Yay for socialist healthcare!

[Deudalus]

Stripped of rights
By TOM BRODBECK -- Winnipeg Sun

Thomas Hanaway, 80, never asked the government to take over his life.

But that's exactly what they've done to the Second World War veteran, cleaning out his bank account, seizing his pension cheques and assuming complete control over his life -- without even asking him or his family.

Hanaway was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease last year but lives with his wife Grace Hanaway, 79, and their son Thomas Hanaway Jr., 47, who care for him in their two-storey North End home.

Hanaway, a bit of a surly old guy with a good sense of humour, can walk and carry on a conversation. He eats on his own. He receives daily visits from home care workers, who bath and care for him.

He appears clean and well taken care of and he likes to watch TV in his living room.

For an 80-year-old man, he seems relatively lucid.

Despite that, the province's chief provincial psychiatrist has deemed him unfit and has appointed the Office of the Public Trustee to take over all of his affairs.

His family can no longer make medical decisions on his behalf. And if he wants to spend his money, he has to get permission from the Public Trustee, which has stripped him of some of his most basic rights.

"I never asked for this," he told me, after I spent a couple of days with the family this week. "I don't want to be under their wing."

This is a story that should scare the living hell out of anyone approaching old age. And it should scare their families, too.

This isn't just a story about our nanny state overstepping its bounds a little.

This is about state control of our lives. It's about the arbitrary loss of your freedom.

"It's not like he's living alone and not being taken care of," said Tom Hanaway, Jr., who says he's in disbelief over what's happened the past two months. "We look after him."

Hanaway attends a day program for geriatric people. Staff recommended he undergo a psychiatric assessment, which took place in April. The assessment concluded Hanaway was not capable of managing his affairs due to "health problems."

The assessment was forwarded to the chief provincial psychiatrist, according to documents obtained by The Sun.

And on May 24, the director of psychiatric services, Dr. Donald Rodgers, wrote Hanaway stating he planned to issue an "order of committeeship" that would allow the Public Trustee to take over his affairs.

Amazingly, this is all legal.

The order was made June 6 and the Public Trustee immediately seized Hanaway's bank account -- without the consent of him or his family -- and began taking over all of his financial affairs. They took $900K out of a joint account shared by him and his wife Grace, even though some of the money came from Grace's pension cheques.

"I can't believe something like this is possible," said Louise Lamaga, 57, Hanaway's daughter, an elementary school teacher living in Hadashville, about 100 km east of Winnipeg. "This is too ridiculous to even be believable."

Lamaga is in close contact with her father and visits the family home regularly. She says he's cared for, he's fed and his affairs are all taken care of by family.

The decision to take over Hanaway's life appears to revolve entirely around the psychiatric assessment. It's unknown what Hanaway did or said that triggered the Public Trustee order.

Lamaga said she has asked the chief provincial psychiatrist for her father's file but they refused, saying it was "confidential medical information."

Lamaga says if her father is incompetent, then why would the chief provincial psychiatrist base his decision to take over her father's affairs solely on what he said without investigating further?

No home visit or face-to-face interviews were conducted with Hanaway's family before the order was made, the family says.

Dr. Rogers was unavailable for comment yesterday.

To add insult to injury, the Public Trustee is now charging Hanaway to take care of him.

They charge $60 an hour for inspection visits and $40 an hour for travel time. They take a 3% cut of his income -- in his case, Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security cheques -- and if there are any legal fees, Hanaway has to pay those, too.

They even charge him GST on the fees.

I sat in on the first face-to-face meeting between the family and the Public Trustee this week at Hanaway's home, unbeknownst to the bureaucrats in the room.

It was shocking to say the least.

Canadian healthcare at work for you!


Anyone else ready for commie healthcare?

I know I am! :disgust:

 

[EatSpam]

Who says that all socialized health insurance would have to work this way?

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Who says that all socialized health insurance would have to work this way?

Would have a point if the government had any history of managing money or services well.

When you hand the US government a dollar, 75 cents slips through their fingers due to beauocracy alone.

Please forgive me if I don't want them watching out for my health.

 

[sandorski]

This has little to do with heallthcare and more to do with the legal definition of Unfit and how it's determined.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: sandorski
This has little to do with heallthcare and more to do with the legal definition of Unfit and how it's determined.

Exactly - my grandmother (who really was 'unfit') was briefly under the care of the public trustee, but only long enough for an application to be filed and processed for firts her husband, then her children to look after her affairs.

The entire thing could have been avoided with a signed power of attorney (available in highly functional form for $10 at Grand and Toy, or in a more customized form for a few thousand dollars from your lawyer).

