The New York Times is the world’s best newspaper. I learned that in Journalism school almost 40 years ago. It is still true today. Like all newspapers, it is at risk of failure because of the revolutionary shift in advertising revenues caused by the rise in the internet. I never subscribed to the New York Times, because I was a Midwesterner and it just didn’t seem practical. Well the NY Times is now part of my daily reading, because they have perhaps the best online newspaper: http://nytimes.com. I sure hopes the webpage helps the newspaper survive.
I was newly impressed with the NY Times this morning when I read their analysis of the two health care proposals in our Congress, the House version and the Senate version. I think it is a must read for anyone concerned about the health care debate, or about the health of brain injured people. That article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/health/policy/22health.html?hp If you are required to register to get to this page, by all means, register. In fact, make the http://nytimes.com your home page, I did.
This article has the most comprehensive explanation of the two bills in Congress and a simple and reasoned explanation of which aspects of each bill should be retained. We hope that our Senators are capable of seeing the big picture and allowing small compromises to get this historic legislation passed. We hope our progressive colleagues in the House don’t blow up the coalition on Health Care Reform over a liberal agenda that can wait for another day.
Read the details. This comes under the category of things you need to know as a citizen.
Health Care Reform Gets Over its Biggest Hurdle
Congratulations to Harry Reid for getting a health care reform bill thru the Senate. After 50 years of effort, the Democrats have almost done it. The next step is reconciliation with the House version and even though the outcome isn’t perfect, it is a huge step. While President Barack Obama has gotten criticism from every direction in the process, he must get high grades for this achievement. When he signs a Health Care Reform bill into law, it will be a moment in history as historic as his election.
I admit that there have been times in the last few weeks when I wondered if the special interest control of our legislatures might ultimately mean that the American system of making laws was broken. But Obama, Reid and Pelosi have found a way to get this done. The found a way to get it done despite the most intensive lobbying effort in history and a complete blockade of legislative cooperation by the Republicans.
Is this the bill that would have best for me? Of course not. I would have preferred the Medicare buy in at 55 because of course, I am 56. Is it the bill that would have been best for all Americans? Probably not. But is it a tremendous step towards coverage for all? Yes it is. After 50 years of nothing, after the collapse of the last major attempt led by two of the great politicians of the last 50 years, Bill and Hillary Clinton, to get this bill out of the Senate is remarkable.
There is some sausage making left over, but when it is done, millions will have health coverage that didn’t, and even though it isn’t everyone, it is still millions whose will have access to medical care.
I admit that there have been times in the last few weeks when I wondered if the special interest control of our legislatures might ultimately mean that the American system of making laws was broken. But Obama, Reid and Pelosi have found a way to get this done. The found a way to get it done despite the most intensive lobbying effort in history and a complete blockade of legislative cooperation by the Republicans.
Is this the bill that would have best for me? Of course not. I would have preferred the Medicare buy in at 55 because of course, I am 56. Is it the bill that would have been best for all Americans? Probably not. But is it a tremendous step towards coverage for all? Yes it is. After 50 years of nothing, after the collapse of the last major attempt led by two of the great politicians of the last 50 years, Bill and Hillary Clinton, to get this bill out of the Senate is remarkable.
There is some sausage making left over, but when it is done, millions will have health coverage that didn’t, and even though it isn’t everyone, it is still millions whose will have access to medical care.
NFL and Brain Injury
From the NFL and its Players Association:
The words read good on paper. I will start to believe the NFL when I don’t see players going back into the same game that they suffer a concussion. We can’t know the severity of a concussion the same day as the injury because brain injury is a “process not an event”. See http://blog.tbilaw.com
NFLPA ANNOUNCES FORMATION OF
CONCUSSION AND TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY COMMITTEE
For the past few months, the NFL Players Association, led by Executive Director DeMaurice Smith, President Kevin Mawae, Medical Director Dr. Thom Mayer and Arizona Cardinals wide receiver Sean Morey, has been working on compiling support for a special committee to address the issue of head trauma among professional football players. Today, the NFLPA announces the formation of the Concussion and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Committee.
The NFLPA Concussion and TBI Committee will address two fundamental, timely and critical issues facing professional football players: first, the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of concussions and TBI in active players; and second, the long-term cumulative effects of isolated or repetitive TBI in NFL players as patients in order to discover how these effects can be reduced and eliminated.
DeMaurice Smith issued a statement saying, “The health, safety and welfare of our players is never just an issue of collective bargaining. While we have already raised this issue in the CBA negotiations and Dr. Mayer participated in the first meeting, this committee and the work we do around the health and safety of our players will extend much further. The creation of this committee was designed to bring both independence and expertise to the ongoing analysis of serious head injuries so we can better protect our players. I am confident that Sean Morey and Dr. Mayer will lead this team to gather more comprehensive data and provide real solutions for our players, both past and present.”
The Concussion and TBI Committee will be co-chaired by Sean Morey and Dr. Mayer. It will also be comprised of other active players, former players, researchers in the field of TBI and physicians with expertise in neurological injuries.
Joanna Comfort
Communications Coordinator, Communications
1133 20th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(P) (202) 756-9170
(F) (202) 756-9310
NFLPLAYERS.COM
The words read good on paper. I will start to believe the NFL when I don’t see players going back into the same game that they suffer a concussion. We can’t know the severity of a concussion the same day as the injury because brain injury is a “process not an event”. See http://blog.tbilaw.com
Medical Malpractice – Consumers versus Corporate Interests
In my previous blog I asked the question: Are Republican’s immune from Medical Malpractice? Of course they are not. Are consumers immune to big business and its institutional greed and corruption? Sadly not. Yet the Republican’s are all about the politics of converting the interests of Big Business into scare tactics aimed at average people.
Let us take an average person. Francisco Torres was a retired assembly line worked with a cancerous tumor on his left kidney. Sounds like the kind of person the anti-health care reform lobby has been courting. Fear of death panels. Cuts to medicare. A year ago, Mr. Torres would have probably thought that tort reform was good for the country and would lower his medical costs.
Not any longer. When Mr. Torres went in for surgery to remove the diseased kidney, the doctor cut out his healthy one. See the Press Enterprise News: http://www.pe.com/localnews/sbcounty/stories/PE_News_Local_S_kidney03.46a9e43.html According to the pe.com:
When you listen to the outraged rhetoric about how trial lawyers are ruining the country, you don’t hear the stories of people like Mr. Torres. Thus, in my upcoming blogs, I will tell some of those stories. You the reader get to choose. Protect Big Business from the predator trial lawyers, or protect you from the abuses of neglect and greed.
Let us take an average person. Francisco Torres was a retired assembly line worked with a cancerous tumor on his left kidney. Sounds like the kind of person the anti-health care reform lobby has been courting. Fear of death panels. Cuts to medicare. A year ago, Mr. Torres would have probably thought that tort reform was good for the country and would lower his medical costs.
