# Hospital to charge Dieppe veteran $700 a day



## old medic (20 Jun 2009)

Hospital to charge Dieppe veteran $700 a day
By MICHELE MANDEL
The Toronto Sun 
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/06/18/9835731-sun.html



> OAKVILLE -- Paul Parkin has served this country well.
> 
> At 23, he enlisted to fight in the Second World War, refusing to take no for an answer when he was first turned down because of poor vision. He returned with glasses and they signed him up.
> 
> ...



Hospital threat against WW2 vet 'illegal'
By MICHELE MANDEL 
Toronto Sun 
copy at  http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/06/19/9850886-sun.html



> TORONTO -- Yesterday's front-page tale about a former PoW being threatened with a $700-a-day hospital charge has sparked outrage from readers and is being investigated by the minister of veterans affairs in Ottawa.
> 
> Nova Scotia MP Peter Stoffer, the NDP's veterans affairs critic, raised the plight of 92-year-old Paul Parkin with Minister Greg Thompson yesterday and was assured it would be looked into.
> 
> ...




"Oakville-Trafalgar Memorial hospital"?

I suggest they no longer qualify to hold the name "memorial" and should be officially stripped of that 
dedication.


----------



## FastEddy (20 Jun 2009)

Just another  example of Canadian Justice and Laws.
What can you expect when we have countless Groups, Associations and Lawyers fighting tooth and nail for the rights of  Terrorists, Murderers, Rapist and Child Molestors for their rights and conditions of confinement.
Thank God this matter is coming to the attention of the Public and hopefully something can be done to assist and oblige Mr. Parkin and his Family.
The Veterans of Canada have always taken a back seat, look at how long it took to recognize the Brave Lads of the Merchant Marine who also Served and Died during WWII.

When I read of situations like this it disgusts me and make me wonder, if we are the Worlds biggest Hypocrites.


----------



## dustinm (20 Jun 2009)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> What can you expect when we have countless Groups, Associations and Lawyers fighting tooth and nail for the rights of  Terrorists, Murderers, Rapist and Child Molestors for their rights and conditions of confinement.



In this case it looks like the Groups, Associations, and Lawyers have all rallied in this Veteran's defence. The problem here is the hospital, who instead of charging him $700 a month as they're obliged, they claim they'll charge him $700/day.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jun 2009)

This has nothing at all to do with his status as a veteran. It is symptomatic of the malaise that exists within the public health system and, indeed, within the public sector at large.

One of the primary reasons we have long wait times in hospital emergency rooms is that acute care beds in hospitals are full of people who need long term care. There are insufficient long terms care beds, especially *where* they are *wanted*, and many of those are filled with people who could and should be cared for in their own homes. The first problem we have is that home care is:

•	Poorly paid and, therefore, dependent, mainly, on the new immigrant population, the supply of  which is frequently constrained for political reasons; and

•	*Perceived* to be “free maid service” and, therefore, always on the political chopping block.

But “free” _long day_ (12-18 hours/day) of home care (cooking, cleaning, bathing, walking/exercising and companionship) is – as reported in study after study – cheaper and “better" for the client/patient than is “confinement” in a long term care facility. Even 24/7 nurse supervised home care is reported to be almost always “better” and often cheaper than some long term care options.

There are too few nursing homes in *desirable* locations because profit margins are narrow and owners go where costs – land, especially – can be kept lower.

Many nursing homes have not kept pace with the minimal _qualitative_ expectations of their clients – again because the profit margins are low.

Hospitals are being told to get chronic care patients out of critical care beds. But the hospitals’ chronic care beds are full and the patients in them are on waiting lists for desirable beds in nursing homes.

The hospital is just doing, rather insensitively, what the Minister of Health in Ontario is telling every hospital to do. So let’s put the blame where it belongs: on the taxpayers who are sick and tired of paying more and more and more and more for less and less health care, of all types. We all want Mr. Parkin out of his acute care bed so that a sick person, who *needs* acute care, can be treated. “We” are unwilling to pay the freight for broadly acceptable chronic and long term care in our communities and in our homes. As _Pogo_ said, ”We have met the enemy and he is us.”


----------



## mariomike (20 Jun 2009)

Mr Campbell, may I say, thank you for your always insightful posts. 
And thank you for remembering one of my favorite comic strips!
"We are confronted with insurmountable opportunities." Pogo.


----------



## FastEddy (20 Jun 2009)

Neo Cortex said:
			
		

> In this case it looks like the Groups, Associations, and Lawyers have all rallied in this Veteran's defence. The problem here is the hospital, who instead of charging him $700 a month as they're obliged, they claim they'll charge him $700/day.




I don't think any of the Groups I was referring to have even read this article. Grow up and forget about being clever.


----------



## dustinm (20 Jun 2009)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> I don't think any of the Groups I was referring to have even read this article. Grow up and forget about being clever.



