossing Broadway.
But, I also realize you know this and I have the understanding that Caltrans plans to address this as further development of Broadway is being planned and changed.
***************
The other item that caught my attention was the group from Tri-County Independent Living. This group was just recently formed and has some interesting views. I pretty much agree with most of the thoughts regarding access to various businesses and City facilities that are not accessible (I also understand much can not be done without funding.). But what disturbs me the most are instances such as I presented to the City's Planning Commission a couple of weeks ago (below):
"I realize you may not have anything to do with the new houses built at the very end of 7th Street, particularly the house at 1653 7th Street with a Disabled Parking Space in front of it.
Remembering I am in a wheelchair and when I went past the newly finished homes I noticed the Disabled Parking Space in front of a two story family unit.
I understand that the inside design of these newly finished units are very nice. They have three bedrooms, a master bathroom and a smaller bathroom upstairs, while downstairs there is a small water closet with a toilet, a kitchen, dining and living rooms. Of course, a staircase to get to the second floor is included. (This description comes from a neighbor of the new units.)
I was wondering how an individual confined to a wheelchair would get upstairs. Did they build a ramp? Provide a heavy duty lift? Or did they provide an elevator?
And again, I could be very wrong about the design and layout of the unit built.
I also ask, is the Disabled Parking Space for guests? Or it could be this unit is designed for only ambulatory individuals with disabilities? Of course, this could not be true, because it would be definitely discrimination, yes?
I hope you are smiling and take this with the humor I found in the concern I have for the newly finished units. I know that this could bite the City if you had an individual with a disability wishing to live there because they saw that parking space and discovered it was not designed for a wheelchair.
I also noticed that there is a gate and path from the upper units that provides pedestrian access to 6th Street. The gate and path are not accessible to wheelchairs or many seniors. The gate's handle is too high and the path is made of large cement pads with big gaps in between them sunk in redwood compost, I believe.
Remembering when I first met the planner working on the General Plan, I shared with them how folks built things that supposedly are usable by individuals with disabilities, but in truth were not functional for every day living. This housing project is an example of this. If it is funded with public funds, they should look for advice from individuals like myself or other groups representing people with disabilities. This, I believe could be included in the housing element of the City's General Plan, "Get advice from the user or their community representative."
I admit, I could be wrong in my assumption of the design of the unit I mentioned, but I am very sure of the access provided at the gate.
To correct these kinds of situations from happening, I hope the City looks for more advice from the community of individuals with disabilities. What I described above, I hope is a misunderstanding, but if it isn't, if planners and builders looked for advice from users of accessible needs, much can be saved in the future, yes?
Monday, August 17, 2009
Keep the Public Option for Health Care?
I am not sure it should be the "Public Option" as written, but something that creates true competition between the insurance companies. As it stands presentlly, high medical insurance cost are expended for little in return for moderate income individuals. And then after paying monthly fees one finds out that major costs are not covered completely, or less than what was expected.
There needs to be a system that allows for a doctor to make a mistake and not have such high premiums for malpractice. I am not for removing malpractice suits, but I am forlessing the amount pay out, as well as making it harder to bring such suits - Doctors are human, though some forget to treat patients as individuals looking to understand.
Anyhow, consider something that limits the costs of insurance.
There needs to be a system that allows for a doctor to make a mistake and not have such high premiums for malpractice. I am not for removing malpractice suits, but I am forlessing the amount pay out, as well as making it harder to bring such suits - Doctors are human, though some forget to treat patients as individuals looking to understand.
Anyhow, consider something that limits the costs of insurance.
College of the Redwoods experience/suggestions
Jeff Marsee, President
College of the Redwoods
7351 Tomkins Hill Road
Eureka, CA 95501-9300
Mr. Marsee,
While visiting College of the Redwoods today I discovered some pleasant and unpleasant experiences.
I believe it is best you know that my wife and I are both in wheelchairs from spinal cord injuries. Returning to school is a very positive program for both of us, and College of the Redwoods (CR) has much to offer with the various venues and locations of completing classes for individuals with disabilities.
While visiting the bookstore I found most of the clerks are very helpful, especially, Jen. I was looking for the books that went with the classes I signed up for and the book codes so I could search for them on-line to save money. Jen did the search for me from a list the bookstore had made for the 2009 Fall Term. She was very helpful and her assistance was great appreciated.
Another experience was visiting the Financial Aid office for getting a couple forms completed regarding verification of financial aid my wife and I will received this year. After queuing for nearly 30 minutes I was told I needed my wife’s signature on the form. I explained that I would need to push down to the parking lot and then back up the hill to get this.