Not any longer. When Mr. Torres went in for surgery to remove the diseased kidney, the doctor cut out his healthy one. See the Press Enterprise News: http://www.pe.com/localnews/sbcounty/stories/PE_News_Local_S_kidney03.46a9e43.html According to the pe.com:
A retired assembly line worker is suing a Riverside hospital and doctor, claiming that they removed his healthy kidney instead of the diseased one. He has to endure dialysis every three days to stay alive.Guess what? The hospital is now denying all claims in the civil suit. According to PE.com: “Hospital officials have denied responsibility. Neither Wahlstrom nor representatives from Parkview Community Hospital returned telephone calls made Tuesday and Wednesday.” If there is anything about medical malpractice claims that drives up the cost of medical bills, which almost all studies have disproved, it is the cost of frivilous and obstructionist defenses to those claims.
On July 14, Dr. H. Erik Wahlstrom, who was performing surgery at Parkview Community Hospital Medical Center, was to remove Francisco Torres’ left kidney, Torres’ lawsuit states. Instead, Wahlstrom removed Torres’ healthy right kidney before realizing the mistake, said Shirley Watkins, Torres’ Los Angeles attorney.
Shortly after surgery, Wahlstrom told Torres’ daughter what he had done, Watkins said. Torres said through an interpreter that Wahlstrom apologized to him. But Torres, who does not speak or read English, said he was still groggy from the surgery and has little recollection of what was said.
When you listen to the outraged rhetoric about how trial lawyers are ruining the country, you don’t hear the stories of people like Mr. Torres. Thus, in my upcoming blogs, I will tell some of those stories. You the reader get to choose. Protect Big Business from the predator trial lawyers, or protect you from the abuses of neglect and greed.
Trial Lawyers Keep us Safe – Without Bloodshed
The core principle of the Republican Right is to get rid of the trial lawyers. One must ask why is this so important to Republicans. Are Republican’s immune from Medical Malpractice? Are Republican’s immune from car wrecks? Do sleepy truck drivers only run over Democrats?
Of course not. The reality is that the Republicans are the party of Big Business and the Democrats are the party of consumers. Class is the real issue in all politics but especially American politics. What is unusual I suppose about American politics is that the rhetoric used by the Republicans attracts so many naturally conservative poor people. They are somehow convinced that they are freer with corporate welfare than with social programs. They are somehow convinced, despite the overwhelming evidence, that health care would be cheaper and better if doctors didn’t have to be accountable to juries for their screw ups.
Medical malpractice cases are not about frivolous lawsuits. In no area of law are there fewer frivolous claims than in medical malpractice. In order for a trial lawyer like myself to sue a doctor, has to commit at least $100,000 of the lawyer’s own money. With the attitudes of juries about medical malpractice, no sane lawyer would ever sue a doctor unless the conduct complained of was outrageously bad and the result catastrophic. The words “frivolous lawsuit” and “medical malpractice” do not belong in the same sentence. Just do the math. We lawyers are supposed to be so calculating. Would we risk $100,000 on something laughable?
What does that have to do with 9/11? Well the Republican’s are the ones who also think that every problem in our world requires the intervention of the American military. I have two confessions for my readers. One, I grew up liberal Democrat at the time we were drafting American boys do die in Vietnam. I was one of those at risk of being drafted. I struggled with what to do about that, whether to become an illegal immigrant to Canada, go to jail or serve in a conflict I knew was morally reprehensible. The first step in that decision was to file for conscientious objector status which I did before I graduated from high school. I didn’t get drafted because my draft lottery number was 252.
My second confession is that I listen to NPR, usually On Point with Tom Ashbrook. http://www.onpointradio.org/ I listen to On Point and I contrast this shows in depth treatment of the issues of our time against the experiences of my life. I reached adulthood knowing that war was wrong. I reached adulthood also having read all of the books of James Michener, particularly Caravans, a book about Afghanistan. I reached 9/11 very concerned about the ongoing domestic war in Israel, a war that seemed as if it would never end.
On 9/16/2001 I sat in the pew of my church, contemplating what had happened, contrasted against who I was, how I became that person and what I knew about history. What I concluded as the pastor was concluding his remarks was that regardless of how “war like” the attacks of 9/11 had been, we could not fight a war to prevent it.
I got up and said: “You can’t start a war to catch a criminal.” What we got instead was a War on Terror. That war has worked about as successfully as our War on Drugs. That war makes about as much sense as the Depression Era American government declaring war on Indiana to find John Dillinger.
While I am morally opposed to modern war, I do understand war’s necessity. World War II was necessary despite all of the horrible atrocities committed by all sides in its prosecution. But to have a war, you have to have an opposing government or force against whom to direct a legitimate military campaign. We had that in World War II of course. We even had it in Korea and Vietnam. But who did we declare war against in Afghanistan? Osama Bin Laden?
One of the lessons we should have learned in Vietnam is that it is very hard to win a war against an opponent you can’t find. When that opponent is a criminal, not a government, it is virtually impossible. Criminals know how to hide. That is one of the things they do best. They are not the German army or a Japanese aircraft carrier. They commit the crime and then they disappear.
If you occupy the country you are invading, they either hide better or move across the border. Certainly, if you don’t catch them by surprise, you will never catch them. It is much easier for an individual to escape than it is for a whole army to pursue them. While there might be certain ways to use military forces covertly to catch such a criminal, an invading force of 100,000 men isn’t it.
You cannot avoid events like 9/11 by invading a country. 9/11 was not launched from Afghanistan. It was an operation where the training by its perpetrators was done in Florida. If the Taliban had not provided safe haven for Bin Laden, he would have hid somewhere else, like Florida or Hamburg. There are no preemptive military strikes against criminals. As helpless as we may feel, the only defense against criminals is detective work. And like the crime itself, detective work is best done with stealth, not invasions.
When the detectives are done with their work, then it is time for the lawyers to prove the case. It is what a nation of laws does. It is our laws and our lawyers that have made America different.
As we look towards the serious issues our government must decide, we must remember that our legal system is what preserves our special place in the world, not our corporate wealth. We American’s must choose to return to a government of laws for the people, by the people, not a government controlled by corporate greed and the preeminence of our Military Industrial complex.
Of course not. The reality is that the Republicans are the party of Big Business and the Democrats are the party of consumers. Class is the real issue in all politics but especially American politics. What is unusual I suppose about American politics is that the rhetoric used by the Republicans attracts so many naturally conservative poor people. They are somehow convinced that they are freer with corporate welfare than with social programs. They are somehow convinced, despite the overwhelming evidence, that health care would be cheaper and better if doctors didn’t have to be accountable to juries for their screw ups.
Medical malpractice cases are not about frivolous lawsuits. In no area of law are there fewer frivolous claims than in medical malpractice. In order for a trial lawyer like myself to sue a doctor, has to commit at least $100,000 of the lawyer’s own money. With the attitudes of juries about medical malpractice, no sane lawyer would ever sue a doctor unless the conduct complained of was outrageously bad and the result catastrophic. The words “frivolous lawsuit” and “medical malpractice” do not belong in the same sentence. Just do the math. We lawyers are supposed to be so calculating. Would we risk $100,000 on something laughable?