Which groups _were_ you referring to? Protecting human rights is important. That's what lawyers do, even if the people they're representing are less than wholesome. There may be groups in Canada which support terrorists but they're essentially illegal.

This veteran had an issue, he received some media attention, the people involved have highlighted the illegality of the Hospital's conduct, and they're seeking to remedy it. I don't see what terrorists, murderers, or child molesters have to do with that.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jun 2009)

As much as it sucks, E.R.C. hit the nail *precisely* on the head - in the past, Ontario has talked the talk about funding home care and long term care/nursing home care in an effort to reduce the load on the more expensive acute care/hospital care system.  However, hospitals are facing increasing pressures for a number of reasons:
1) I understand their funding isn't growing anywhere near as much as their traffic is growing (not enough doctors=more folks visiting emergency=higher costs to hospitals).
2)  Ontario isn't pumping enough $ into home care (it's sexy holding a news conference at a bright shiny new hospital, but not so much in the living room of someone who's had a hospital bed moved in?), so the services become rationed (you get a minimalist x hours of care a week if you go home, and if you want more, you can pay the private sector) and if someone needs more than just basic follow-up, back to emerg with them (see above).
3)  In some parts of Ontario, there's not enough nursing home beds (because of not enough provincial funding), so because there's no long-term care bed, you wait in an expensive acute-care bed, jacking up the cost pressures on the hospitals even more.

Re:  this:


			
				Neo Cortex said:
			
		

> This veteran had an issue, he received some media attention, the people involved have highlighted *the illegality of the Hospital's conduct*, and they're seeking to remedy it.


4)  Unless the system has changed since my now-dead mom was in the system a while ago, if you refuse an available long-term care bed with the appropriate level of care in your area, Ontario's rules say you pay the per-diem rate to continue to stay in hospital and access expensive acute care.

In this case, the "we" E.R.C. refers to the provincial taxpayer/voter "we" - Ontario, you know what needs to be done.


----------



## dustinm (20 Jun 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Re:  this:4)  Unless the system has changed since my now-dead mom was in the system a while ago, if you refuse an available long-term care bed with the appropriate level of care in your area, Ontario's rules say you pay the per-diem rate to continue to stay in hospital and access expensive acute care.



That is correct, you have to pay if you refuse. However according to the article the maximum they can charge is $1,578 a *month*,



> In fact, a lawyer at the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly says they receive at least one call daily about a *hospital threatening to charge from $500 to $1,500 a day if the senior doesn't take the first available nursing home bed found* for them by the CCAC. In one case, a senior was hit with a $100,000 hospital bill.
> 
> "*It's scare tactics to get them out*," says lawyer Jane Meadus, institutional advocate at ACE, who insists the *bullying is common -- and illegal*.
> 
> Hospitals, she argues, *cannot charge more than $1,578 a month*


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jun 2009)

> “*Hospitals*, she argues, *cannot charge more than $1,578 a month*."




And that, while probably quite true and correct, is utter nonsense. Hospital acute care beds don’t “cost" $1,578.00/month and they aren’t “worth” $1,578.00/month. If you want to know what they “cost’ and what they are “worth” ask an uninsured peson, like a visitor to Canada, without health insurance, who requires hospital care.

As far as I know (and I think my numbers are fairly good and current) about the cheapest acute care bed in Canada costs $3,000.00±/day – without any fancy care, monitoring or medication. An ICU bed with quite extensive monitoring and care can, I believe, bring the bill to $5,000.00+/day. Add some fancy tests and some actual treatment and it is possible to spend $10,000.00/day. That’s what it “costs” the hospital to provide the “care” and that is, therefore, what the bed is “worth.” The $1,578.00/*month* is simply the equivalent of the “value” of a long term care bed in a nursing home. It is a number provided by an especially wasteful group of oxygen thieves called _health care economists_ and “imposed” by stupid, lazy, venal politicians who are terrified of making their constituents pay the “real” freight.

So long as we persist in lying to ourselves about the costs of keeping Mr. Parkin in his *preferred* hospital bed we will, equally, persist in wasting  huge amounts of taxpayers’ dollars which could be and should be much, much better spent – including on “productive" health care outcomes. Mr. Parkin, and hundreds if not thousands of other Ontarians, should be charged $3,000.00±/day, not just $700.00!


----------



## GAP (20 Jun 2009)

What everybody is passing over, in the process of pointing out the stupid funding of "homes" and "homecare", is that not every town/city/community justifies having a nursing home next door. 

ER is right...it's all based on profit margins.

When was the last time you drove 30 miles? Probably to go across town and back. So sonny boy can't/won't get off his ass and visit if it's more than a 10 minute trip?


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jun 2009)

Neo Cortex said:
			
		

> That is correct, you have to pay if you refuse. However according to the article the maximum they can charge is $1,578 a *month*,



Then I must be confused, or the system has changed - I'd be happy to hear from anyone who knows more about Ontario health care, then, because I distinctly remember being told that if you refuse an available long-term care bed, you pay the acute-care per diem, not the long-term care rate, because there already IS a long-term care space available for you to use.  You also end up on the bottom of the waiting list as well, IIRC.  My understanding was that it cost ~$1,500/month to stay in acute care if there was NO long-term care accommodations available.