I am dumbfounded why I can complete the application for Medi-cal and Food Stamps without my wife, but could not get information my family needed from the Financial Aid office without her signature. I realized it is not the individual’s fault at the window, but this situation could have been dealt with much more understanding and the paperwork I presented could have been reviewed more thoroughly and it would have been recognized my wife’s signature was not needed (Sometimes bureaucracy is over-used in accomplishing ones duties.).
I wish to offer these solutions:
Bookstore: First, I would work to placing the listing of books with their titles and ISBN codes on the CR website. This would allow individuals to access to finding out what books are needed and search for them on line and at the same time save on energy used to drive to CR (Talking on the phone is not always the most accurate way of gathering information. It is also not always the friendliest either).
Secondly, I would work towards an agreement with an on-line book dealer such as Amazon Books in representing CR and being the place to encourage students to purchase their books. I could see a small amount of money being returned to CR from Amazon as part of the agreement. This in turn could possibly save the bookstore money.
Financial Aid Office: Access and service is very important from this office. Today, my first visit I queued behind ten individuals waiting for assistance at a single window. When I returned with my wife’s signature, still only one window was open for assistance and there were 20 individuals waiting for assistance. When there are three or more individuals waiting, it seems that there would be others available to open other windows to serve those needing assistance. People walking or confined to a wheelchair should not have to wait longer than 20 minutes for service.
I would then look to the future and move all student services to lower ground. You have great spaces for disabled parking, but having to climb the hill to receive financial aid and such is very discouraging. What would it hurt to moving all of Student Services to a friendlier location?
College of the Redwoods has a great campus, but I believe there are some simple things that can be done to make it more student oriented for all that wish to attend, including those who use manual wheelchairs. (Almost forgot, I visited a lecture room to take a State exam and the pencil sharpener was upstairs and not accessible. Is there a possibility to place a sharpener where individuals in wheelchairs have to sit?).
Have a great day!
College of the Redwoods
7351 Tomkins Hill Road
Eureka, CA 95501-9300
Mr. Marsee,
While visiting College of the Redwoods today I discovered some pleasant and unpleasant experiences.
I believe it is best you know that my wife and I are both in wheelchairs from spinal cord injuries. Returning to school is a very positive program for both of us, and College of the Redwoods (CR) has much to offer with the various venues and locations of completing classes for individuals with disabilities.
While visiting the bookstore I found most of the clerks are very helpful, especially, Jen. I was looking for the books that went with the classes I signed up for and the book codes so I could search for them on-line to save money. Jen did the search for me from a list the bookstore had made for the 2009 Fall Term. She was very helpful and her assistance was great appreciated.
Another experience was visiting the Financial Aid office for getting a couple forms completed regarding verification of financial aid my wife and I will received this year. After queuing for nearly 30 minutes I was told I needed my wife’s signature on the form. I explained that I would need to push down to the parking lot and then back up the hill to get this.
I am dumbfounded why I can complete the application for Medi-cal and Food Stamps without my wife, but could not get information my family needed from the Financial Aid office without her signature. I realized it is not the individual’s fault at the window, but this situation could have been dealt with much more understanding and the paperwork I presented could have been reviewed more thoroughly and it would have been recognized my wife’s signature was not needed (Sometimes bureaucracy is over-used in accomplishing ones duties.).
I wish to offer these solutions:
Bookstore: First, I would work to placing the listing of books with their titles and ISBN codes on the CR website. This would allow individuals to access to finding out what books are needed and search for them on line and at the same time save on energy used to drive to CR (Talking on the phone is not always the most accurate way of gathering information. It is also not always the friendliest either).
Secondly, I would work towards an agreement with an on-line book dealer such as Amazon Books in representing CR and being the place to encourage students to purchase their books. I could see a small amount of money being returned to CR from Amazon as part of the agreement. This in turn could possibly save the bookstore money.
Financial Aid Office: Access and service is very important from this office. Today, my first visit I queued behind ten individuals waiting for assistance at a single window. When I returned with my wife’s signature, still only one window was open for assistance and there were 20 individuals waiting for assistance. When there are three or more individuals waiting, it seems that there would be others available to open other windows to serve those needing assistance. People walking or confined to a wheelchair should not have to wait longer than 20 minutes for service.
I would then look to the future and move all student services to lower ground. You have great spaces for disabled parking, but having to climb the hill to receive financial aid and such is very discouraging. What would it hurt to moving all of Student Services to a friendlier location?