What does that have to do with 9/11? Well the Republican’s are the ones who also think that every problem in our world requires the intervention of the American military. I have two confessions for my readers. One, I grew up liberal Democrat at the time we were drafting American boys do die in Vietnam. I was one of those at risk of being drafted. I struggled with what to do about that, whether to become an illegal immigrant to Canada, go to jail or serve in a conflict I knew was morally reprehensible. The first step in that decision was to file for conscientious objector status which I did before I graduated from high school. I didn’t get drafted because my draft lottery number was 252.
My second confession is that I listen to NPR, usually On Point with Tom Ashbrook. http://www.onpointradio.org/ I listen to On Point and I contrast this shows in depth treatment of the issues of our time against the experiences of my life. I reached adulthood knowing that war was wrong. I reached adulthood also having read all of the books of James Michener, particularly Caravans, a book about Afghanistan. I reached 9/11 very concerned about the ongoing domestic war in Israel, a war that seemed as if it would never end.
On 9/16/2001 I sat in the pew of my church, contemplating what had happened, contrasted against who I was, how I became that person and what I knew about history. What I concluded as the pastor was concluding his remarks was that regardless of how “war like” the attacks of 9/11 had been, we could not fight a war to prevent it.
I got up and said: “You can’t start a war to catch a criminal.” What we got instead was a War on Terror. That war has worked about as successfully as our War on Drugs. That war makes about as much sense as the Depression Era American government declaring war on Indiana to find John Dillinger.
While I am morally opposed to modern war, I do understand war’s necessity. World War II was necessary despite all of the horrible atrocities committed by all sides in its prosecution. But to have a war, you have to have an opposing government or force against whom to direct a legitimate military campaign. We had that in World War II of course. We even had it in Korea and Vietnam. But who did we declare war against in Afghanistan? Osama Bin Laden?
One of the lessons we should have learned in Vietnam is that it is very hard to win a war against an opponent you can’t find. When that opponent is a criminal, not a government, it is virtually impossible. Criminals know how to hide. That is one of the things they do best. They are not the German army or a Japanese aircraft carrier. They commit the crime and then they disappear.
If you occupy the country you are invading, they either hide better or move across the border. Certainly, if you don’t catch them by surprise, you will never catch them. It is much easier for an individual to escape than it is for a whole army to pursue them. While there might be certain ways to use military forces covertly to catch such a criminal, an invading force of 100,000 men isn’t it.
You cannot avoid events like 9/11 by invading a country. 9/11 was not launched from Afghanistan. It was an operation where the training by its perpetrators was done in Florida. If the Taliban had not provided safe haven for Bin Laden, he would have hid somewhere else, like Florida or Hamburg. There are no preemptive military strikes against criminals. As helpless as we may feel, the only defense against criminals is detective work. And like the crime itself, detective work is best done with stealth, not invasions.
When the detectives are done with their work, then it is time for the lawyers to prove the case. It is what a nation of laws does. It is our laws and our lawyers that have made America different.
As we look towards the serious issues our government must decide, we must remember that our legal system is what preserves our special place in the world, not our corporate wealth. We American’s must choose to return to a government of laws for the people, by the people, not a government controlled by corporate greed and the preeminence of our Military Industrial complex.
Bush versus the Trial Lawyers
It is 9/11 today and a good time to reflect on the direction our country has taken this decade and the role trial lawyers can play in our safety and future. In his address on health care reform to the Joint Session of Congress on September 9, 2009, President Barack Obama gave a game changing speech about the overwhelming need for health care reform in the U.S. Yet two incidents from that speech standout in the media and public perception of what he said. Those two incidents were the “you lie” comment from Congressman Joe Who and the Republican enthusiasm for Barack’s discussion of medical malpractice reform. In coming blogs, we will address the high points of what he said about health care reform, but on 9/11, I think it is important to defend the role of American Civil Justice lawyers, in contrast to the havoc that the Republican’s have left us over the last decade.
The Republicans want to blame it all on the trial lawyers. We liberal Democrats want to blame the Republicans for destroying American legitimacy in the world in their endless pursuit of Corporations first and their politics of being tough on national security. Keith Olberman on his show Countdown before the President’s speech said the major issue in the domestic politics of the last 100 years was whether our government was on the side of the Corporations or the people. The competing interests are clear, but it is not just domestic politics which illustrate the danger of choosing Corporate interests over people. In our so called “War on Terror” we chose Corporate warfare (or was that Welfare) versus lawyers.
Two detours on my career otherwise devoted to brain injury advocacy over the last two decades arose out of the events of September 11, 2001. The first, I became an outspoken critic of our first War on Terror and the invasion of Afghanistan. The second, I became part of the first lawsuit filed against the Airlines for 9/11. Those two footnotes to my career do illustrate why we need a lot more Civil Justice and a lot less Corporate first government.
My first public statement about the War in Afghanistan was spoken before my church congregation the Sunday after 9/11. I stood up, without an invitation, and reminded my fellow parishioners of our church’s commitment to peace during a Vietnam, a commitment that had shaped my thinking as a teen, had a major influence on who I became as an adult. I told them that you do not start a war to catch a criminal. Punishing a criminal is a job for laws and lawyers, not armies of crusaders.
I wrote these words about Afghanistan on October 30, 2001:
What does this story have to do with Medical Malpractice reform and the Republican commitment to Corporate World? I will discuss further my actions as a lawyer in 2001 in my coming blogs, and the reader can decide whether the trial lawyers or the Republicans chart the course our country should follow. Know this though, our mess in Afghanistan is getting deeper and the liberal Democratic president of whom I am so proud is at a crossroads decision point to send another 30,000 troops their to pacify the country. If he listens to the politicians and generals and not the historians, our attempted occupation of the unoccupiable country, may be remembered in infamy as long as Genghis Kahn.
Next. You don’t start a war to catch a criminal. That is what the laws, lawyers and the Courts are for.
The Republicans want to blame it all on the trial lawyers. We liberal Democrats want to blame the Republicans for destroying American legitimacy in the world in their endless pursuit of Corporations first and their politics of being tough on national security. Keith Olberman on his show Countdown before the President’s speech said the major issue in the domestic politics of the last 100 years was whether our government was on the side of the Corporations or the people. The competing interests are clear, but it is not just domestic politics which illustrate the danger of choosing Corporate interests over people. In our so called “War on Terror” we chose Corporate warfare (or was that Welfare) versus lawyers.
Two detours on my career otherwise devoted to brain injury advocacy over the last two decades arose out of the events of September 11, 2001. The first, I became an outspoken critic of our first War on Terror and the invasion of Afghanistan. The second, I became part of the first lawsuit filed against the Airlines for 9/11. Those two footnotes to my career do illustrate why we need a lot more Civil Justice and a lot less Corporate first government.
My first public statement about the War in Afghanistan was spoken before my church congregation the Sunday after 9/11. I stood up, without an invitation, and reminded my fellow parishioners of our church’s commitment to peace during a Vietnam, a commitment that had shaped my thinking as a teen, had a major influence on who I became as an adult. I told them that you do not start a war to catch a criminal. Punishing a criminal is a job for laws and lawyers, not armies of crusaders.