No free long-term bed+hospital stay=$~1,600/month as a long term care patient
Long-term care bed available+refusal = $700/day as an acute care patient



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So long as we persist in lying to ourselves about the costs of keeping Mr. Parkin in his *preferred* hospital bed we will, equally, persist in wasting  huge amounts of taxpayers’ dollars which could be and should be much, much better spent – including on *“productive" health care outcomes*./quote]
> Not to mention treatment/support options that patients want more than being kept in a big building...


----------



## Armymedic (20 Jun 2009)

Dispite the attention grabbing headlines, I will echo the earlier point of this not being an issue of mistreatment of a veteran, but an issue of chronic, widespread malaise throught our society toward the care of the elderly. The healine gets your attention, but the real issue is the cost of, and the number of people to care for the elderly.

As medicine advances to help us survive longer, our society lacks in supporting those whom care for our elderly.

Ask yourself why long term, out of hospital nurses get paid much less than in hospital nurses. Ask your self why a doctor would be an idiot go into geriatric medicine, or to work for a long term care home....

Actually don't ask, I will tell you: $$$$$, they get paid crap. 

That is the issue.


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Jun 2009)

In Australia Gold Card Veterans get 1st class national treatment for doctors and hospital stays for the rest of their lives at NO cost to them or their families.

Gold Card Vets includes all WW2, Korea, many Viet Nan, and other Vets under 70 yrs of age who have health problems caused from their active service.

OWDU


----------



## armyvern (21 Jun 2009)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> In Australia Gold Card Veterans get 1st class national treatment for doctors and hospital stays for the rest of their lives at NO cost to them or their families.
> 
> Gold Card Vets includes all WW2, Korea, many Viet Nan, and other Vets under 70 yrs of age who have health problems caused from their active service.
> 
> OWDU



Do they get 'no cost' living in assisted living facilities too? Am curious.

The gentlemen in this article also gets free hospital/doctors etc. The issue is that now he's not required to "stay or 'be' " in a hospital ... ergo - no more 'free'.


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Jun 2009)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> In Australia Gold Card Veterans get 1st class national treatment for doctors and hospital stays for the rest of their lives at NO cost to them or their families.
> 
> Gold Card Vets includes all WW2, Korea, many Viet Nan, and other Vets under 70 yrs of age who have health problems caused from their active service.
> 
> OWDU




We have the exact same Card and care, for all of our Veterans, if they qualify for a disability pension through VAC's VIP Program.









http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/providers/sub.cfm?source=pro_infoguide/card

Veteran's Independence Program

He is in receipt of it, as he qualifies for the Residential Care



Australian Gold Card

I am empathetic to this man's plight, however, I believe his family can also do more by stepping up to the plate.

He wants to make it easier for _them_, to see him, not the other way around.



dileas

tess


----------



## agenteagle (21 Jun 2009)

This story doesn't make sense to me. My grandfather who was a world war 2 vet who just pass about a couple a months ago has been in the Trafalgar Lodge seniors home in Oakville. This was paid for by the Veterans Affairs for the last 8 years. I have been there and is super nice and one of the best seniors home. It was super expensive but my grandfather never paid a cent.

People from the VA would come by and ask him if he needed something as they said their wasn't many world war vets left.

Why would my grandfather get this get treatment and this vet get no assistance? They way they took care of  my grandfather was one of the many reason I just joined the CF and the Army.

Is it possible this vet has not contacted the VA to see what they can do for him?


----------



## armyvern (22 Jun 2009)

agenteagle said:
			
		

> This story doesn't make sense to me. My grandfather who was a world war 2 vet who just pass about a couple a months ago has been in the Trafalgar Lodge seniors home in Oakville. This was paid for by the Veterans Affairs for the last 8 years. I have been there and is super nice and one of the best seniors home. It was super expensive but my grandfather never paid a cent.
> 
> People from the VA would come by and ask him if he needed something as they said their wasn't many world war vets left.
> 
> ...



This vet has been offered a place in a residential care facility. But, the place he was offered was "too far" away for his family to visit him so he refused it. So, he is staying in the hospital -taking up a space that someone else could use - so he is being charged the "over & above" fee for continuing to utilize a bed he doesn't need. VAC is paying part of that cost.

I suppose that is the critical difference between your grandfather and this lad - you father was in a seniors home, this man was offered a place in one but refused it.

_Aside:_ 30kms!! If that's "too far" for people to travel to see their dad ... holy crap over; mine's dead - I'd go a few thousand to see him if I could. Happy Father's Day dad.


----------



## 1feral1 (22 Jun 2009)

Let me check in that Vern.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## F.I.R.S.T. (22 Jun 2009)

I think another part of the problem in general regarding long-term care facilities is that more seniors are living longer due to advances in medicine, which is going to cost us all even more as taxpayers in the future. I believe it's going to get much worse when the baby boomers start hitting their 60's and 70's.