 

[cquark]

Of course, the US system will leave you without half your skull, so you're doomed under the US system too:

Woman lives minus part of skull for nearly 4 months because of insurance snag

May. 13, 2004

Written by: ALEXANDRIA SAGE

MIDVALE, Utah (AP) - After a lot of red tape, Briana Lane has her
skull back in one piece.

The 22-year-old woman was injured in an auto crash in January, and
doctors temporarily removed nearly half her skull to save her life.
But for nearly four months afterward, the piece of bone lay in a
hospital freezer across town - and Lane had to wear a plastic street
hockey helmet - because of a standoff with Medicaid and the hospital
over who would cover the surgery to make her whole again.

The surgery finally came through after an excruciating wait, during
which she suffered extreme pain just bending down and would wake up in
the morning to find that her brain had shifted to one side during the
night.

"When you think of weird things happening to people you don't think of
that," Lane said. "It's like taking out someone's heart - you need
that!"

Sonya Schwartz, a health policy analyst for Families USA, a consumer
health-care group, said insurance horror stories happen every day. But
"this particular story is outlandish."

On Jan. 10, Lane's car rolled over on an icy canyon road above Salt
Lake City. Lane, who was not wearing a seat belt, was thrown through
the windshield. (She was later charged with driving under the
influence and not having a driver's licence.)

Doctors at the University of Utah Health Sciences Center in Salt Lake
City removed the left side of her skull to treat bleeding on her
brain. Lane's doctor originally scheduled the replacement surgery for
mid-March, a month after her release from the hospital, said her
mother, Margaret McKinney, a nurse who works in another division of
the medical centre.

But the operation was cancelled the night before because the hospital
was waiting to see whether Medicaid would cover it - a process that
can take at least 90 days.

Lane, a waitress with no insurance, was sent home from the hospital
with a big dent in her head where the bone had been removed, but the
scalp had been sewn back into place. She stayed at home, able to walk
around but not go to work, and had to wear the helmet during the day.

During the wait for a decision from Medicaid, the hospital could have
declared an emergency, moved ahead with the surgery and figured out
afterward who would pay - the hospital, Medicaid or the patient. But
the hospital did not do so.

Lane's mother said that she argued with the hospital: "We just want
what you've taken away. Can you just give us back the skull and we'll
go on with our lives?"

After months of delay, Lane contacted a local TV station, a move she
believes hastened the surgery. "All of a sudden - top of the list!"
she said. The operation took place April 30.

Exactly what broke the impasse is unclear.

The operation took place after Lane's mother's insurance decided to
cover the surgery, as well as her nearly $200,000 in medical bills.

But hospital spokeswoman Anne Brillinger, while refusing to comment on
certain specifics of Lane's case because of federal privacy rules,
said the medical centre decided to go forward with the surgery before
it learned the insurance would pay.

Utah's Medicaid program has yet to decide whether Lane qualifies.

Robert Knudson, director of eligibility services at the Utah Health
Department, which oversees Medicaid, said the agency has not yet seen
enough evidence to decide whether her injuries entitle her to benefits
under the law.

He would not comment on whether her four-month wait was unreasonable.
But he said the decision over how fast Lane should have had treatment
was up to the doctors, not Medicaid. "We only pay the bills," he said.

A neurosurgeon at Indianapolis' St. Vincent Hospital, Ronald Young,
said such surgery would not be considered an emergency, but is
typically performed within three to four weeks - the swelling has to
go down first - because the risks to the patient are high.

"There's no reason not to replace that as soon as you can," Young
said. "I don't like to have people who are walking not have their
skull."

He added: "For a person who is walking, who is ambulatory, to not have
their skull is a problem because you get a lot of brain shift. A
simple fall, hitting her head or something could be horrendous."

Today, Lane's close-cropped hair barely covers the long curved scar on
her scalp. The blackouts and dizziness are happening less often, and
simple tasks are no longer excruciatingly painful.

But she said the experience has left her a little more cynical about
the health-care system.

"Just because they don't have money doesn't mean they should be
treated differently from anyone else," she said. "I'm a good person. I
just happen to be not as rich as some of them."

 

[Genx87]

Hold on I thought they had "free" healthcare in Canada?

They rape his income for his life then still make him pay?

 

[Moonbeam]

Most Americans without health care won't live to be 80 so we have found a way around such injustice.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: sandorski
This has little to do with heallthcare and more to do with the legal definition of Unfit and how it's determined.