I wrote these words about Afghanistan on October 30, 2001:
As the political consensus which propelled American into war starts to fade, the Republican’s and their talk show hosts, remind us of the promise of Bush and Rumsfeld that this would be a long war, that American’s will have to be patient.
I remember an amused arrogance when the Russians invaded Afghanistan circa 1979, somehow clearly remembering James Michener’s portrayal of the country. I am rereading Caravan’s (a James Michener novel copyright of 1963). It is quite prophetic. A passage worth reading with care:
“In Afghanistan, almost every building bears jagged testimony to some outrage. Scars still remained of Alexander the Great or Genghis Kahn or Tamerlane or Nadir Shah of Persia. Was there ever a a land so overrun by terror and devastation as Afghanistan.”
Then later, his character, the Afghanie engineer with the runaway American wife, tells the narrator, an American diplomat, this story of the ancient oasis where they are spending a night.
“Genghis Kahn destroyed Afghanistan. In one assault on the City he killed nearly a million people. That’s not a poetic figure. It’s fact. In Kandahar the slaughter was enormous. Some refugees fled to this caravanserai… this room. They were sure the Mongols wouldn’t find them here, but they did.
“First Genghis erected a pole right through the roof. Then the Mongols took their prisoners and tied their hands. Laid the first batch on he floor over there and lashed their feet to the pole. All around. That’s why the pillar is twelve feet across.
“They just kept on laying the prisoners down, one layer on top of the other until they reached the roof. They didn’t kill a single person that day, the Mongols, but they kept soldiers stationed with sticks to push back the tongues when they protruded. And while the pillar of people was still living – those that hadn’t been pressed to death – they called in masons to plaster over the whole affair. If you’d scrape away the plaster you’d find skulls. But the government takes a dim view of scraping. Its a kind of national monument. The Caravanserai of the Tongues.”
“I tell you these things only to explain the terrible burdens under which Afghanistan has labored. Our major cities have been destroyed so many times. Do you know what I expect … seriously. When a thousand men like me have rebuilt Kabul and made it as great as The City once was, either the Russians or the Americans will come with their airplanes and bomb it to rubble. “
I wonder, does George W. Bush believe that we American’s can win a war of patience against such a people? Perhaps we can declare victory when we have evened the score by killing 5,001 Afghanies. If not, Osama bin Laden’s goal of an Islamic uprising, deposing all western leaning Arab monarchies, will be built upon a foundation of silenced but never forgotten Afghanie tongue.
What does this story have to do with Medical Malpractice reform and the Republican commitment to Corporate World? I will discuss further my actions as a lawyer in 2001 in my coming blogs, and the reader can decide whether the trial lawyers or the Republicans chart the course our country should follow. Know this though, our mess in Afghanistan is getting deeper and the liberal Democratic president of whom I am so proud is at a crossroads decision point to send another 30,000 troops their to pacify the country. If he listens to the politicians and generals and not the historians, our attempted occupation of the unoccupiable country, may be remembered in infamy as long as Genghis Kahn.
Next. You don’t start a war to catch a criminal. That is what the laws, lawyers and the Courts are for.
Junior lifeguards mourn death of girl hit by boat
Brain injuries and boating? Yes, it is a serious risk factor. We have had cases of people being run over by boats, people with partial drowings, even people who have been injured by the torque of the wash from the back of a boat engine. Summer and boating comes with serious risk. Beyond the obvious of wearing a life jacket and avoiding alcohol when operating a boat, there are other things to watch for, including serious risk of carbon monoxide poisoning.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
http://tbilaw.com
http://subtlebraininjury.com
http://codamage.com
Date: 7/15/2009 3:45 PM
HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif. (AP) — Lifeguards mourned and left flowers Wednesday at a makeshift memorial for an 11-year-old girl who was run down by a boat while training to be a lifeguard.
Allyssa Squirrell (Skwehr-EHL’) of Laguna Hills died in surgery Tuesday. An autopsy Wednesday concluded that she died of deep cuts to her back and her left leg, Orange County Sheriff’s Department spokesman Jim Amormino said.
“In all probability, she was struck by the boat’s propeller,” Amormino said.
Junior lifeguards showed up at the city’s marine safety headquarters to remember Allysa. Mourners left flowers, a candle, a pot filled with sand and shells, a pink dolphin-shaped balloon and a message reading “God bless you sweet child,” Amormino said.
Noah Glass, 11, wore his training uniform of white T-shirt and red trunks. He came with his father to place flowers.
“She was really nice and funny. We always played games together,” he told KABC-TV.
Allyssa was with a group of 20 to 25 junior lifeguards who were training beyond the surfline at Huntington Beach when she was struck at about 3 p.m. Tuesday.
The youngsters were practicing speed drops, jumping off the end of a moving boat in pairs. Allyssa and another girl successfully jumped, Amormino said.
The 28-foot boat circled back to pick up the junior lifeguards when it struck Allyssa. The other girl was not hurt, Amormino said.
The boat’s pilot apparently didn’t see the girls because they had not yet swum back to the main group and the seas were choppy, Amormino said.
Allyssa was halfway through an eight-week lifeguard course. Training was suspended Wednesday and grief counselors were made available for the trainees, Amormino said. The program was to resume Thursday.
The boat was piloted by Lt. Greg Crow, a 32-year veteran of the Huntington Beach Marine Safety Division who held a public safety medal of valor, Amormino said.
There also were two instructors, one in the boat and one in the water.
Crow, 53, was traumatized by the accident and is on leave, Amormino said.
He voluntarily submitted to a toxicology test that found no evidence of alcohol or drugs in his body, Amormino said.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
http://tbilaw.com
http://subtlebraininjury.com
http://codamage.com
Date: 7/15/2009 3:45 PM
HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif. (AP) — Lifeguards mourned and left flowers Wednesday at a makeshift memorial for an 11-year-old girl who was run down by a boat while training to be a lifeguard.
Allyssa Squirrell (Skwehr-EHL’) of Laguna Hills died in surgery Tuesday. An autopsy Wednesday concluded that she died of deep cuts to her back and her left leg, Orange County Sheriff’s Department spokesman Jim Amormino said.
“In all probability, she was struck by the boat’s propeller,” Amormino said.
Junior lifeguards showed up at the city’s marine safety headquarters to remember Allysa. Mourners left flowers, a candle, a pot filled with sand and shells, a pink dolphin-shaped balloon and a message reading “God bless you sweet child,” Amormino said.
Noah Glass, 11, wore his training uniform of white T-shirt and red trunks. He came with his father to place flowers.
“She was really nice and funny. We always played games together,” he told KABC-TV.
Allyssa was with a group of 20 to 25 junior lifeguards who were training beyond the surfline at Huntington Beach when she was struck at about 3 p.m. Tuesday.
The youngsters were practicing speed drops, jumping off the end of a moving boat in pairs. Allyssa and another girl successfully jumped, Amormino said.
The 28-foot boat circled back to pick up the junior lifeguards when it struck Allyssa. The other girl was not hurt, Amormino said.
The boat’s pilot apparently didn’t see the girls because they had not yet swum back to the main group and the seas were choppy, Amormino said.