That, along with the current recession which means less workers paying taxes into the system and more EI and other benefit payments being paid out of the system, would suggest to me that our tax dollars are to to be even more severely squeezed in the future. I don't believe the predicted $50 Billion deficit will improve anytime soon, especially as I've seen a higher percentage of part-time jobs being posted compared to a couple of years ago. Less disposable income could result in families looking for the cheapest long-term care home for their senior.

With regard to the family in the original article, I agree 30km is not that far to drive but maybe they would be tied to public transit to get there and back. I doubt it as they live in Oakville, but I do know someone living there for whom that is their only option by choice.


----------



## armyvern (22 Jun 2009)

"By choice" - operative word there. Here, public transit is not an option and jaunts of well more than 30km are the norm.

Come to New Brunswick where our vets don't have a nursing home every 30km ... or even one in the next community to theirs ... and NO public transit systems to speak of unless you're in one of the "big" (debateable) cities.

As for "lowest cost" - I don't think that's a factor in this case ... for if it were ... they'd have accepted the offered spot a mere 30km away with that access via public transit if required. Doing that would certainly have been much cheaper than what he's faced with as a daily rate now.


----------



## Armymedic (22 Jun 2009)

Choices are hard to make. Think I said that elsewhere here recently.

If he chooses to refuse a reasonable offer, then he chooses to "pay" the price.

Again I reiterate that this is not an issue of mistreatment of a veteran, but a sign of lack of long term beds and staff.


----------



## the 48th regulator (22 Jun 2009)

His son, the youngest of five children, says he's discovered his father's predicament is not unique among veterans.


Probably because he spent his life savings supporting all five children, which is why he is in this predicament.

If they care for dear old dad, take the remainder and divide it by five.  Pay back dad's kindness by supporting him now.

Then again, an e-mail to Stoffer and the the Mass media cost little.....

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern (22 Jun 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> His son, the youngest of five children, says he's discovered his father's predicament is not unique among *veterans*.
> ...
> ...
> 
> ...



Exactly ... given that this predicament is not limited to veterans, but is applicable to all Canadian elderly.


----------



## F.I.R.S.T. (23 Jun 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Exactly ... given that this predicament is not limited to veterans, but is applicable to all Canadian elderly.



Or any 'special interest' group based on gender, sexual orientation, religion or ethnicity!

If the hospital is applying the rules equally to all, no matter how unfair the rules may seem to those who only read the soundbites, then the hospital is in the right.


----------



## 1feral1 (23 Jun 2009)

Hi Vern,

This is a little long winded, but I beleive it answers many questions.

-------------

Australian Veteran's Gold Card

There are four levels of treatment that may be provided:
   o under Part V treatment may be provided:
   o for any injury suffered or disease contracted regardless of when the
   injury or disease was suffered or contracted. Eligible veterans or the
   eligible dependant of a deceased veteran receive a Repatriation Health
   Card - For All Conditions, better known as a Gold Card;
   o for war or defence-caused injuries or diseases, or certain specified
   conditions such as malignant neoplasia and post-traumatic stress
   disorder. Eligible veterans receive a Repatriation Health Card - For
   Specific Conditions, better known as a White Card;
   o specified treatment to otherwise ineligible veterans, dependants or
   former dependants for certain specified conditions. Eligible veterans
   receive a White Card; and
   o under Part VA of the VEA, Commonwealth and allied veterans and allied
   mariners may receive pharmaceuticals through the Repatriation
   Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Eligible veterans and mariners receive
   a Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Card, better known as an Orange
   Card. The Orange Card provides pharmaceuticals only and does not
   provide eligibility for other treatment.

Background (Cont.)

  
Explanation of the Changes

   These amendments to the VEA will extend eligibility for a Gold Card to
   Australian veterans who are aged 70 or over and who have post-World War
   2 qualifying service.

Definition of Veteran

   `Veteran' is defined as follows in subsection 5C(1) of the VEA:
   veteran means:
   (a) a person (including a deceased person):
   (i) who is, because of section 7, taken to have rendered eligible war
   service; or
   (ii) in respect of whom a pension is, or pensions are, payable under
   subsection 13(6); and
   (b) in Parts III and VIIC also includes a person who is:
   (i) a Commonwealth veteran; or
   (ii) an allied veteran; or
   (iv) an allied mariner.
   Only paragraph (a) of the definition applies to this measure because
   paragraph
   (b) of the definition, which provides for a Commonwealth or allied
   veteran or an allied mariner, applies only to Parts III and VIIC of the
   VEA, and this measure relates to Part V of the VEA.

Definition of Veteran (Cont.)