Even if he is unfit, the family has no say!?!?? WTF. The govt takes over all his accounts and the family cant even say/do anything? Thats fvcked up.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Most Americans without health care won't live to be 80 so we have found a way around such injustice.

:roll:
You're like one of those anti-gun nut propagandist assholes after a murder/kidnapping, Moonie. The most horrific crime in the world, murder of a child, has been committed, and you tell the parents it wouldn't have happened if we had lesser laws controlling guns. Here's a hint: everyone else knows it's bullsh!t and thinks you an ass for it.

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Who says that all socialized health insurance would have to work this way?

This is the only way it ever works. California DHS will be taking my GF's grandmother free-and-clear home when she finally passes. And yet at 85 she's always been in good health, and was only in the hospital once a couple of years back for less than a week. It appears she signed the wrong form at one time.
That's what "free" means to the government.
The government taketh and the government taketh away. It doesn't do anything else.


edit: btw, one of my grandfathers died of Parkinsons.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Most Americans without health care won't live to be 80 so we have found a way around such injustice.

Unfortunately true, as US life expectancies (even including the insured in the average) are the lowest in the first world.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Most Americans without health care won't live to be 80 so we have found a way around such injustice.

Unfortunately true, as US life expectancies (even including the insured in the average) are the lowest in the first world.

We also have about 10 times the minorities of all the other 1st world countries. Who unfortunately drag down the countries life expectancy on average.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Most Americans without health care won't live to be 80 so we have found a way around such injustice.

Unfortunately true, as US life expectancies (even including the insured in the average) are the lowest in the first world.

We are talking about a 3% variance or in otherwords not much too write home about.

Try living in Ukraine with a life expectancy 10 years lower than ours.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Who says that all socialized health insurance would have to work this way?

For centuries Socialists have used the excuse, "well, they failed because they did it wrong so now try it our way." It all ends the same way, in failure. It works great for those who don't need it and it works good for those who need it a bit. But it works best when people die waiting in line to get examined for what is wrong. You see, when they die the state gets much of their assets, don't have to expend money on helping them, and there is one less person to complain about the lack of compassion.

Typical with many humans, many are willing to give up their right to "live, liberty, and the persuit of happiness" in order to get the false promise of freebie instead of freedom. These people tend to base their decision on how they feel at the moment about a subject and often fail to understand that free services doesn't mean they have not paid for the services. Those that would rather produce then end up working the hardest and eventually give up because the harder they work the more the freeloaders take from them.

Interestingly societies that grant freedom and allow each individual to excel or fail do the best. Many excel because they want to. Many avoid failure because they fear the end result. The excess produced by those who tried helps those who failed in this country and around the world. In typical human style, those who have failed blame others for their failure or are so ashamed of having to get aid attack those who have given. Socialism makes it sound so good.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski
This has little to do with heallthcare and more to do with the legal definition of Unfit and how it's determined.

Even if he is unfit, the family has no say!?!?? WTF. The govt takes over all his accounts and the family cant even say/do anything? Thats fvcked up.

That is the Communist / Fascist way. Remember, as President Clinton said, it was not thier money but the Governements money. After all, in their eyes the Government is the source of all income.

The U.S. took a huge step when we limited free speech and ensured people that the homes they own only belong to them at the behest of the government. What the government give us the government can take away.

Yet, for many the lure of the words free is too great to resist.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski
This has little to do with heallthcare and more to do with the legal definition of Unfit and how it's determined.

Even if he is unfit, the family has no say!?!?? WTF. The govt takes over all his accounts and the family cant even say/do anything? Thats fvcked up.

I agree,it is fvckd up, but I'd think it's isolated and specific to the powers granted in Manitoba, as I've never heard of this happening before.

Hopefully this article is a catalyst for change.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Who says that all socialized health insurance would have to work this way?

For centuries Socialists have used the excuse, "well, they failed because they did it wrong so now try it our way." It all ends the same way, in failure. It works great for those who don't need it and it works good for those who need it a bit. But it works best when people die waiting in line to get examined for what is wrong. You see, when they die the state gets much of their assets, don't have to expend money on helping them, and there is one less person to complain about the lack of compassion.

Typical with many humans, many are willing to give up their right to "live, liberty, and the persuit of happiness" in order to get the false promise of freebie instead of freedom. These people tend to base their decision on how they feel at the moment about a subject and often fail to understand that free services doesn't mean they have not paid for the services. Those that would rather produce then end up working the hardest and eventually give up because the harder they work the more the freeloaders take from them.