Allyssa was halfway through an eight-week lifeguard course. Training was suspended Wednesday and grief counselors were made available for the trainees, Amormino said. The program was to resume Thursday.
The boat was piloted by Lt. Greg Crow, a 32-year veteran of the Huntington Beach Marine Safety Division who held a public safety medal of valor, Amormino said.
There also were two instructors, one in the boat and one in the water.
Crow, 53, was traumatized by the accident and is on leave, Amormino said.
He voluntarily submitted to a toxicology test that found no evidence of alcohol or drugs in his body, Amormino said.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Internet-based therapy shows promise for insomnia
Sleep issues and fatigue are one of the most common of symptoms after a concussion. Virtually everyone I represent has problems with sleep. Could the internet do more than keep us company in the middle of the night, but also improve our sleep?
Attorney Gordon Johnson
http://tbilaw.com
https://waiting.com
Date: 7/6/2009 4:00 PM
CARLA K. JOHNSON,AP Medical Writer
CHICAGO (AP) — Sleepless people sometimes use the Internet to get through the night. Now a small study shows promising results for insomniacs with nine weeks of Internet-based therapy.
No human therapist is involved. The Internet software gives advice, even specific bedtimes, based on users’ sleep diaries. Patients learn better sleep habits — like avoiding daytime naps — through stories, quizzes and games.
“This is a very interactive, tailored, personalized program,” said study co-author Frances Thorndike of the University of Virginia Health System, who helped design the software, called Sleep Healthy Using the Internet, or SHUTi.
Such software could one day be a low-cost alternative for some patients, Thorndike said. And it could be the only non-drug option for people who live in areas without trained specialists, she said.
Prior research has shown face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy can have long-lasting results for insomniacs without the side effects of medication. The SHUTi program is based on that style of therapy, which helps patients change thinking patterns that contribute to poor sleep.
In the new study, released Monday in Archives of General Psychiatry, the researchers recruited 45 adults with moderate insomnia and randomly assigned 22 of them to try the Internet program.
The group who got the treatment woke up fewer times and spent fewer minutes awake during the night. The control group’s scores didn’t change. Even after six months, the Internet group’s scores remained improved.
The response was “fairly impressive and comparable to what you see with more intensive sorts of interventions,” said Jack Edinger, a sleep disorder specialist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., who wasn’t involved in the study.
Participants were highly educated and had no sleep apnea or psychiatric problems. Testing the approach on a larger, more diverse group could determine which patients benefit most, Edinger said.
Shelby Harris, a sleep specialist at New York’s Montefiore Medical Center, said something valuable is lost in an Internet-based approach. A trained therapist can help patients stay motivated and identify anxieties keeping patients awake at night.
“There will certainly be people who prefer the face-to-face contact or do better with that type of therapy,” Thorndike said. “This will free up those limited resources for face-to-face therapy for the people who need it, benefit from it or would prefer it.”
The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health.
___
On the Net:
Archives of General Psychiatry: http://www.archgenpsychiatry.com
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
http://tbilaw.com
https://waiting.com
Date: 7/6/2009 4:00 PM
CARLA K. JOHNSON,AP Medical Writer
CHICAGO (AP) — Sleepless people sometimes use the Internet to get through the night. Now a small study shows promising results for insomniacs with nine weeks of Internet-based therapy.
No human therapist is involved. The Internet software gives advice, even specific bedtimes, based on users’ sleep diaries. Patients learn better sleep habits — like avoiding daytime naps — through stories, quizzes and games.
“This is a very interactive, tailored, personalized program,” said study co-author Frances Thorndike of the University of Virginia Health System, who helped design the software, called Sleep Healthy Using the Internet, or SHUTi.
Such software could one day be a low-cost alternative for some patients, Thorndike said. And it could be the only non-drug option for people who live in areas without trained specialists, she said.
Prior research has shown face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy can have long-lasting results for insomniacs without the side effects of medication. The SHUTi program is based on that style of therapy, which helps patients change thinking patterns that contribute to poor sleep.
In the new study, released Monday in Archives of General Psychiatry, the researchers recruited 45 adults with moderate insomnia and randomly assigned 22 of them to try the Internet program.
The group who got the treatment woke up fewer times and spent fewer minutes awake during the night. The control group’s scores didn’t change. Even after six months, the Internet group’s scores remained improved.
The response was “fairly impressive and comparable to what you see with more intensive sorts of interventions,” said Jack Edinger, a sleep disorder specialist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., who wasn’t involved in the study.
Participants were highly educated and had no sleep apnea or psychiatric problems. Testing the approach on a larger, more diverse group could determine which patients benefit most, Edinger said.
Shelby Harris, a sleep specialist at New York’s Montefiore Medical Center, said something valuable is lost in an Internet-based approach. A trained therapist can help patients stay motivated and identify anxieties keeping patients awake at night.
“There will certainly be people who prefer the face-to-face contact or do better with that type of therapy,” Thorndike said. “This will free up those limited resources for face-to-face therapy for the people who need it, benefit from it or would prefer it.”
The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health.
___
On the Net:
Archives of General Psychiatry: http://www.archgenpsychiatry.com
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
A look at health care plans in Congress
Will Barack Obama’s legacy be more lasting on health care than Hillary Clinton’s? The next few months will likely tell us. The big controversy is going to focus on whether there is a “public option.” The attackers of reform claim that if there is a public plan, then the private insurers will adversely affected. With an 80 plus percent growth in premiums and a 400% growth in profits during the Bush years, we can certainly hope they will be.
I don’t want to give up my health insurance coverage, but I sure wouldn’t want to be without any coverage, which is where an increasing number of American’s find themselves. Pressure must be put on all Democratic Senators to side with their constituents, not the insurance lobby in Washington to get what the people need, finally, this time.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
http://tbilaw.com
https://waiting.com
Date: 7/6/2009 3:31 AM
The Associated Press
A look at health care legislation taking shape in the Democratic-controlled House and Senate as President Barack Obama pushes to overhaul the system, cover nearly 50 million uninsured Americans and reduce costs. Many of the details are still being negotiated and any final health care bill would have to meld proposals from the House and Senate.
___
HOUSE DEMOCRATS
WHO’S COVERED: Around 95 percent of Americans would be covered. Illegal immigrants would not receive coverage.
COST: Unknown.
HOW’S IT PAID FOR: Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid; $600 billion in unspecified new taxes, likely including new levies on upper-income Americans.
REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Individuals required to have insurance, enforced through tax penalty with hardship waivers.
REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: Employers must provide insurance to their employees or pay a penalty of 8 percent of payroll. Certain small businesses are exempt.
SUBSIDIES: Individuals and families with annual income up to 400 percent of poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four) would get subsidies to help them buy coverage.
BENEFIT PACKAGE: A committee would recommend an “essential benefits package” that includes hospitalization, doctor visits, prescription drugs and other services. Out-of-pocket costs limited to $5,000 a year for individuals, $10,000 for families. Health insurance companies can offer several tiers of coverage, but all plans must include the core benefits. Insurers wouldn’t be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: Plan with payment rates initially modeled on Medicare to compete with private insurers.
HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Through a new National Health Insurance Exchange open to individuals and, initially, small employers; it would be expanded to large employers over time.
CHANGES TO MEDICAID: The federal-state insurance program for the poor would be expanded to cover all individuals with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level ($14,404). Currently Medicaid eligibility varies by state, but childless adults are ineligible no matter how poor, and in some states parents with incomes well under the poverty line still aren’t covered.
___
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS COMMITTEE
WHO’S COVERED: Aims to cover 97 percent of Americans.
COST: About $600 million over 10 years, but it’s only one piece of a larger Senate bill.
HOW’S IT PAID FOR: Another committee is responsible for the financing.
REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Individuals required to have insurance, enforced through tax penalty with hardship waivers.
REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: Employers who don’t offer coverage will pay a penalty of $750 a year per full-time worker. Businesses with 25 or fewer workers are exempted.
SUBSIDIES: Up to 400 percent poverty level.
BENEFIT PACKAGE: Health plans must offer a package of essential benefits recommended by a new Medical Advisory Council. No denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: A robust new public plan to compete with private insurers. The plan would be run by the government, but would pay doctors and hospitals based on what private insurers now pay.
HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Individuals and small businesses can purchase insurance through state-based American Health Benefit Gateways.
CHANGES TO MEDICAID: Medicaid would be available to individuals with incomes up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level.
___
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
WHO’S COVERED: Around 97 percent of Americans. Illegal immigrants would not receive coverage.
COST: Around $1 trillion over 10 years.
HOW’S IT PAID FOR: Possible sources include cuts to Medicare and Medicaid; about $300 billion in revenue from taxing employer-provided health benefits above a certain level; and about $300 billion in revenue from a requirement for employers to pay into the Treasury for employees who get their insurance through public programs.
REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Expected to include a requirement for individuals to get coverage.
REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: In lieu of requiring employers to provide coverage, lawmakers are considering penalties based on how much the government ends up paying for workers’ coverage.
SUBSIDIES: No higher than 300 percent of the federal poverty level ($66,150 for a family of four).
BENEFIT PACKAGE: The government doesn’t mandate benefits but sets four benefit categories — ranging from coverage of around 65 percent of medical costs to about 90 percent — and insurers would be required to offer coverage in at least two categories. No denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: Unlike the other proposals the Finance Committee’s will likely be bipartisan. With Republicans opposed to a government-run plan, the committee is looking at a compromise that would instead create nonprofit member-owned co-ops to compete with private insurers.
HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: State-based exchanges.
CHANGES TO MEDICAID: Everyone at 100 percent of poverty would be eligible. Between 100 and 133 percent, states or individuals have the choice between coverage under Medicaid or a 100 percent subsidy in the exchange. The expansion would be delayed until 2013, a late change to save money — the start date had been 2011.
___
HOUSE REPUBLICANS
WHO’S COVERED: The House GOP’s plan, in outline form for now, says it aims to make insurance affordable and accessible to all. There aren’t estimates about how many additional people would be covered.
COST: Unknown.
HOW’S IT PAID FOR: No new taxes are proposed, but Republicans say they want to reduce Medicare and Medicaid fraud.
REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: No mandates.
REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: No mandates; small business tax credits are offered. Employers are encouraged to move to “opt-out” rather than “opt-in” rules for offering health coverage.
SUBSIDIES: Tax credits are offered to “low- and modest-income” Americans. People who aren’t covered through their employers but buy their own insurance are allowed to take a tax deduction. Low-income retirees younger than 65 (the eligibility age for Medicare) would be offered assistance.
BENEFIT PACKAGE: Insurers would have to allow children to stay on their parents’ plan through age 25.
GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: No public plan.
HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: No new purchasing exchange or marketplace is proposed. Health savings accounts and flexible spending plans would be strengthened.
CHANGES TO MEDICAID: People eligible for Medicaid would be allowed to use the value of their benefit to purchase a private p lan if they prefer.
___
OBAMA CAMPAIGN PROPOSAL
WHO’S COVERED: All children and many now-uninsured adults.
COST: Estimates as high as $1.6 trillion over 10 years.
HOW’S IT PAID FOR: Obama proposed cuts within the health care system and raising taxes on households making more than $250,000 annually.
REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Unlike his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama did not propose an “individual mandate.” Instead he would have required all children to be insured, making it the parents’ responsibility.
REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: Large employers would have been required to cover their employees or contribute to the costs of a new government-run plan.
SUBSIDIES: Obama proposed giving subsidies to low-income people but didn’t detail at what level.
BENEFIT PACKAGE: Insurers participating in a new health exchange would have had to offer packages at least as generous as a new public plan. All insurers would have been prohibited from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and would have had to cover children through age 25 on family plans.
GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: A new public plan would have offered comprehensive insurance similar to that available to federal employees.
HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Through a new National Health Insurance Exchange where individuals could buy the new public plan or qualified private plans.
CHANGES TO MEDICAID: Would have expanded Medicaid eligibility, but didn’t specify income levels.
___
Sources: Associated Press research, Kaiser Family Foundation, Lewin Group.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
I don’t want to give up my health insurance coverage, but I sure wouldn’t want to be without any coverage, which is where an increasing number of American’s find themselves. Pressure must be put on all Democratic Senators to side with their constituents, not the insurance lobby in Washington to get what the people need, finally, this time.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
http://tbilaw.com
https://waiting.com
Date: 7/6/2009 3:31 AM
The Associated Press
A look at health care legislation taking shape in the Democratic-controlled House and Senate as President Barack Obama pushes to overhaul the system, cover nearly 50 million uninsured Americans and reduce costs. Many of the details are still being negotiated and any final health care bill would have to meld proposals from the House and Senate.
___
HOUSE DEMOCRATS
WHO’S COVERED: Around 95 percent of Americans would be covered. Illegal immigrants would not receive coverage.
COST: Unknown.
HOW’S IT PAID FOR: Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid; $600 billion in unspecified new taxes, likely including new levies on upper-income Americans.
REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Individuals required to have insurance, enforced through tax penalty with hardship waivers.
REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: Employers must provide insurance to their employees or pay a penalty of 8 percent of payroll. Certain small businesses are exempt.
SUBSIDIES: Individuals and families with annual income up to 400 percent of poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four) would get subsidies to help them buy coverage.
BENEFIT PACKAGE: A committee would recommend an “essential benefits package” that includes hospitalization, doctor visits, prescription drugs and other services. Out-of-pocket costs limited to $5,000 a year for individuals, $10,000 for families. Health insurance companies can offer several tiers of coverage, but all plans must include the core benefits. Insurers wouldn’t be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: Plan with payment rates initially modeled on Medicare to compete with private insurers.
HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Through a new National Health Insurance Exchange open to individuals and, initially, small employers; it would be expanded to large employers over time.
CHANGES TO MEDICAID: The federal-state insurance program for the poor would be expanded to cover all individuals with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level ($14,404). Currently Medicaid eligibility varies by state, but childless adults are ineligible no matter how poor, and in some states parents with incomes well under the poverty line still aren’t covered.
