Skip to main content

County nursing home isn't up for sale, but the option is part of a proposed study

By Howard B. Owens

BATAVIA, NY -- Contrary to the perception that might be out there, there is no "for sale" sign hanging on the Genesee County Nursing Home.

That doesn't mean the county couldn't seek a buyer, but according to County Manager Jay Gsell, the only thing the county is doing right now is looking for a consultant to help it study options for dealing with escalating costs associated with the home.

One of those options is sale, which is what has former legislature candidate Chris Charvella so concerned.

Charvella has been drafted to organize and speak for a group of concerned citizens -- including some residents of the home -- seeking to block any possible sale, even before the option is fully studied.

"I realize it's not set in stone," Charvella said. "But our county government has a history of looking for sale as the first option rather than fully considering other options."

The local businessman is pretty convinced that given the option, the legislature would seek a buyer for the home pretty quickly.

"The County Legislature's first duty is to the taxpaying citizens and this is an essential service," Charvella said. "We have people who pay taxes here their entire lives and expect this safety-net option."

Human Services Committee Chairwoman Esther Leadley said that, of course, sale is an option. It has to be, she said, if the Legislature is to act responsibly in protecting the interests of taxpayers.

The county is in a difficult position, she said.

"This has been coming at us like a freight train and we're sitting on the tracks," Leadley said. "The taxpayers are sitting on the tracks and we can't let them stay there. This is something that we're not rah-rah to do. It is something that we've got to look at."

Last month, the county put out a request-for-proposal seeking bids from potential consultants. The RFP spells out clearly what the county is looking for:

"Genesee County, New York, a non-chartered county government located in western New York between Buffalo and Rochester is seeking a professional service/consultant to assist the County in evaluating its options for the operation, management and/or sale of its 160 bed Skilled Nursing Facility and adjoined 80 bed Public Adult Home which comprise a complete long term care facility located at 278 Banks Street, Batavia, NY 14020.  Said service/consultant will be asked to assist the County in outlining options for future public and/or private ownership/operation of the present 240 bed facility and to help the County develop a strategy and plan of action for going forward with said facility and residents."

The big-cost bullet the county is looking to dodge, according to Gsell, is escalating personnel costs, especially in regard to benefits.

"Public employees cost more than private-sector employees and that's the kind of thing we will factor in where this going," Gsell said.

Gsell said that he wouldn't expect any current employees to lose their jobs if the facility was sold or operation was turned over to a private company. Because of the skills and experience required for such a facility, any new provider would almost certainly need to keep the current staff.

He also said the level of service would unlikely change, because of all the state mandates on such a facility.

Charvella isn't convinced service wouldn't suffer.

"If the margins are so thin, then a private company is going to pay more attention to the bottom line rather than patient care," Charvella said.

If the county did sell or lease the facility, Gsell said the local government would still have a substantial cost burden associated with its ongoing operation. The county would still pay more than $1.6 million in social services, such as its share of Medicaid payments, to keep the facility open. The consultant will be asked what the ongoing costs to the county will be with any of the possible options.

Chris Charvella

Someday the folks in charge will remember that the PEOPLE that they always characterize as 'taxpayers' actually expect some return for the taxes they pay.

Some things are bigger than taxes and taking care of senior citizens who may not be able to afford costly private facilities is one of them.

Wake up Mr. Gsell and company, the people of Genesee County won't forget this.

Jan 4, 2010, 6:51pm Permalink
Bryant Tyson

Wow, how many tax paying citizens work for or are cared for at the county home?
Now how many taxpaying citizens use the airport?
A few wealthy citizens could drive a few more miles for a place to keep there toys. Instead of putting that expense on the rest of us.
How about selling the airport and put that budget toward the home.

Jan 4, 2010, 9:24pm Permalink
william tapp

we need our County nursing home. Bryant does makes a good point.
and don't forget we the people can vote you jerks out of office. be cause we know politicians lie.

Jan 5, 2010, 7:26am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

County government should not be trying to make up for the failings of our national health care system by running what should be a private business.

Jan 5, 2010, 7:54am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

I'm not sure Bryant makes good point. If he does, then the government should get out of the freeway/roadway/Thruway business as well.

There's really no comparison between a government agency running a public transportation facility and the government running a health care/retirement agency.

I believe Jay Gsell told me there were only two such county-run facilities in New York.

Personally, I don't know if it should be sold or not. I'm curious what the study uncovers.

I'm still confused though as to why it shouldn't be an option and part of a comprehensive study on what to do with the facility? People seem to be mixing "it's going to be sold" with "maybe we should look at selling it." Those are two entirely different issues with a lot of complexity in the middle.

Jan 5, 2010, 8:03am Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Charlie Mallow on January 5, 2010 - 7:54am
County government should not be trying to make up for the failings of our national health care system by running what should be a private business.

Good point, Charlie.
Now, please give us your take on what should happen to those who can't afford (for whatever reason) to be in a private nursing home?

Jan 5, 2010, 8:22am Permalink
Kelly Hansen

Having a close relative who lives in the GCNH, I must say that I am undecided on a potential sale. Having visited the three nursing homes in Batavia, I must tell you that without hesitation, the privately owned one is the one which I was unwilling to consider placing my loved one in. The people were pleasant enough, but the work that is needed in order to make the facility even close to being what the residents have at the county home or the VA would probably cost millions. The aides who work 1 on 1 with the residents at the county home are underpaid, understaffed and under appreciated. They still do a fabulous job with what they have to work with. This is probably the case with many aides at other nursing homes as well.

