GIM HAS BEEN MEETING PERIODICALLY AND HAS BEEN IN A STOP AND START MODE.
We now have two set dates for action
The group has an appointment set up by Judy Bucci for Tuesday June 1st
to make a presentation of GIM and their goals and need of the support
of the council and members of the community before the Citizens
Engagement Committee. We would need a lead presenter and backup of the
group in attendance . The meeting would be at 5:30PM before the 7
o'clock full council meeting.
GIM mini conference date August 7,2010 to be held at the Malden Senior
Community Center time to be announced
Their will be a network chain linking of all of the diversified
population and will include service groups and non profits
representing a broad representation of all ethnic groups
We are advocating for Voting Rights and Civic Engagement the all
encompassing Malden population
In order to have maximum Inclusion we are urging all Service
organizations Non Profits to join us with all their membership in
making --
Our organization has determined that our local group should adopt the
Memorandum of
OUR NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION and that we will bring it to OUR Local
city officials and out into neighborhoods with urging participation.
We hope to "spread the word" and have our various organization getting the word.
Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes
accountability and provides information for citizens about what their
Government is doing. Information maintained by the City Government is
a needed l asset. The Administration will take appropriate action,
consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in
forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments
and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about
their operations and decisions online and readily available to the
public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public
feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.
Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the
Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions.
Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit
from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments
and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to
participate in policy making and to provide their Government with the
benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive
departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we
can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in
Government.
Government should be collaborative. Collaboration actively engages
Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and
agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to
cooperate among themselves, across all levels of Government, and with
nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private
sector. Executive departments and agencies should solicit public
feedback to assess and improve their level of collaboration and to
identify new opportunities for cooperation
Beside the issue of transparency there is the matter of accountability
and restoring the confidence in our local government and their
attention to the need of ALL government agency to comply
From a dictionary
Accountability is a concept in ethics and governance with several
meanings. It is often used synonymously with such concepts as
responsibility,[1] answerable, blameworthiness, liability, and other
terms associated with the expectation of account-giving. As an aspect
of governance, it has been central to discussions related to problems
in the public sector, nonprofit and private (corporate) worlds. In
leadership roles, accountability is the acknowledgment and assumption
of responsibility for actions, products, decisions, and policies
including the administration, governance, and implementation within
the scope of the role or employment position and encompassing the
obligation to report, explain and be answerable for resulting
consequences.
To all interested parties open for comment and suggestions
Howard McGowan
Malden Senior
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Unnessary Hospial Re-Adimissions
A Serious problem we've been hearing about lately is that hospitals are dicharging older patients without any followup or "transitional services.
One out of five Medicare beneficiaries is readmitted within 30 days of discharge and one out every three within 8-90 days--often because of poor communication between patients, care givers and health proveders.
We need a benefit in Medicare to help people safely transision to home or another setting to prevent costly and unecessary hospital readmissions.
One out of five Medicare beneficiaries is readmitted within 30 days of discharge and one out every three within 8-90 days--often because of poor communication between patients, care givers and health proveders.
We need a benefit in Medicare to help people safely transision to home or another setting to prevent costly and unecessary hospital readmissions.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Census 2010
Some common problems when
filling out U.S. census forms,
which arrive by mail beginning
Monday:March 15, 2010
Ready for the 2010 census?
Forms start arriving today
.—HOUSEHOLD AND RESIDENCE:
These are determined by where
people live or sleep most of
the time as of April 1.
Household members should
include babies born on or
before April 1, 2010, as
well as non-U.S. citizens.
The rationale is that cities
and states should receive
federal money to support
everyone who uses their public
roads, schools and other programs.
College students who live away
from home and U.S. military
personnel who live in barracks
are tallied in those places.
If you have more than one home,
completely fill out the form
for your primary residence.
For the second home, mark "0''
for number of residents and
indicate you live elsewhere.
Doing that may help avoid
costly visits from a census taker.
For divorced parents who have
shared custody of a child,
indicate where a child usually
lives. If custody is split equally,
the child's residence is where he
or she is on April 1.
—RACE AND ETHNICITY: If no box
exists that describes yourself,
or with the level of specificity
you prefer, write it in the space
marked for "other race."
For example,
some Caribbean-Americans
plan to check the box for
"black, African Am., or Negro"
and then write in their ancestry.
Multiracial people might check
several race categories or write
in "multiracial," depending on
how they self-identify.
The labels do make a difference,
because census results will be
used to redraw congressional
districts with racial and ethnic
balance.
—INTERNET OPTION: There is none.
Census officials in 2008
determined that submitting
census data through the
Internet posed too large
a risk for security breaches.
The Census Bureau is testing
Web options for 2020, but for
now information must be
provided on official forms
and mailed or submitted
to a census taker.
