"Shall Missouri law be amended to enable the elderly and Missourians with disabilities to continue living independently in their homes by creating the Missouri Quality Homecare Council to ensure the availability of quality home care services under the Medicaid program by recruiting, training, and stabilizing the home care workforce?"
This raises several questions:
1. Does a no vote mean that all elderly and disabled Missourians can no longer live in their homes? If a yes vote will allow this, it would seem that a no vote will require that they all be rounded up and taken somewhere. Where will they go?
2. It talks about "Missourians" with disabilities, but apparently applies to ALL elderly, regardless of where they live. Why are we only concerned with disabled people who live in ths state, but all elderly worldwide?
3. Does a yes vote ensure that all old and disabled people will continue to live independently in their homes? The language would suggest that it would, but how can this be? The ballot will also say "A 'yes' vote will amend Missouri law to enable the elderly and Missourians with disabilities to continue living independently in their homes...." I guess that means that it will.
4. By saying "continue", this implies that the affected people are currently living independently in their own homes. What if they don't have homes? What if they are not independent? If they currently are living with other people, will they now have to live alone?
5. How old does one have to be to be considered "elderly"?
6. How will "recruiting, training, and stabilizing the workforce" ensure that all such people get to stay in their homes? The total cost is only an estimated $540,000, so that wouldn't pay for too many home health care salaries, even if they are underpaid.
7. What if the independent people stop paying their rent/mortgage? It would seem that this new law guarantee that they will be enabled to stay in their house could give them an argument that they get to stay regardless.
Obviously the people who wrote the language are for it, but if it was such a good idea, why didn't the legislature vote for it? I think that I will have to vote against it on principle.
3 comments:
This proposition is misleading. This service already exists. They are trying to create a 6 person board to oversee this service. Then they intend to make the caregivers to go to training...(MORE UNNEEDED JOBS)...to do simple housework and personal care such as bathing, combing hair, etc.
I would hope they already know how to do that from personal experience. These are not helpless people they have for clients...they are people like me who are physically disabled and need a little extra help. But they only pay them minimal wages. It's already difficult enough to get help without another bureaucratic board creating more hoops to jump through. This program will continue to exist even without this board. VOTE NO!!!
Tovanipo,
Thanks for the information; the ballot would be more meaningful if that was all explained like you did.
CD
I was originally going to vote yes, but will now be voting no. Thanks for the info!!
Post a Comment