College of the Redwoods has a great campus, but I believe there are some simple things that can be done to make it more student oriented for all that wish to attend, including those who use manual wheelchairs. (Almost forgot, I visited a lecture room to take a State exam and the pencil sharpener was upstairs and not accessible. Is there a possibility to place a sharpener where individuals in wheelchairs have to sit?).
Have a great day!
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Housing Comments and Thoughts
Shared with HCAOG, RCAA, City of Eureka Planning.
After glancing through the methodology of your Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), I am now more confused, which is okay.
In general, I believe that the RHNA allocates needed housing towards concentrated areas, and in many ways is to restrictive in where the majority of allocations are located. I feel that the allocation plan is too restrictive addressing housing needs mainly for the larger populated areas here on the coast. This to me only places a stronger burden on already over-extended services the cities of Arcata, Eureka, Fortuna, and Rio Dell. Yes, there are cities incorporated and unincorporated addressed in the RHNA, but it just seems the only community being addressed in addition to those I noted is McKinleyville.
I also believe that the program does not address the true needs of the County for the very, very low income to have an opportunity to find permanent housing. Housing should be targeting this group in all communities. Individuals should not be forced to move from a very rural community to a community here on the coast, such as Eureka or Arcata. The fact that the County's Housing Authority has a waiting list demonstrates the need for additional housing for the group mentioned.
In addressing the very, very low income, I am also pointing out the needs of the homeless. First, one must admit that there are homeless that will never want to change their situation, this is a given. But we do have a large homeless contingency living in motels that need assistance in changing their situation, not only for the adults, but for the children that are involved and connected to the family.
I believe the County needs to do more outreach to provide for the homeless and their transition into permanent housing. There are areas in Willow Creek, Blue Lake, Redway and Orick that could be developed for very, very low income housing but do not seem to be considered (Of course, I realize that these areas are limited and the development can not only be provided for the very, very low income; development would have to be a mixture of income levels.).
Development of housing in some areas outside of the coast seems more difficult than here on the coast and this should not be an issue. Using Willow Creek as an example, there are a couple individuals in the area who would have liked to add 20 housing units, but because of the restrictions, they dropped the plans. But, I wonder if this same situation was to considered here in McKinleyville or Ridgewood, if the same issues would be brought up? Of course, we shall never know because the actual issues are not known except for the frustration shared to do business with County Planning and so forth.
Returning to the homeless issue, I feel it is wrong that to receive assistance is all located here in the larger cities, but such is life. There are opportunities to assist homeless in the outer communities, yet the resources are very restrictive or limited.
The City of Eureka, Humboldt County and Redwood Community Action Agency worked towards the Multiple Assistance Center (MAC) to serve the so-called needy and homeless and because of funding issues, it has been limited; and, where it is located, even more limited to who is served.
Still, here in the larger cities are where the resources are located and it needs to be utilized much better in serving the County overall. In leaning this way, I believe the Downtowner Motel location would be an location for a "Transitional Housing Program" for the low-income and homeless.
This Transitional Housing Program would address needs such as saving for permanent housing by taking a portion of their limited income and placing it into a kitty for saving up to gain enough to get the first and last month's rent and the deposit usually required. Why here under this program, job training and education will be provided - this will be provided in the form of counseling and if funding is provided on-site.
Use of a Transitional Housing Program and the Downtowner Motel modified would lessen the number of families and individuals living in motels paying nearly 95% of their monthly income. It would promote pride and respect into individuals that are looking to improve their lives - Strict rules for this facility would need to be in place regarding drugs and alcohol, but this is natural for those truly wishing to change.
Just a few thoughts I had.
After glancing through the methodology of your Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), I am now more confused, which is okay.
In general, I believe that the RHNA allocates needed housing towards concentrated areas, and in many ways is to restrictive in where the majority of allocations are located. I feel that the allocation plan is too restrictive addressing housing needs mainly for the larger populated areas here on the coast. This to me only places a stronger burden on already over-extended services the cities of Arcata, Eureka, Fortuna, and Rio Dell. Yes, there are cities incorporated and unincorporated addressed in the RHNA, but it just seems the only community being addressed in addition to those I noted is McKinleyville.
I also believe that the program does not address the true needs of the County for the very, very low income to have an opportunity to find permanent housing. Housing should be targeting this group in all communities. Individuals should not be forced to move from a very rural community to a community here on the coast, such as Eureka or Arcata. The fact that the County's Housing Authority has a waiting list demonstrates the need for additional housing for the group mentioned.