—"LONG FORM": This year's census
is only 10 questions. Previously,
1 in 6 households — roughly
20 million — received a
detailed census questionnaire
called the "long form" that
asked about income, disability,
commuting, education level
and other characteristics.
After 2000, the long form was
eliminated and replaced by
the American Community Survey,
which is sent to about three
million households each year.
If you get an ACS form, the
Census Bureau asks you fill
out both surveys.
—MISSING FORMS: If you don't
receive a census form,
Census Bureau director
Robert Groves advises
that people wait until
April 12 to allow time
for it to arrive. After
April 12, people may
call the census help
line at 1-866-872-6868.
In rural parts of Alaska,
census information was
collected door-to-door
starting in January.
In addition,
about 12 million
addresses, mostly in rural
areas and Gulf Coast areas
affected by Hurricane Katrina,
began receiving hand-delivered
forms on March 1.
filling out U.S. census forms,
which arrive by mail beginning
Monday:March 15, 2010
Ready for the 2010 census?
Forms start arriving today
.—HOUSEHOLD AND RESIDENCE:
These are determined by where
people live or sleep most of
the time as of April 1.
Household members should
include babies born on or
before April 1, 2010, as
well as non-U.S. citizens.
The rationale is that cities
and states should receive
federal money to support
everyone who uses their public
roads, schools and other programs.
College students who live away
from home and U.S. military
personnel who live in barracks
are tallied in those places.
If you have more than one home,
completely fill out the form
for your primary residence.
For the second home, mark "0''
for number of residents and
indicate you live elsewhere.
Doing that may help avoid
costly visits from a census taker.
For divorced parents who have
shared custody of a child,
indicate where a child usually
lives. If custody is split equally,
the child's residence is where he
or she is on April 1.
—RACE AND ETHNICITY: If no box
exists that describes yourself,
or with the level of specificity
you prefer, write it in the space
marked for "other race."
For example,
some Caribbean-Americans
plan to check the box for
"black, African Am., or Negro"
and then write in their ancestry.
Multiracial people might check
several race categories or write
in "multiracial," depending on
how they self-identify.
The labels do make a difference,
because census results will be
used to redraw congressional
districts with racial and ethnic
balance.
—INTERNET OPTION: There is none.
Census officials in 2008
determined that submitting
census data through the
Internet posed too large
a risk for security breaches.
The Census Bureau is testing
Web options for 2020, but for
now information must be
provided on official forms
and mailed or submitted
to a census taker.
—"LONG FORM": This year's census
is only 10 questions. Previously,
1 in 6 households — roughly
20 million — received a
detailed census questionnaire
called the "long form" that
asked about income, disability,
commuting, education level
and other characteristics.
After 2000, the long form was
eliminated and replaced by
the American Community Survey,
which is sent to about three
million households each year.
If you get an ACS form, the
Census Bureau asks you fill
out both surveys.
—MISSING FORMS: If you don't
receive a census form,
Census Bureau director
Robert Groves advises
that people wait until
April 12 to allow time
for it to arrive. After
April 12, people may
call the census help
line at 1-866-872-6868.
In rural parts of Alaska,
census information was
collected door-to-door
starting in January.
In addition,
about 12 million
addresses, mostly in rural
areas and Gulf Coast areas
affected by Hurricane Katrina,
began receiving hand-delivered
forms on March 1.
Health Care Overhaul
House members voted 219-212
late Sunday to approve the
health care overhaul that
would extend coverage to 32
million uninsured Americans.
It also would significantly
expand Medicaid, the
federal-state health care
program for the poor; place
new federal regulations on
the insurance industry; and
allow parents to keep children
up to age 26 on their family
insurance plans.
Most Americans would have to
buy insurance or face penalties.
There would be subsidies to help
families with incomes of up to
$88,000 a year pay their premiums.
late Sunday to approve the
health care overhaul that
would extend coverage to 32
million uninsured Americans.
It also would significantly
expand Medicaid, the
federal-state health care
program for the poor; place
new federal regulations on
the insurance industry; and
allow parents to keep children
up to age 26 on their family
insurance plans.
Most Americans would have to
buy insurance or face penalties.
There would be subsidies to help
families with incomes of up to
$88,000 a year pay their premiums.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Health Care Reform Reconciliation
For all the Republicans’ warnings, they have used reconciliation on some major, controversial legislative packages. These include tax-cut legislation under President George W. Bush and the overhaul in 1996 of the welfare system. In all, Republicans have used the approach 16 times, to 6 for Democrats.
Even with reconciliation, the path for Mr. Obama’s health care overhaul is problematic. It rests largely with two blocs of swing Democrats in the House — abortion opponents and fiscal conservatives.