___
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS COMMITTEE
WHO’S COVERED: Aims to cover 97 percent of Americans.
COST: About $600 million over 10 years, but it’s only one piece of a larger Senate bill.
HOW’S IT PAID FOR: Another committee is responsible for the financing.
REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Individuals required to have insurance, enforced through tax penalty with hardship waivers.
REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: Employers who don’t offer coverage will pay a penalty of $750 a year per full-time worker. Businesses with 25 or fewer workers are exempted.
SUBSIDIES: Up to 400 percent poverty level.
BENEFIT PACKAGE: Health plans must offer a package of essential benefits recommended by a new Medical Advisory Council. No denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: A robust new public plan to compete with private insurers. The plan would be run by the government, but would pay doctors and hospitals based on what private insurers now pay.
HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Individuals and small businesses can purchase insurance through state-based American Health Benefit Gateways.
CHANGES TO MEDICAID: Medicaid would be available to individuals with incomes up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level.
___
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
WHO’S COVERED: Around 97 percent of Americans. Illegal immigrants would not receive coverage.
COST: Around $1 trillion over 10 years.
HOW’S IT PAID FOR: Possible sources include cuts to Medicare and Medicaid; about $300 billion in revenue from taxing employer-provided health benefits above a certain level; and about $300 billion in revenue from a requirement for employers to pay into the Treasury for employees who get their insurance through public programs.
REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Expected to include a requirement for individuals to get coverage.
REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: In lieu of requiring employers to provide coverage, lawmakers are considering penalties based on how much the government ends up paying for workers’ coverage.
SUBSIDIES: No higher than 300 percent of the federal poverty level ($66,150 for a family of four).
BENEFIT PACKAGE: The government doesn’t mandate benefits but sets four benefit categories — ranging from coverage of around 65 percent of medical costs to about 90 percent — and insurers would be required to offer coverage in at least two categories. No denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: Unlike the other proposals the Finance Committee’s will likely be bipartisan. With Republicans opposed to a government-run plan, the committee is looking at a compromise that would instead create nonprofit member-owned co-ops to compete with private insurers.
HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: State-based exchanges.
CHANGES TO MEDICAID: Everyone at 100 percent of poverty would be eligible. Between 100 and 133 percent, states or individuals have the choice between coverage under Medicaid or a 100 percent subsidy in the exchange. The expansion would be delayed until 2013, a late change to save money — the start date had been 2011.
___
HOUSE REPUBLICANS
WHO’S COVERED: The House GOP’s plan, in outline form for now, says it aims to make insurance affordable and accessible to all. There aren’t estimates about how many additional people would be covered.
COST: Unknown.
HOW’S IT PAID FOR: No new taxes are proposed, but Republicans say they want to reduce Medicare and Medicaid fraud.
REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: No mandates.
REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: No mandates; small business tax credits are offered. Employers are encouraged to move to “opt-out” rather than “opt-in” rules for offering health coverage.
SUBSIDIES: Tax credits are offered to “low- and modest-income” Americans. People who aren’t covered through their employers but buy their own insurance are allowed to take a tax deduction. Low-income retirees younger than 65 (the eligibility age for Medicare) would be offered assistance.
BENEFIT PACKAGE: Insurers would have to allow children to stay on their parents’ plan through age 25.
GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: No public plan.
HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: No new purchasing exchange or marketplace is proposed. Health savings accounts and flexible spending plans would be strengthened.
CHANGES TO MEDICAID: People eligible for Medicaid would be allowed to use the value of their benefit to purchase a private p lan if they prefer.
___
OBAMA CAMPAIGN PROPOSAL
WHO’S COVERED: All children and many now-uninsured adults.
COST: Estimates as high as $1.6 trillion over 10 years.
HOW’S IT PAID FOR: Obama proposed cuts within the health care system and raising taxes on households making more than $250,000 annually.
REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Unlike his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama did not propose an “individual mandate.” Instead he would have required all children to be insured, making it the parents’ responsibility.
REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: Large employers would have been required to cover their employees or contribute to the costs of a new government-run plan.
SUBSIDIES: Obama proposed giving subsidies to low-income people but didn’t detail at what level.
BENEFIT PACKAGE: Insurers participating in a new health exchange would have had to offer packages at least as generous as a new public plan. All insurers would have been prohibited from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and would have had to cover children through age 25 on family plans.
GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: A new public plan would have offered comprehensive insurance similar to that available to federal employees.
HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Through a new National Health Insurance Exchange where individuals could buy the new public plan or qualified private plans.
CHANGES TO MEDICAID: Would have expanded Medicaid eligibility, but didn’t specify income levels.
___
Sources: Associated Press research, Kaiser Family Foundation, Lewin Group.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Move to child’s home major adjustment for senior
Date: 7/3/2009 8:14 AM
ADRIAN SAINZ,AP Real Estate Writer
From deciding where grandma will sleep to knowing her preferred bed time, turning a home into three-generation household takes plenty of planning and frank discussions that can be difficult.
Family psychologists, social workers and relocation specialists are seeing more seniors moving in with their grown children due to financial concerns. The recession has led to increasing job losses and shrinking savings accounts, forcing many seniors to change their retirement plans and consider moving in with their grown children temporarily, or permanently.
Multigenerational households made up 5.3 percent of all households last year, up from 4.8 percent in 2000, AARP reports.
In many cases, such a move is difficult and painful, in others it’s a relatively seamless transition. To make it as easy as possible, grown children and their parents, and often grandchildren as well, need to work out details of the transition.
“It’s an incredibly complicated situation,” says Marsha Frankel, a social worker with Jewish Family & Children’s Service of Greater Boston.
Changes in a senior’s living arrangement — whether living independently or in an assisted living facility — can come suddenly, especially if eroded investments or job loss makes their current situation unaffordable. The unemployment rate for workers aged 55 and older hit 7 percent last month, almost double the rate a year ago, data released Thursday showed.
In fact, about one in 10 people aged 50 and older live either with their grandchildren or their parents, according an AARP survey of more than 1,000 respondents 18 and older released in March.
Sixteen percent of respondents 55 and over reported that moving with their family or a friend was necessary in the past six months. Among those 18 and over who say they are likely to make such a move, 34 percent cited a loss of income as a reason for the move, 19 percent cited a change in job status and 8 percent blamed home foreclosure.
When considering a move, seniors should honestly asses their relationship with their child and his or her spouse. A strained relationship could lead to conflict.
For many seniors, the last time they lived with their children was when they were teenagers whose lives needed direction and discipline, said Nancy Wesson, author of “Moving Your Aging Parents.” It’s the same for the adult child, who may have resented being told what to do all the time and rebelled against mom or dad as a teen.
“A lot of those dynamics are hiding in wait” and surface when the senior parent moves in, Wesson says.
But the relationship has now changed — both parties are adults and will need to adjust their approach to a more patient, communicative partnership.
If a senior decides to make the move, the first step is obvious but absolutely necessary: Have a family conference to discuss how everyone’s life is going to change. AARP suggests the household should also have regular conferences, perhaps once a week after dinner or on a weekend afternoon, to discuss the next week’s schedule.