In addressing the very, very low income, I am also pointing out the needs of the homeless. First, one must admit that there are homeless that will never want to change their situation, this is a given. But we do have a large homeless contingency living in motels that need assistance in changing their situation, not only for the adults, but for the children that are involved and connected to the family.
I believe the County needs to do more outreach to provide for the homeless and their transition into permanent housing. There are areas in Willow Creek, Blue Lake, Redway and Orick that could be developed for very, very low income housing but do not seem to be considered (Of course, I realize that these areas are limited and the development can not only be provided for the very, very low income; development would have to be a mixture of income levels.).
Development of housing in some areas outside of the coast seems more difficult than here on the coast and this should not be an issue. Using Willow Creek as an example, there are a couple individuals in the area who would have liked to add 20 housing units, but because of the restrictions, they dropped the plans. But, I wonder if this same situation was to considered here in McKinleyville or Ridgewood, if the same issues would be brought up? Of course, we shall never know because the actual issues are not known except for the frustration shared to do business with County Planning and so forth.
Returning to the homeless issue, I feel it is wrong that to receive assistance is all located here in the larger cities, but such is life. There are opportunities to assist homeless in the outer communities, yet the resources are very restrictive or limited.
The City of Eureka, Humboldt County and Redwood Community Action Agency worked towards the Multiple Assistance Center (MAC) to serve the so-called needy and homeless and because of funding issues, it has been limited; and, where it is located, even more limited to who is served.
Still, here in the larger cities are where the resources are located and it needs to be utilized much better in serving the County overall. In leaning this way, I believe the Downtowner Motel location would be an location for a "Transitional Housing Program" for the low-income and homeless.
This Transitional Housing Program would address needs such as saving for permanent housing by taking a portion of their limited income and placing it into a kitty for saving up to gain enough to get the first and last month's rent and the deposit usually required. Why here under this program, job training and education will be provided - this will be provided in the form of counseling and if funding is provided on-site.
Use of a Transitional Housing Program and the Downtowner Motel modified would lessen the number of families and individuals living in motels paying nearly 95% of their monthly income. It would promote pride and respect into individuals that are looking to improve their lives - Strict rules for this facility would need to be in place regarding drugs and alcohol, but this is natural for those truly wishing to change.
Just a few thoughts I had.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Congressman Thompson's Reply to Health Care Reform Ltr
I have a keen interest in healthcare, both as an individual and as a public servant. My wife Jan is a full-time nurse practitioner in our district and was a hospice nurse for years. I've had government sponsored healthcare in the Army - both here and overseas - and private healthcare with Kaiser Permanente and Blue Cross Blue Shield. Over the years, as a State Senator and U.S. Representative, I've talked with thousands of Northern Californians at length about the times when healthcare has been a blessing and, unfortunately, when it's failed them.
I first ran for office in 1990, and a big part of that decision was because of the challenges of healthcare policy and its importance. This issue has remained in the forefront of my attention ever since. In the State Senate, I passed legislation that required all group healthcare plans to provide preventive healthcare to children, improved healthcare policies in rural areas and supported the development of telemedicine. Since arriving in the House of Representatives, I continued this work by enacting legislation that waives co-pays for colonoscopies and mammograms for Medicare beneficiaries, helps doctors who are called away to service in the reserves or the National Guard, expands telehealth technology, reverses harmful cuts to Medicare reimbursement rates for physicians, promotes funding for rural clinics and addresses unfair geographic reimbursement policies that consistently underpay providers in our district.
Unfortunately, many problems like rising premiums, shortages of skilled healthcare workers and a deteriorating long-term fiscal outlook for programs like Medicare have grown worse. These issues are far larger, more complex and more pervasive than almost any others our nation faces. It is no surprise that they have also drawn the most passionate responses.
Some argue that any type of reform would lead to socialism, but the majority of constituents I've heard from want Congress to lower costs, provide access for everyone and improve the quality of care. Most opinions are heartfelt, but a few are startling, such as the writers who want to reject any government involvement in healthcare because it's "socialist" while they themselves are receiving healthcare through Medicare or the Veterans Administration. However, almost every person I talk to or hear from agrees - the current healthcare system needs to be fixed.
While I am a strong proponent of healthcare reform, we need to make sure that we do this right. As you no doubt know, our current healthcare system is not sustainable. In the last 15 years, healthcare spending has jumped 145% to over $2.24 trillion. This is the equivalence of one in every $6 we earn going for healthcare. At current rates, within a decade that figure is expected to rise to one in $5, and within 30 years it will be one out of every $3. Right now, this system is failing us all; from those who can't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition to the families that have coverage but are finding it harder and harder to afford their rising premiums and deductibles. We are on an unsustainable path and most Americans want this corrected.