Even with reconciliation, the path for Mr. Obama’s health care overhaul is problematic. It rests largely with two blocs of swing Democrats in the House — abortion opponents and fiscal conservatives.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Health Care Reform
Published: February 25, 2010
If we’re lucky, Thursday’s summit will turn out to have been the last act in the great health reform debate, the prologue to passage of an imperfect but nonetheless history-making bill. If so, the debate will have ended as it began: with Democrats offering moderate plans that draw heavily on past Republican ideas, and Republicans responding with slander and misdirection.
:
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (368) »
Nobody really expected anything different. But what was nonetheless revealing about the meeting was the fact that Republicans — who had weeks to prepare for this particular event, and have been campaigning against reform for a year — didn’t bother making a case that could withstand even minimal fact-checking.
It was obvious how things would go as soon as the first Republican speaker, Senator Lamar Alexander, delivered his remarks. He was presumably chosen because he’s folksy and likable and could make his party’s position sound reasonable. But right off the bat he delivered a whopper, asserting that under the Democratic plan, “for millions of Americans, premiums will go up.”
Wow. I guess you could say that he wasn’t technically lying, since the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Senate Democrats’ plan does say that average payments for insurance would go up. But it also makes it clear that this would happen only because people would buy more and better coverage. The “price of a given amount of insurance coverage” would fall, not rise — and the actual cost to many Americans would fall sharply thanks to federal aid.
His fib on premiums was quickly followed by a fib on process. Democrats, having already passed a health bill with 60 votes in the Senate, now plan to use a simple majority vote to modify some of the numbers, a process known as reconciliation. Mr. Alexander declared that reconciliation has “never been used for something like this.” Well, I don’t know what “like this” means, but reconciliation has, in fact, been used for previous health reforms — and was used to push through both of the Bush tax cuts at a budget cost of $1.8 trillion, twice the bill for health reform.
What really struck me about the meeting, however, was the inability of Republicans to explain how they propose dealing with the issue that, rightly, is at the emotional center of much health care debate: the plight of Americans who suffer from pre-existing medical conditions. In other advanced countries, everyone gets essential care whatever their medical history. But in America, a bout of cancer, an inherited genetic disorder, or even, in some states, having been a victim of domestic violence can make you uninsurable, and thus make adequate health care unaffordable.
One of the great virtues of the Democratic plan is that it would finally put an end to this unacceptable case of American exceptionalism. But what’s the Republican answer? Mr. Alexander was strangely inarticulate on the matter, saying only that “House Republicans have some ideas about how my friend in Tullahoma can continue to afford insurance for his wife who has had breast cancer.” He offered no clue about what those ideas might be.
In reality, House Republicans don’t have anything to offer to Americans with troubled medical histories. On the contrary, their big idea — allowing unrestricted competition across state lines — would lead to a race to the bottom. The states with the weakest regulations — for example, those that allow insurance companies to deny coverage to victims of domestic violence — would set the standards for the nation as a whole. The result would be to afflict the afflicted, to make the lives of Americans with pre-existing conditions even harder.
Don’t take my word for it. Look at the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House G.O.P. plan. That analysis is discreetly worded, with the budget office declaring somewhat obscurely that while the number of uninsured Americans wouldn’t change much, “the pool of people without health insurance would end up being less healthy, on average, than under current law.” But here’s the translation: While some people would gain insurance, the people losing insurance would be those who need it most. Under the Republican plan, the American health care system would become even more brutal than it is now.
So what did we learn from the summit? What I took away was the arrogance that the success of things like the death-panel smear has obviously engendered in Republican politicians. At this point they obviously believe that they can blandly make utterly misleading assertions, saying things that can be easily refuted, and pay no price. And they may well be right.
But Democrats can have the last laugh. All they have to do — and they have the power to do it — is finish the job, and enact health reform.
If we’re lucky, Thursday’s summit will turn out to have been the last act in the great health reform debate, the prologue to passage of an imperfect but nonetheless history-making bill. If so, the debate will have ended as it began: with Democrats offering moderate plans that draw heavily on past Republican ideas, and Republicans responding with slander and misdirection.
:
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (368) »
Nobody really expected anything different. But what was nonetheless revealing about the meeting was the fact that Republicans — who had weeks to prepare for this particular event, and have been campaigning against reform for a year — didn’t bother making a case that could withstand even minimal fact-checking.
It was obvious how things would go as soon as the first Republican speaker, Senator Lamar Alexander, delivered his remarks. He was presumably chosen because he’s folksy and likable and could make his party’s position sound reasonable. But right off the bat he delivered a whopper, asserting that under the Democratic plan, “for millions of Americans, premiums will go up.”
Wow. I guess you could say that he wasn’t technically lying, since the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Senate Democrats’ plan does say that average payments for insurance would go up. But it also makes it clear that this would happen only because people would buy more and better coverage. The “price of a given amount of insurance coverage” would fall, not rise — and the actual cost to many Americans would fall sharply thanks to federal aid.