   A `veteran', as defined in paragraph (a) of the definition in
   subsection 5C(1), is a person with `eligible war service' or a person
   in respect of whom a pension is, or pensions are, payable under
   subsection 13(6) of the VEA. `Eligible war service' is achieved by
   having `operational service'. `Operational service' for post World War
   II periods is defined in sections 6C - 6F and applies only to members
   of the Australian Defence Force or a member of a defence force of a
   Commonwealth or allied country who was domiciled in Australia
   immediately prior to their appointment or enlistment.
   Veterans, covered by paragraph (a) of the definition in 5C(1), who may
   now be eligible for a Gold Card are:
   o members of the `Defence Force' of Australia; or
   o a member of a defence force of a Commonwealth or allied country who
   was domiciled in Australia or an external Territory immediately prior
   to their appointment or enlistment.

Qualifying service

   `Qualifying service' is defined in section 7A of the VEA. The major
   test for qualifying service is that the veteran has, in operations
   against the enemy, "incurred danger from hostile forces of the enemy".
   This is an objective and not a subjective test.
   If a person is determined not to have qualifying service, the person
   has a right to request a review of the determination.
   For such service to constitute post-World War 2 `qualifying service'
   for the purposes of this measure, a person must meet the requirements
   of either subparagraphs 7A(1)(a)(ii), (iii), or (iv) or paragraphs
   7A(1)(b), (c) or (f) of the VEA.
   It should be noted that, in relation to persons who served in a
   Commonwealth or allied defence force as per paragraphs 7A(1)(b) or (c),
   only those who were domiciled in Australia prior to their appointment
   or enlistment are covered by this measure.

Some veterans will be automatically sent a Gold Card

   Many veterans will not need to submit an application for a Gold Card.
   The Department of Veterans' Affairs (the Department) will be able to
   identify from its records, many veterans who will qualify by virtue of
   their age and qualifying service and these veterans will automatically
   be sent a Gold Card before 1 July 2002. (Although, the Gold Card and
   subsequent eligibility for treatment will not commence until 1 July
   2002.)

Application for Gold Card

   Veterans not readily identifiable to the Department will be able to
   complete a new application form for the Gold Card. If the Commission
   has not already made a determination about whether or not the veteran
   has qualifying service, then a determination will be made as a result
   of this application.

Commencement Dates

   It must be noted that, under no circumstances can a veteran become
   eligible for treatment under new subsection 85(4B) before he or she
   meets the criteria set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of new subsection
   85(4B). Nor can a veteran become eligible under new subsection 85(4B)
   before 1 July 2002 as the Act will not commence until 1 July 2002.
   For those eligible veterans who automatically receive a Gold Card in
   the mail before 1 July 2002, their eligibility will commence on and
   from 1 July 2002.
   Eligible veterans who do not automatically receive a Gold Card and who
   are or turn 70 before 1 July 2002 and who apply before 1 July 2002 will
   be eligible from 1 July 2002.
   Eligible veterans who do not automatically receive a Gold Card and who
   are or turn 70 before 1 July 2002 and who apply after 1 July 2002 will
   be eligible from the date their written application is received by the
   Department.
   For those eligible veterans who turn 70 after 1 July 2002, and who
   apply before they turn 70, their eligibility will commence on and from
   the date they turn 70.

                          Explanation of the Items

   Item 1

         Item 1 inserts new subsection 85(4B) after subsection 85(4A). New
         subsection 85(4B) provides the new criteria under which full
         Repatriation health care benefits may be granted to eligible veterans.
         To be eligible under new subsection 85(4B) a person must be a
         `veteran', as defined in paragraph (a) of the definition of `veteran'
         in subsection 5C(1), must be aged 70 years or over and must have
         qualifying service of a kind referred to in either subparagraphs
         7A(1)(a)(ii), (iii) or (iv) or paragraphs 7A(1)(b), (c) or (f). These
         subparagraphs and paragraphs contain post-World War 2 qualifying
         service provisions.
         Paragraph (c) of new subsection 85(4B) provides that a veteran's
         eligibility for treatment cannot commence before either of the
         following have occurred:
         o the Department has notified the veteran, in writing, that he or she
         is or will be eligible for such treatment; or
         o the veteran has notified the Department in writing that he or she
         seeks eligibility for such treatment.

   Item 2

         Item 2 provides that the notifications referred to in new subparagraphs
         85(4B)(c)(i) or (ii) may be given before this Schedule commences. The
         Schedule will commence on 1 July 2002.
         The Note after this item goes on to explain that the notifications may
         be issued before 1 July 2002 so that a veteran can be eligible for
         treatment from the earliest possible date, being 1 July 2002. This will
         ensure that administrative tasks, such as the determination of
         applications, will not delay the commencement of a veteran's
         eligibility for full Repatriation health care benefits. However, a
         veteran must have first satisfied the criteria in new paragraphs
         85(4B)(a) and (b), that is, be aged 70 years or over and have post
         World War 2 qualifying service.
         Where a veteran has been notified by the Department that they will be
         eligible for a Gold Card from 1 July 2002, the veteran will become
         eligible for treatment from 1 July 2002, the commencement date of the
         Act, but not before.