The House of Representatives is now considering the America's Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200), which presents comprehensive solutions to the healthcare challenges faced by all Americans. This bill includes many of my priorities, such as:
o Better healthcare for everyone by requiring all plans to meet minimum benefits standards, prohibiting denials of coverage based on pre-existing conditions and eliminating co-payments for preventive care visits to a doctor;
o Strengthening Medicare by increasing reimbursement rates for Medicare providers to allow them to continue seeing Medicare patients and closing the "donut" hole in prescription coverage for Medicare Part D;
o Real choice in a health insurance marketplace where consumers can compare different plans, including a public plan option, while still retaining the freedom to keep their current doctor, hospital and plan if they choose;
o Ensuring access to healthcare in rural areas by providing a reimbursement increase to primary care physicians practicing in these communities and expanding telemedicine services to make specialized care available for patients in underserved areas.
As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I helped write parts of this bill, and I know that there is a lot in the bill that will go far toward improving our system. Although the full House of Representatives will not consider H.R. 3200 until September, I voted for this important legislation when it was considered by the Ways and Means Committee on July 17. We needed to advance this bill so that we can continue the work of crafting a comprehensive plan that will fix our healthcare system.
However, it is important to remember that this is the beginning of the process, and there is much work that remains to be done in both houses of Congress before we will reach a final bill. Nevertheless, there is wide agreement that the final version must satisfy these principles:
o Reduce the long-term growth of healthcare costs;
o Provide a choice of doctors and health plans;
o Improve quality of care and invest in prevention and wellness; and,
o Ensure affordable healthcare for all Americans.
Currently there are five bills in Congress to reform healthcare, three in the House and two in the Senate. From these, members of the House and Senate will reconcile differences, make improvements and come up with an even better bill. I think we have a long way to go before we are where we need to be, but H.R. 3200 is an important first step.
Healthcare touches all of our lives in a very personal way. I absolutely understand why so many Americans are concerned about the effectiveness and cost of healthcare. That's why it's so important that you judge the facts of this bill for yourself, particularly when there's been much disinformation. I have attached answers to the most common questions my office has been receiving for your review. Additionally, you can go to the Ways and Means Committee website (waysandmeans.house.gov) to read the bill in its entirety as well as a section-by-section summary. I will continue to update you as this important legislation progresses.
Question: Has Congressman Thompson read the bill?
Answer: I have read and was involved in drafting the bill I voted on. For weeks before the introduction of H.R. 3200, members of the Ways and Means Committee, myself included, met daily to go through the bill line by line and section by section. As a group, we spent 86 hours going over this legislation.
Question: Will health reform force all Americans out of their private insurance plans and into a one-size-fits-all government plan?
Answer: No. H.R. 3200 builds on the current system of employer-based coverage, it doesn't replace it. If you are happy with your current plan, you can keep it. H.R. 3200 includes a public plan that individuals will have the option of purchasing, along with a variety of other private plans. This public plan will be required to be financially self-sustaining, as private plans are, covering its costs through premiums and co-pays.
Question: Does page 16 of the bill require me to join the public plan if I lose my private insurance coverage?
Answer: No one will be required to join the public plan. If you lose your insurance, you will be able to shop for a new plan at an online exchange that includes information on all insurance options. This exchange will bring together information that is currently scattered giving consumers the opportunity to quickly and effectively compare plans to make informed decisions about what coverage works best for them. The provision on page 16 merely requires individuals joining a private insurance plan after 2013 to do so through the exchange.
Question: Are Members of Congress exempt from changes that are being proposed for the rest of the country?
Answer: No. Members of Congress receive the same healthcare options as other federal employees, with a choice of plans from private insurers that vary by benefits, premiums and co-pays. This legislation would affect federal employees in the same ways that it affects everyone else who gets their health insurance through their employer.
Question: Does this bill cover illegal immigrants?
Answer: No. Section 246 of H.R. 3200 explicitly prohibits the payment of affordability credits designed to help low and moderate incomes families purchase insurance to anyone who is not lawfully present in the United States.
Question: Does this bill require seniors to attend mandatory counseling sessions on euthanasia?
Answer: No. H.R. 3200 states that Medicare will reimburse doctors and nurse practitioners for a counseling session with Medicare beneficiaries regarding advanced care planning. This consultation includes a discussion of laws and options regarding living wills, the roles and responsibilities of a health care proxy and other planning resources that may be available for the individual. These consultations are strictly voluntary; the rumor that seniors must attend is false.