Families can set up a three-month trial period and should have a backup plan in case the move just does not work.
“The key issue is everybody communicating and things being spelled out in advance,” Frankel says.
A key point of discussion is realizing how much care the senior requires in their daily lives, and how the younger family members are going to help.
It’s important for the senior to retain some control of their lives to keep from feeling isolated. A grown child should refrain from taking over every little aspect of the parent’s life and micromanaging their parents to the point of frustration.
“That’s offensive and they don’t appreciate it,” said Wesson, a senior relocation specialist. “It hurts their feelings. Involve them as much in the process as they are willing to handle.”
Preparing the home for the move is a big step. Homeowners should know if the house can accommodate someone who has trouble climbing stairs. Clutter should be removed from walking areas, and lighting can be improved to deal with any vision loss by the senior.
A grandchild who is being displaced from their usual bedroom should know ahead of time. Bed times might have to be adjusted. Times for having friends over should be established in advance.
The living space in the home should accommodate for Dad’s Favorite Chair, and everyone should have their own designated places, whether it’s to read or watch TV or do homework, AARP suggests.
Homeowners should review their insurance documents or make sure the senior is added to coverage in case there’s a household injury.
Also, the entire household should talk about finances. Seniors with a job, leftover savings or monthly Social Security checks can contribute some money for groceries, utilities or even the mortgage.
However, money doesn’t have to change hands. A more active senior could drive the grandkids to school, baby-sit twice a week or do the grocery shopping. Such routines provide consistency and help life go more smoothly.
But, as the senior gets older, he or she may not be able to drive any more and can’t help out in the household anymore. Adult children and their parents should look down the road and determine what the next step should be if the level of required care becomes too time-consuming.
“People often just think in the moment, that they’re in a financial crunch,” Frankel says. “What happens when mom has been putting her money into the household and suddenly needs more care? Those are the kinds of things that really get to be looked at and create all kinds of problems.”
These and other issues can be obstacles, but a situation in which a senior moves in with their children and grandchildren also can be a blessing: It can bring families closer together.
Multigenerational households should take advantage and try to eat meals together, look at family photos, and plan outings in which everyone participates. A grandmother’s or grandfather’s experience can be invaluable to a younger person who is willing to listen.
“It brings cross generational closeness that you can’t achieve when you are not living together,” said Elinor Ginzler, AARP’s housing expert.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
ADRIAN SAINZ,AP Real Estate Writer
From deciding where grandma will sleep to knowing her preferred bed time, turning a home into three-generation household takes plenty of planning and frank discussions that can be difficult.
Family psychologists, social workers and relocation specialists are seeing more seniors moving in with their grown children due to financial concerns. The recession has led to increasing job losses and shrinking savings accounts, forcing many seniors to change their retirement plans and consider moving in with their grown children temporarily, or permanently.
Multigenerational households made up 5.3 percent of all households last year, up from 4.8 percent in 2000, AARP reports.
In many cases, such a move is difficult and painful, in others it’s a relatively seamless transition. To make it as easy as possible, grown children and their parents, and often grandchildren as well, need to work out details of the transition.
“It’s an incredibly complicated situation,” says Marsha Frankel, a social worker with Jewish Family & Children’s Service of Greater Boston.
Changes in a senior’s living arrangement — whether living independently or in an assisted living facility — can come suddenly, especially if eroded investments or job loss makes their current situation unaffordable. The unemployment rate for workers aged 55 and older hit 7 percent last month, almost double the rate a year ago, data released Thursday showed.
In fact, about one in 10 people aged 50 and older live either with their grandchildren or their parents, according an AARP survey of more than 1,000 respondents 18 and older released in March.
Sixteen percent of respondents 55 and over reported that moving with their family or a friend was necessary in the past six months. Among those 18 and over who say they are likely to make such a move, 34 percent cited a loss of income as a reason for the move, 19 percent cited a change in job status and 8 percent blamed home foreclosure.
When considering a move, seniors should honestly asses their relationship with their child and his or her spouse. A strained relationship could lead to conflict.
For many seniors, the last time they lived with their children was when they were teenagers whose lives needed direction and discipline, said Nancy Wesson, author of “Moving Your Aging Parents.” It’s the same for the adult child, who may have resented being told what to do all the time and rebelled against mom or dad as a teen.
“A lot of those dynamics are hiding in wait” and surface when the senior parent moves in, Wesson says.
But the relationship has now changed — both parties are adults and will need to adjust their approach to a more patient, communicative partnership.
If a senior decides to make the move, the first step is obvious but absolutely necessary: Have a family conference to discuss how everyone’s life is going to change. AARP suggests the household should also have regular conferences, perhaps once a week after dinner or on a weekend afternoon, to discuss the next week’s schedule.
Families can set up a three-month trial period and should have a backup plan in case the move just does not work.
“The key issue is everybody communicating and things being spelled out in advance,” Frankel says.
A key point of discussion is realizing how much care the senior requires in their daily lives, and how the younger family members are going to help.
It’s important for the senior to retain some control of their lives to keep from feeling isolated. A grown child should refrain from taking over every little aspect of the parent’s life and micromanaging their parents to the point of frustration.
“That’s offensive and they don’t appreciate it,” said Wesson, a senior relocation specialist. “It hurts their feelings. Involve them as much in the process as they are willing to handle.”
Preparing the home for the move is a big step. Homeowners should know if the house can accommodate someone who has trouble climbing stairs. Clutter should be removed from walking areas, and lighting can be improved to deal with any vision loss by the senior.
A grandchild who is being displaced from their usual bedroom should know ahead of time. Bed times might have to be adjusted. Times for having friends over should be established in advance.
The living space in the home should accommodate for Dad’s Favorite Chair, and everyone should have their own designated places, whether it’s to read or watch TV or do homework, AARP suggests.
Homeowners should review their insurance documents or make sure the senior is added to coverage in case there’s a household injury.
Also, the entire household should talk about finances. Seniors with a job, leftover savings or monthly Social Security checks can contribute some money for groceries, utilities or even the mortgage.
However, money doesn’t have to change hands. A more active senior could drive the grandkids to school, baby-sit twice a week or do the grocery shopping. Such routines provide consistency and help life go more smoothly.
But, as the senior gets older, he or she may not be able to drive any more and can’t help out in the household anymore. Adult children and their parents should look down the road and determine what the next step should be if the level of required care becomes too time-consuming.
“People often just think in the moment, that they’re in a financial crunch,” Frankel says. “What happens when mom has been putting her money into the household and suddenly needs more care? Those are the kinds of things that really get to be looked at and create all kinds of problems.”
These and other issues can be obstacles, but a situation in which a senior moves in with their children and grandchildren also can be a blessing: It can bring families closer together.
Multigenerational households should take advantage and try to eat meals together, look at family photos, and plan outings in which everyone participates. A grandmother’s or grandfather’s experience can be invaluable to a younger person who is willing to listen.
“It brings cross generational closeness that you can’t achieve when you are not living together,” said Elinor Ginzler, AARP’s housing expert.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.