Item 2 (Cont.)

   No veteran can become eligible for treatment by virtue of this Act
   before
   1 July 2002. For example, a person who is aged 70 before 1 July 2002
   and who notifies the Department in May 2002 that they seek eligibility
   for treatment, cannot become eligible before this Act commences, the
   earliest date being 1 July 2002, which is the commencement date of this
   Act.

     __________________________________________________________________


IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Australian Defence Organisation and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email.


-------

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## YZT580 (23 Jun 2009)

For those of you not familiar with the area, 30 km. in that vicinity can be a one hour drive, dependent upon traffic. Popping in for a half an hour or to share a meal is not possible when you have to schedule the drive around rush hour: something not found everywhere in Canada.  The distance is just enough that instead of being part of the routine and remaining part of the family, he becomes a Sunday afternoon obligation: and there is a big difference.  The highway is one of the busiest in all of North America: including the notorious Bay Bridge.  Agreed that this is not a VETS issue per se but, the price of admission to a POW camp should include some priority and I would extend that to anyone who signed up during wartime service.  The System is not supposed to look outside of the selections made or at least the same region and believe me, Etobicoke is not the same region as Oakville.  We are dealing with the same issues and were told this by the case worker when we discussed the priority listing: it is first selection from the options picked.  There are numerous immigrant families (not citizens) who have brought their elderly parents over legitimately under Canadian law and are now placing them into care.  No complaints provided priority is given to those who have earned it as stated above.


----------



## armyvern (23 Jun 2009)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> For those of you not familiar with the area, 30 km. in that vicinity can be a one hour drive, dependent upon traffic. Popping in for a half an hour or to share a meal is not possible when you have to schedule the drive around rush hour: something not found everywhere in Canada.  The distance is just enough that instead of being part of the routine and remaining part of the family, he becomes a Sunday afternoon obligation: and there is a big difference.  The highway is one of the busiest in all of North America: including the notorious Bay Bridge.



Not anywhere else in Canada? So, it's rush hour - so there's a bridge - so you can't always get there for meals. So what??

What do they do up in northern Ontario (or here in NB) with shitty roads ... 1 hour drives (or a lot more!!) on secondary rural roads which are usually poorly plowed in the winter etc., no public transport to speak of ... Give your head a shake. Some places here you have to go 140 kms to hit the closest nursing home.  : That's over a hour trip on a good day - try it in the winter ... I have. You think that I get to pop in for a meal on a whim here? I do it (the drive) because it's my family member - that makes it worth it.

As for this guy being a Vet, he is already subsidized by VAC for that reason - something other Canadians aren't due to his service.

His situation is not unique, not special. There are far more elderly in even worse situations who are not getting a subsidized ride. 

Are you willing, as a Canadian taxpayer, to build a Seniors residence every 30km throughout this country so that no one is in this situation? 30km is diddly squat. His family is lucky. Or would you rather build a nursing home every 10km throughout Canada ... for his families (and every other Senior's family) benefit instead just so no one is 'put out'?


----------



## Kat Stevens (23 Jun 2009)

It's a 50 KM round trip for me to buy a jug of milk and a loaf of bread, 60 KM round trip to be able to see my Mum, or Dad (RIP, Dad) a couple of times a week is a drop in a very big bucket.


----------



## the 48th regulator (23 Jun 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> It's a 50 KM round trip for me to buy a jug of milk and a loaf of bread, 60 KM round trip to be able to see my Mum, or Dad (RIP, Dad) a couple of times a week is a drop in a very big bucket.



Here here,

Phucking rush hour traffic.

YZT580, why don't his five children offer the same type of sacrifice that their dear old dad offered for their own freedom, and drive the 1 hour that it takes.

I was born, raised and served in the GTA, and still live here, your reasoning is a poor excuse for five Canadian Citizens finding a way for them not to pay homage to a Veteran, that gave us our freedom by giving up 5 years of his own.  Even further, they are his children.  They are just trying to not pay out of their pockets, and riding on dear old Dad's coat tails.

dileas

tess


----------



## PMedMoe (23 Jun 2009)

My mother is in a home almost 55 kms from where my Dad lives.  As much as I understand this veteran's desire to stay in his home town and close to family, sometimes it's just not possible.  Take the offered home and get put on a waiting list for the others.  My mother is still on waiting lists for two or three, as far as I know.


----------



## Journeyman (23 Jun 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> here you have to go 140 kms to hit the closest nursing home.  : That's over a hour trip on a good day



Geez girl, you should go easy on that Maserati of yours


----------



## 40below (23 Jun 2009)

They call such patients "bed blockers" in the hospital I volunteer at. People have had cancer surgeries and other procedures cancelled at the last minute and rescheduled months later because somebody is in a bed they don't need to be, meaning the hospital can't cascade people from stepdown into critical care or other beds because someone is refusing to go to an open nursing home bed because it's not the one they want. (And this is a hospital with a Victory Wing for veterans.) 