Question: Will all small businesses be forced to provide coverage to their employees?
Answer: This bill exempts small businesses with a payroll of less than $250,000 from the requirement to provide health insurance for their workers. Businesses with payrolls above $250,000 that do not provide coverage will be charged a payroll tax that will gradually increase with the size of their payroll. The current version of the bill has this tax will start at 2% for payrolls above $250,000 and increase to a maximum of 8% for payrolls above $400,000, however, there are currently discussions to raise this exemption to $500,000. Proceeds from this tax will go to offset the cost of coverage for individuals purchasing insurance through the exchange. Small businesses that opt to offer insurance will receive tax credits to offset the cost of insurance.
Question: What does this bill do to stop fraud and abuse in Medicare?
Answer: This bill strengthens existing compliance and enforcement tools for Medicare, increases funding to support these efforts and creates new, tougher penalties for individuals who submit false claims or applications to Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that every $1 we invest in fighting waste, fraud and abuse will yield $1.75 in savings.
Question: Can our nation afford healthcare reform?
Answer: The truth is that the rising cost of healthcare for all Americans is a problem that will not fix itself and that we can't afford to not address. Today, our nation spends one out of every $6 we earn on healthcare. If we don't take action to slow the increase in costs, within a decade we will spend one out of every $5 on healthcare, and within 30 years this will rise to one in every $3. These facts make it clear, the longer we wait, the more it will cost to fix our broken healthcare system.
Question: How much will this bill cost?
Answer: There is no question that there will be significant costs to implement this legislation. The CBO's latest estimate puts the price tag at $1.042 trillion over ten years. Here is how we are going to pay for the bill. First, we are going to address inefficiencies in Medicare and Medicaid and crack down on fraud, waste and abuse in these programs to save $465 billion over the next ten years. Second, we will need to raise $583 billion in revenues to cover the rest of the cost. The Ways and Means Committee proposes to do this through a surcharge on the wealthiest 1.2% of income earners, who have enjoyed a tremendous advantage for the last eight years because of the Bush tax cuts (the average reduction in federal taxes for the top 1% in these tax cuts was $44,622). The Senate is considering other ways to raise these funds, and it is unclear how this issue will be dealt with in the final bill.
Question: Will this plan lead to rationing of healthcare? Will Congress be legislating what care my doctor can or must give me?
Answer: No. I believe that medical decisions should be left between patients and their doctors. Section 1401 explicitly forbids any studies or research called for in H.R. 3200 from being used to either mandate or deny care to a patient in any public or private plan. This research will gather data about what procedures are most effective to give doctors more information to consider when treating patients, not to replace your doctor's judgment with that of a bureaucrat from a private insurer or the government. The bill protects the ability of doctors to do what they think is necessary to help their patients without having to constantly worry about whether they will be reimbursed by an insurance company, which is why this bill has earned the strong support of the American Medical Association.
Question: Why is this bill being "rushed" through Congress?
Answer: Universal healthcare was first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. President Harry Truman called for it in 1945. Former Representative John Dingell Sr. introduced a bill to provide universal healthcare in 1947 and his son, Representative John Dingell Jr., has reintroduced a bill every Congress since 1955. So, this is not a new issue and it was supported by both President Obama and Senator McCain in the November presidential election. This particular legislation has been crafted, reviewed and revised repeatedly since the 111th Congress began, and it has been changed to reflect the considerable input from those in the healthcare community, members on both sides of the aisle and constituents. This bill is not being rushed - it is long overdue.
Sincerely, MIKE THOMPSONMember of Congresshttp://www.mikethompson.house.gov
I first ran for office in 1990, and a big part of that decision was because of the challenges of healthcare policy and its importance. This issue has remained in the forefront of my attention ever since. In the State Senate, I passed legislation that required all group healthcare plans to provide preventive healthcare to children, improved healthcare policies in rural areas and supported the development of telemedicine. Since arriving in the House of Representatives, I continued this work by enacting legislation that waives co-pays for colonoscopies and mammograms for Medicare beneficiaries, helps doctors who are called away to service in the reserves or the National Guard, expands telehealth technology, reverses harmful cuts to Medicare reimbursement rates for physicians, promotes funding for rural clinics and addresses unfair geographic reimbursement policies that consistently underpay providers in our district.
Unfortunately, many problems like rising premiums, shortages of skilled healthcare workers and a deteriorating long-term fiscal outlook for programs like Medicare have grown worse. These issues are far larger, more complex and more pervasive than almost any others our nation faces. It is no surprise that they have also drawn the most passionate responses.