His fib on premiums was quickly followed by a fib on process. Democrats, having already passed a health bill with 60 votes in the Senate, now plan to use a simple majority vote to modify some of the numbers, a process known as reconciliation. Mr. Alexander declared that reconciliation has “never been used for something like this.” Well, I don’t know what “like this” means, but reconciliation has, in fact, been used for previous health reforms — and was used to push through both of the Bush tax cuts at a budget cost of $1.8 trillion, twice the bill for health reform.
What really struck me about the meeting, however, was the inability of Republicans to explain how they propose dealing with the issue that, rightly, is at the emotional center of much health care debate: the plight of Americans who suffer from pre-existing medical conditions. In other advanced countries, everyone gets essential care whatever their medical history. But in America, a bout of cancer, an inherited genetic disorder, or even, in some states, having been a victim of domestic violence can make you uninsurable, and thus make adequate health care unaffordable.
One of the great virtues of the Democratic plan is that it would finally put an end to this unacceptable case of American exceptionalism. But what’s the Republican answer? Mr. Alexander was strangely inarticulate on the matter, saying only that “House Republicans have some ideas about how my friend in Tullahoma can continue to afford insurance for his wife who has had breast cancer.” He offered no clue about what those ideas might be.
In reality, House Republicans don’t have anything to offer to Americans with troubled medical histories. On the contrary, their big idea — allowing unrestricted competition across state lines — would lead to a race to the bottom. The states with the weakest regulations — for example, those that allow insurance companies to deny coverage to victims of domestic violence — would set the standards for the nation as a whole. The result would be to afflict the afflicted, to make the lives of Americans with pre-existing conditions even harder.
Don’t take my word for it. Look at the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House G.O.P. plan. That analysis is discreetly worded, with the budget office declaring somewhat obscurely that while the number of uninsured Americans wouldn’t change much, “the pool of people without health insurance would end up being less healthy, on average, than under current law.” But here’s the translation: While some people would gain insurance, the people losing insurance would be those who need it most. Under the Republican plan, the American health care system would become even more brutal than it is now.
So what did we learn from the summit? What I took away was the arrogance that the success of things like the death-panel smear has obviously engendered in Republican politicians. At this point they obviously believe that they can blandly make utterly misleading assertions, saying things that can be easily refuted, and pay no price. And they may well be right.
But Democrats can have the last laugh. All they have to do — and they have the power to do it — is finish the job, and enact health reform.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Home Care For All
Mass Senior Action Council’s goal is Home Care For All – We support the implementation of the Equal Choice law that requires the state to provide long term care in the least restrictive setting. In order to achieve this, MSAC supports the funding of Community First. Community First will diminish the state’s reliance on nursing homes and invests in expanded community services. We support full funding for programs that expand financial eligibility for homecare like the Enhanced Community Options Program (ECOP).
Steps For Success
No More Cuts! Improve Financing for Community-Based Long-Term Care Supports.
· 2008 9c Cuts to home care set the programs back to 1990 levels.
· Restore Home Care Funding to Pre-9c cut levels.
· At least 14 people can receive home care for the cost of 1 person in a nursing home.
Implementation of the Long-Term Care Options Counseling Program
(4000-0600)
· Approximately 120,000 people are admitted to nursing homes each year. 100,000 of these are MassHealth members leaving hospitals.
· There are only 3 pre-admissions screening programs in the State.
Improve Access To Necessary Home and Community-Based Services
· 6 people can participate in the ECOP program for the cost of 1 person in a nursing home.
· Implement Training and Certification of home care workers on a state wide basis.
· Return purchased services to Pre-9c Cut funding.
Home Care Is Most Desired and Cost Less
Two Home Care Programs save the State $335 million annually!!
Both the Enhanced Community Options Program (ECOP) and the Choices Program cost much less than nursing home care. These savings should be reinvested in community-based programs.
Steps For Success
No More Cuts! Improve Financing for Community-Based Long-Term Care Supports.
· 2008 9c Cuts to home care set the programs back to 1990 levels.
· Restore Home Care Funding to Pre-9c cut levels.
· At least 14 people can receive home care for the cost of 1 person in a nursing home.
Implementation of the Long-Term Care Options Counseling Program
(4000-0600)
· Approximately 120,000 people are admitted to nursing homes each year. 100,000 of these are MassHealth members leaving hospitals.
· There are only 3 pre-admissions screening programs in the State.
Improve Access To Necessary Home and Community-Based Services
· 6 people can participate in the ECOP program for the cost of 1 person in a nursing home.
· Implement Training and Certification of home care workers on a state wide basis.
· Return purchased services to Pre-9c Cut funding.
Home Care Is Most Desired and Cost Less
Two Home Care Programs save the State $335 million annually!!
Both the Enhanced Community Options Program (ECOP) and the Choices Program cost much less than nursing home care. These savings should be reinvested in community-based programs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