The only reason this is newsworthy is that it's a veteran doing the bed blocking, which I guess makes it OK or at least excusable to a lot of people, at least those who aren't standing behind this guy waiting for a cancer op or a joint replacement.


----------



## armyvern (24 Jun 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Geez girl, you should go easy on that Maserati of yours



Me to Moncton in 55 ...


----------



## Marauder (24 Jun 2009)

Wow, a Toronto media "story" that's long on manufactured outrage and short on how the real world actually fucking works. If any of these "journalists" spent more than five minutes outside their cubicle, they might actually learn how those of us working in the "heartless bureaucracy" are fighting tooth and nail to provide the best possbile care for seniors (not just vets, EVERY SENIOR), while getting splattered every damn day with political ass-covering, inertia, and downloading of one stupid decision at the cabinet level after another.

As Edward so adroitly pointed out, community care remains the red-headed step child of the healthcare spectrum. This despite mounting and reproducible evidence that properly funded home health care service serves the interest of greater numbers of people in "the system" for the same resources than are used in acute care service delivery models. But funding community care doesn't provide specialists a license to print ungodly sums of money, nor does it let our "elected elite" pose for "shovel in the ground" photos. Community health care isn't, what do you call it, "sexy". So even though it serves the interests of "the people" (i.e. you and me and average Ontario taxpayers), it doesn't serve the interests of "the *right* people".

As sparse as those pesky "fact" things are in this article, it sounds like Oakville Trafalgar is possibly in a massive bed crunch if the CCAC is looking for any and every available LTC bed in a reasonable radius. In 'normal' circumstances, if Mr. Parkin's three choices were in Oakville, he would have waited in that acute care hospital bed until one of his choices was available. If there was a designated veteran's bed in any of those three choices, Mr. Parkin would already be at a huge advantage over non-vets (like say someone who had even poorer eyesight, and was told to stay home and help on the family farm, to meet the massive need for foodstuffs to help maintain the war effort...you know, one of the lesser-deserving types); that bed set aside for vets would cut his wait from up to a year OR MORE down to months. 

But say the hospital is in a 1A crisis status. This means the hospital has an "occupancy rate" of over 105%, mostly due to Alternate Level of Care patients filling beds that are meant for treating acutely ill people (provided they have an OHIP card or are a refugee receiving Interim Federal Health funding). 

ALC is the designation for patients like Mr. Parkin; they have been ministered back to a manageable level of health (or less sickness), and their needs should be met in another setting, mostly long term care (aka "the nursing home"). This is because while their acuity does not *require* the level of treatment/intervention that acute care beds are designed to provide, they cannot, however, be properly managed at home, even with CCAC putting in the maximum time for care (pay real close attention here) THAT THE LEGISTLATION IN THE LONG TERM CARE ACT CAPS THEM AT PROVIDING FOR THESE CLIENTS. When there is a slowdown of clients being admitted from hospital to LTC via the usual waitlist process, mostly because families never do the rational thing and make at least one choice with a short waitlist, then the hospital gets into a real dilemma. This total lack of turnover in acute care beds (which is how the system has been designed to work up till now) leads to undesirable things such as,for example, postponing or canceling altogether elective or even non-emergency surgeries, and/or having to divert ambulances from ER. Both of these things happen when there are no more beds (both in the physical sense, and in the nursing staffing sense) to admit people into. This of course lead to us "regular taxpayers" screaming bloody murder about this. This makes the government of the day and hospital boards of directors nervous and queasy.

So, sometime in these crunches, the CCACs are "asked" by MOHTLC to work with hospitals to find any appropriate LTC bed they can for these ALC clients, to permit a crisis placement of the client into LTC. Now again, PAY ATTENTION HERE. This crisis placement does not mean the patient will be staying there in that bed forever. They still have the RIGHT to be placed on the waitlist for their original choices. That's right, if Mr. Parkin had accepted the bed outside of Oakville, he could have stayed on a waitlist to go back to an LTC facility in Oakville of his choice, waiting in an environment that would have provided for his every need that he or his biological offspring (kids denotes a member of a family unit that gives a shit about their progenitor, as Tess has highlighted) could not provide for himself. The DIFFERENCE is that instead he and his family have CHOSEN to wait in a bed in that Oakville hospital that could be used to care for someone after their cancer surgery, or after a non-urgent exploratory surgery that might have found that cancer even faster, or for someone who could have stayed near home to recover from their heart attack instead of having their ambulance diverted to an ER who knows where that is open because that ER's available beds are maybe only at 95% occupancy.

So you can rant and rave about the necessarily evil decisions made by those "heartless bureaucrats" that are busting their collective ass each and every day to keep a system designed and funded by politicians who don't have clue one about health or health care running along as best they can. Feel free to spew rightous indignation and deride them for making the hard, if not impossible, decisions each minute they are on the clock. But keep in mind the next time you are waiting two years for an elective surgery that YOU ARE SUPPORTING THAT by making ignorant comments in support of your fellow citizens (veteran or not) choosing to act in a selfish manner that throws the idea of the common good out the window. 