Some argue that any type of reform would lead to socialism, but the majority of constituents I've heard from want Congress to lower costs, provide access for everyone and improve the quality of care. Most opinions are heartfelt, but a few are startling, such as the writers who want to reject any government involvement in healthcare because it's "socialist" while they themselves are receiving healthcare through Medicare or the Veterans Administration. However, almost every person I talk to or hear from agrees - the current healthcare system needs to be fixed.
While I am a strong proponent of healthcare reform, we need to make sure that we do this right. As you no doubt know, our current healthcare system is not sustainable. In the last 15 years, healthcare spending has jumped 145% to over $2.24 trillion. This is the equivalence of one in every $6 we earn going for healthcare. At current rates, within a decade that figure is expected to rise to one in $5, and within 30 years it will be one out of every $3. Right now, this system is failing us all; from those who can't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition to the families that have coverage but are finding it harder and harder to afford their rising premiums and deductibles. We are on an unsustainable path and most Americans want this corrected.
The House of Representatives is now considering the America's Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200), which presents comprehensive solutions to the healthcare challenges faced by all Americans. This bill includes many of my priorities, such as:
o Better healthcare for everyone by requiring all plans to meet minimum benefits standards, prohibiting denials of coverage based on pre-existing conditions and eliminating co-payments for preventive care visits to a doctor;
o Strengthening Medicare by increasing reimbursement rates for Medicare providers to allow them to continue seeing Medicare patients and closing the "donut" hole in prescription coverage for Medicare Part D;
o Real choice in a health insurance marketplace where consumers can compare different plans, including a public plan option, while still retaining the freedom to keep their current doctor, hospital and plan if they choose;
o Ensuring access to healthcare in rural areas by providing a reimbursement increase to primary care physicians practicing in these communities and expanding telemedicine services to make specialized care available for patients in underserved areas.
As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I helped write parts of this bill, and I know that there is a lot in the bill that will go far toward improving our system. Although the full House of Representatives will not consider H.R. 3200 until September, I voted for this important legislation when it was considered by the Ways and Means Committee on July 17. We needed to advance this bill so that we can continue the work of crafting a comprehensive plan that will fix our healthcare system.
However, it is important to remember that this is the beginning of the process, and there is much work that remains to be done in both houses of Congress before we will reach a final bill. Nevertheless, there is wide agreement that the final version must satisfy these principles:
o Reduce the long-term growth of healthcare costs;
o Provide a choice of doctors and health plans;
o Improve quality of care and invest in prevention and wellness; and,
o Ensure affordable healthcare for all Americans.
Currently there are five bills in Congress to reform healthcare, three in the House and two in the Senate. From these, members of the House and Senate will reconcile differences, make improvements and come up with an even better bill. I think we have a long way to go before we are where we need to be, but H.R. 3200 is an important first step.
Healthcare touches all of our lives in a very personal way. I absolutely understand why so many Americans are concerned about the effectiveness and cost of healthcare. That's why it's so important that you judge the facts of this bill for yourself, particularly when there's been much disinformation. I have attached answers to the most common questions my office has been receiving for your review. Additionally, you can go to the Ways and Means Committee website (waysandmeans.house.gov) to read the bill in its entirety as well as a section-by-section summary. I will continue to update you as this important legislation progresses.
Question: Has Congressman Thompson read the bill?
Answer: I have read and was involved in drafting the bill I voted on. For weeks before the introduction of H.R. 3200, members of the Ways and Means Committee, myself included, met daily to go through the bill line by line and section by section. As a group, we spent 86 hours going over this legislation.
Question: Will health reform force all Americans out of their private insurance plans and into a one-size-fits-all government plan?
Answer: No. H.R. 3200 builds on the current system of employer-based coverage, it doesn't replace it. If you are happy with your current plan, you can keep it. H.R. 3200 includes a public plan that individuals will have the option of purchasing, along with a variety of other private plans. This public plan will be required to be financially self-sustaining, as private plans are, covering its costs through premiums and co-pays.
Question: Does page 16 of the bill require me to join the public plan if I lose my private insurance coverage?
Answer: No one will be required to join the public plan. If you lose your insurance, you will be able to shop for a new plan at an online exchange that includes information on all insurance options. This exchange will bring together information that is currently scattered giving consumers the opportunity to quickly and effectively compare plans to make informed decisions about what coverage works best for them. The provision on page 16 merely requires individuals joining a private insurance plan after 2013 to do so through the exchange.