Interestingly societies that grant freedom and allow each individual to excel or fail do the best. Many excel because they want to. Many avoid failure because they fear the end result. The excess produced by those who tried helps those who failed in this country and around the world. In typical human style, those who have failed blame others for their failure or are so ashamed of having to get aid attack those who have given. Socialism makes it sound so good.

Centuries eh? Got a Timeline of that?

Can't say I'm not surprised how this issue has been blown way out of proportion and into subjects totally unrelated. However, FFS some of you need to think and not just knee-jerk like Pavlovian Dogs.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski
This has little to do with heallthcare and more to do with the legal definition of Unfit and how it's determined.

Even if he is unfit, the family has no say!?!?? WTF. The govt takes over all his accounts and the family cant even say/do anything? Thats fvcked up.

I agree,it is fvckd up, but I'd think it's isolated and specific to the powers granted in Manitoba, as I've never heard of this happening before.

Hopefully this article is a catalyst for change.

Change to privatized healthcare?

That is already happening in Canada, it is just a matter of time.

Canadian Doctors encourage a parallel private system.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Leaving aside your stupid definition and use of the world "socialism", Deudalus, don't you really have better things to do than to badmouth other countries?

Is it really so fine and peachy, down there in Louisiana, and all your problems are solved, that you really have the urge to intervene in other people's business, using third-rate information? is your country REALLY that much better as a place?

I'm willing to bet you've never even set foot in Canada, or even talk to Canadians in real life - thet's right, there IS a real life, outside the internet.

Why don't you mind your own business, and remember the proverb "it easier to see the straw in other people's eyes, than the log in your own".

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Most Americans without health care won't live to be 80 so we have found a way around such injustice.

Unfortunately true, as US life expectancies (even including the insured in the average) are the lowest in the first world.

We are talking about a 3% variance or in otherwords not much too write home about.

Try living in Ukraine with a life expectancy 10 years lower than ours.

You're like one of those anti-gun nut propagandist assholes after a murder/kidnapping, Genx87. The most horrific crime in the world, murder of a child, has been committed, and you tell the parents it wouldn't have happened if we had lesser laws controlling guns. Here's a hint: everyone else knows it's bullsh!t and thinks you an ass for it.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski
This has little to do with heallthcare and more to do with the legal definition of Unfit and how it's determined.

Even if he is unfit, the family has no say!?!?? WTF. The govt takes over all his accounts and the family cant even say/do anything? Thats fvcked up.

I agree,it is fvckd up, but I'd think it's isolated and specific to the powers granted in Manitoba, as I've never heard of this happening before.

Hopefully this article is a catalyst for change.

Change to privatized healthcare?

That is already happening in Canada, it is just a matter of time.

Canadian Doctors encourage a parallel private system.

The original article has nothing to do with Healthcare! Good god man.

 

[Vic]

Worldwide life expectancies

 

[flamingelephant]

what does a trustee taking over someones money have to do with the health care system? NOTHING!

assessment could of been done privately or publically with the same results.

government doing something wrong? YES

Is this a public-healthcare related problem? NO

original poster cant read apparently

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Most Americans without health care won't live to be 80 so we have found a way around such injustice.

:roll:
You're like one of those anti-gun nut propagandist assholes after a murder/kidnapping, Moonie. The most horrific crime in the world, murder of a child, has been committed, and you tell the parents it wouldn't have happened if we had lesser laws controlling guns. Here's a hint: everyone else knows it's bullsh!t and thinks you an ass for it.

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Who says that all socialized health insurance would have to work this way?

This is the only way it ever works. California DHS will be taking my GF's grandmother free-and-clear home when she finally passes. And yet at 85 she's always been in good health, and was only in the hospital once a couple of years back for less than a week. It appears she signed the wrong form at one time.
That's what "free" means to the government.
The government taketh and the government taketh away. It doesn't do anything else.


edit: btw, one of my grandfathers died of Parkinsons.

What form is that and what are you talking about? Is she in a nursing home paid for by the state because she has no money? If so then is the state taking her house or the portion she will owe to pay the state back? Or is she in debt to the state beyond the value of the house, in which case the tax payers will be stuck with the bill. Perhaps you are referring to a living will and trust where she could have sheltered the home from the state getting back what it paid for her nursing home.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What form is that and what are you talking about? Is she in a nursing home paid for by the state because she has no money? If so then is the state taking her house or the portion she will owe to pay the state back? Or is she in debt to the state beyond the value of the house, in which case the tax payers will be stuck with the bill. Perhaps you are referring to a living will and trust where she could have sheltered the home from the state getting back what it paid for her nursing home.

I don't know the exact details, except that the state will take at least half of her home when she passes. She still lives in her house and has never been in a nursing home.