Once that realization hits, you can then call the O2 wasting babykisser that "represents" you to tell him/her/it to spend more time figuring out a long term solution to properly funding and supporting health care, and less time thinking about what meaningless, short sighted bread and circuses they can buy you in the next four years to get their sorry worthless ass re-elected.


----------



## F.I.R.S.T. (24 Jun 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Some places here you have to go 140 kms to hit the closest nursing home.



Fantastic accuracy and range. What weapons system are you using?


----------



## GAP (24 Jun 2009)

Marauder said:
			
		

> Wow, a Toronto media "story" that's long on manufactured outrage and short on how the real world actually fucking works. If any of these "journalists" spent more than five minutes outside their cubicle, they might actually learn how those of us working in the "heartless bureaucracy" are fighting tooth and nail to provide the best possbile care for seniors (not just vets, EVERY SENIOR), while getting splattered every damn day with political ass-covering, inertia, and downloading of one stupid decision at the cabinet level after another.
> 
> And All the stuff inbetween these two paragraphs included
> 
> Once that realization hits, you can then call the O2 wasting babykisser that "represents" you to tell him/her/it to spend more time figuring out a long term solution to properly funding and supporting health care, and less time thinking about what meaningless, short sighted bread and circuses they can buy you in the next four years to get their sorry worthless ass re-elected.



You really shouldn't dodge around the issue, just say what you are thinking.... ;D

(ps: I happen to agree with you, good explanation...)


----------



## jacksparrow (24 Jun 2009)

Some good points have been raised here so far, but am going to add my 2 pence worth.

It's not like they are throwing this geezer out on the street, they are offering him another home in Etobicoke for crying out loud. Now for those that know the area, that is like a 2-30mins drive away.

Could you imagine if every Vet starts doing the same and denying people that really need the beds? I relate this to people that go to restaurants, finish their food but sit there and watch people in-line waiting for a table :-(

There are some that think being a Vet gives them carte blanche to do whatever


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Jun 2009)

jacksparrow said:
			
		

> Some good points have been raised here so far, but am going to add my 2 pence worth.
> 
> It's not like they are throwing this geezer out on the street, they are offering him another home in Etobicoke for crying out loud. Now for those that know the area, that is like a 2-30mins drive away.
> 
> ...



And then, there are arseholes like you that refer to a vet who served, was wounded and a POW protecting the freedom you enjoy today as "geezers".  

Anyways...on top of wanting to kick JackassSparrow in the 'nads right now, I have 2 points.

1.  I feel for the man, who just wants to remain in his hometown for his remaining days, and hope he can get some resolution he is happy with.

2.  What the hell is wrong with this son of his?  Can't he do something like, gee...put a wheelchair ramp in??



> For the last two years, Parkin had been living with his youngest son and daughter-in-law until kidney failure required him to be hospitalized at Oakville-Trafalgar on Jan. 3. They almost lost him, but with the help of a feeding tube, he's regained enough of his health that he was ready to be discharged a few months ago.
> 
> An assessment by the Community Care Access Centre determined that Parkin couldn't go back home to his son because he's now confined to a wheelchair, requires constant care and the house isn't wheelchair accessible. So CCAC began looking for a spot in a long-term care facility and Parkin's family was assured that as a veteran, he would receive priority.



For the love of God man, how about being part of the solution for your own father instead of being part of the problem you are actually complaining about?  

I feel for this man, who must feel like a 'hot potato'.


----------



## PMedMoe (24 Jun 2009)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What the hell is wrong with this son of his?  Can't he do something like, gee...put a wheelchair ramp in??





> An assessment by the Community Care Access Centre determined that Parkin couldn't go back home to his son because he's now confined to a wheelchair, *requires constant care* and the house isn't wheelchair accessible.



Maybe you missed the part that I've put in bold?
There are more requirements to home care for this vet than a wheelchair ramp.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Jun 2009)

Actually I did miss that part (thanks BTW) but even if I hadn't of, I don't know SFA about the requirements for a gent like this.  I guess it wouldn't be possible for in-home care?

In the end, I still hope whatever solution is put in place is one that *he* is happy with.


----------



## jacksparrow (25 Jun 2009)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Actually I did miss that part (thanks BTW) but even if I hadn't of, I don't know SFA about the requirements for a gent like this.  I guess it wouldn't be possible for in-home care?
> 
> In the end, I still hope whatever solution is put in place is one that *he* is happy with.



Yes Wanker....looks like you miss a lot before you spout crap don't ya? Get your head out of your bum nincompoop.  : The term "geezer" where I come from originally refers to a guy, dude or buddy, but I don't expect you to know that.

Yes he served this same country am serving now as a non-born Canadian, but does that mean he should deprive others that really need that bed? I feel for him, but again they are offering him a place down the road.


----------