Question: Are Members of Congress exempt from changes that are being proposed for the rest of the country?
Answer: No. Members of Congress receive the same healthcare options as other federal employees, with a choice of plans from private insurers that vary by benefits, premiums and co-pays. This legislation would affect federal employees in the same ways that it affects everyone else who gets their health insurance through their employer.
Question: Does this bill cover illegal immigrants?
Answer: No. Section 246 of H.R. 3200 explicitly prohibits the payment of affordability credits designed to help low and moderate incomes families purchase insurance to anyone who is not lawfully present in the United States.
Question: Does this bill require seniors to attend mandatory counseling sessions on euthanasia?
Answer: No. H.R. 3200 states that Medicare will reimburse doctors and nurse practitioners for a counseling session with Medicare beneficiaries regarding advanced care planning. This consultation includes a discussion of laws and options regarding living wills, the roles and responsibilities of a health care proxy and other planning resources that may be available for the individual. These consultations are strictly voluntary; the rumor that seniors must attend is false.
Question: Will all small businesses be forced to provide coverage to their employees?
Answer: This bill exempts small businesses with a payroll of less than $250,000 from the requirement to provide health insurance for their workers. Businesses with payrolls above $250,000 that do not provide coverage will be charged a payroll tax that will gradually increase with the size of their payroll. The current version of the bill has this tax will start at 2% for payrolls above $250,000 and increase to a maximum of 8% for payrolls above $400,000, however, there are currently discussions to raise this exemption to $500,000. Proceeds from this tax will go to offset the cost of coverage for individuals purchasing insurance through the exchange. Small businesses that opt to offer insurance will receive tax credits to offset the cost of insurance.
Question: What does this bill do to stop fraud and abuse in Medicare?
Answer: This bill strengthens existing compliance and enforcement tools for Medicare, increases funding to support these efforts and creates new, tougher penalties for individuals who submit false claims or applications to Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that every $1 we invest in fighting waste, fraud and abuse will yield $1.75 in savings.
Question: Can our nation afford healthcare reform?
Answer: The truth is that the rising cost of healthcare for all Americans is a problem that will not fix itself and that we can't afford to not address. Today, our nation spends one out of every $6 we earn on healthcare. If we don't take action to slow the increase in costs, within a decade we will spend one out of every $5 on healthcare, and within 30 years this will rise to one in every $3. These facts make it clear, the longer we wait, the more it will cost to fix our broken healthcare system.
Question: How much will this bill cost?
Answer: There is no question that there will be significant costs to implement this legislation. The CBO's latest estimate puts the price tag at $1.042 trillion over ten years. Here is how we are going to pay for the bill. First, we are going to address inefficiencies in Medicare and Medicaid and crack down on fraud, waste and abuse in these programs to save $465 billion over the next ten years. Second, we will need to raise $583 billion in revenues to cover the rest of the cost. The Ways and Means Committee proposes to do this through a surcharge on the wealthiest 1.2% of income earners, who have enjoyed a tremendous advantage for the last eight years because of the Bush tax cuts (the average reduction in federal taxes for the top 1% in these tax cuts was $44,622). The Senate is considering other ways to raise these funds, and it is unclear how this issue will be dealt with in the final bill.
Question: Will this plan lead to rationing of healthcare? Will Congress be legislating what care my doctor can or must give me?
Answer: No. I believe that medical decisions should be left between patients and their doctors. Section 1401 explicitly forbids any studies or research called for in H.R. 3200 from being used to either mandate or deny care to a patient in any public or private plan. This research will gather data about what procedures are most effective to give doctors more information to consider when treating patients, not to replace your doctor's judgment with that of a bureaucrat from a private insurer or the government. The bill protects the ability of doctors to do what they think is necessary to help their patients without having to constantly worry about whether they will be reimbursed by an insurance company, which is why this bill has earned the strong support of the American Medical Association.
Question: Why is this bill being "rushed" through Congress?
Answer: Universal healthcare was first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. President Harry Truman called for it in 1945. Former Representative John Dingell Sr. introduced a bill to provide universal healthcare in 1947 and his son, Representative John Dingell Jr., has reintroduced a bill every Congress since 1955. So, this is not a new issue and it was supported by both President Obama and Senator McCain in the November presidential election. This particular legislation has been crafted, reviewed and revised repeatedly since the 111th Congress began, and it has been changed to reflect the considerable input from those in the healthcare community, members on both sides of the aisle and constituents. This bill is not being rushed - it is long overdue.
Sincerely, MIKE THOMPSONMember of Congresshttp://www.mikethompson.house.gov
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)