Would private maintain quality care AND see that the building is not let go to disrepair? How could a study provide that information? It would be impossible. It is like me trying to decide to sell my home and hope that the future owners would be able to maintain it to my own standards. That is where the concern lies.

I'm not sure anyone really thinks that the county should be in the nursing home business. It is the unknown that people are most worried about. As the baby boomers continue to age, more and more will be seeking quality skilled nursing facilities down the road. If living in Batavia and your only choice is a smelly and run-down private nursing home, or our county home, which do you think you would choose? The VA home (very nice) has strict requirements and most people who are younger are not a vet or married to a vet who saw wartime action.

It would help if those who comment would consider visiting the nursing homes in the county -- beyond a drive by -- and with a bit of empathy, consider the fact that if you lived in a nursing home (a place no one sets as a final goal) and your final years held little security - maybe, just maybe - you'd be very concerned about what is left of your final days.

_______________________________

Here is a page where the four local nursing homes are rated - and mind you - quality of care can be considered good even if the place is a dump - but a safe dump. http://nursinghomes.nyhealth.gov/browse_search.php?range=15&rt=14020&fo…

If you notice, under the complaints tab, here is the line up:

<b>Batavia Nursing Home, LLC:</b> Complaints received per 100 occupied beds: 79.4 - state average: 24.4

<b>Genesee County Nursing Home:</b> Complaints received per 100 occupied beds: 11.6

<b>LeRoy Village Green Residential HC Facility, Inc:</b> Complaints received per 100 occupied beds: 14.7

<b>Western NY Veterans State Home:</b> Complaints received per 100 occupied beds: 46.3

This isn't a black, white or gray issue. It is an issue focused green - the almighty tax dollar. When decisions are made on the nursing home, we must be responsible to all parties. If it goes private and there are limited medicaid beds available, our local, infirm, and life-long taxpayers will be shipped out of the area like unwanted cargo.

Jan 5, 2010, 9:00am Permalink
Peter O'Brien

You can't afford private nursing homes, then you do the best you can with what family you have to take care of you. There is no reason that I should be footing the bill so Great Grandma can be waited on hand and foot.

Jan 5, 2010, 9:02am Permalink
Bryant Tyson

On a national leval we are letting the govermemt take over the failing health care system. How is that private?
We are going to be paying for the care of you ageing baby boomers real soon one way or anouther. How would you like to be cared for county, state, or national leavel. Where do you think you will recive the best care. Take a walk through the VA home and the county home where would you like to spend the rest of your life?
How many county run airports are in New York?
If our airport is public transportation, what public are being transported? Where do I book a flight to NYC through our airport?

Jan 5, 2010, 9:20am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Bea, what do other people who live in counties without government run nursing homes do?

I understand there is a major problem with our health care system in this country. For that reason, I like the idea of a Canadian or British system here. That is the fight you should be making. This Band-Aid approach of our local county government running a nursing home is not the answer.

Jan 5, 2010, 9:30am Permalink

The whole reason why my wife and I moved back to WNY was to take care of her grandparents. That's what families do.

That being said, my wife's grandfather was a WWII vet, built his house from the ground up, raised four kids in that house and on an income that would be considered lower middle class, yet still found a way to save enough money so that the are cared for. If that money were ever to run out, we would gladly take them in.

I'm not against older people and I realize that it is expensive to grow old in this country, but why can someone who was in a single income family do it and so many can't? Why is it that we can run to protect this population so fast and spurn those who have done well? When did it become morally wrong to be accountable for ourselves? I don't understand Bryant's point actually. Those people you so quickly attack are paying the difference in tax dollars, so that a nursing home can even exist.

I would like just one liberal to tell me why it's ok that I get up everyday and commute two hours after working twelve hours, so that others can sit at home and do absolutely nothing? I would one of you to tell me why it's ok that I have to make lunches for my kids while others can have them for free? Just one of you tell me how I can have my healthcare, taxes and expenses go up a total of 12% of my take home pay with no raise in this economy, yet unions can complain about a 2% raise while they are getting healthcare for life?

Just one of you...

Jan 5, 2010, 9:47am Permalink
Kelly Hansen

Phil,

I empathize with your situation and appreciate your clarity. Just one question: The grandparents saved up enough money to be cared for and you would be willing to take them in. What if you could not physically take care of their needs any longer? What if they were non-ambulatory, incontinent and unresponsive? Nursing homes are skilled nursing facilities. Even if your home had a ramp, was wheelchair accessible, etc. - would you stock up on a hoyer lift, wheelchair accessible shower, equipment for breathing treatments, suction equipment in case of aspiration while eating, geriatric chair when they are no longer able to be in a wheelchair and 24 hour full-time care required? Nurses and aides are pretty expensive to have in your home.

BTW, I'm with you on your last paragraph.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
--Thomas Jefferson

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
--Thomas Jefferson

Jan 5, 2010, 10:01am Permalink

Kelly,

Of course all of that would be difficult. I never claimed it wouldn't be. Yes I would take them in without question even though it would put hardship on me. Yes I would alter my home and if I could afford it put in whatever they needed. Although there are plenty of families in this country that cannot afford that and make do the best they can. I am not against the nursing home, just against how so many people will defend them while ripping those who have worked hard for "toys" as it was so politley put.

To the one point you made about not being able to care for them, I see that. I am younger, so that was never an issue, but I guess where I am coming from is this...my wife's grandfather planned for his future on what translates in today's worth to lower middle class. I am just confussed on why if someone like him can do it, so many can't? He paid his taxes, worked hard and yes, even recieves his social security. He is not rich by any means, but he did what needed to be done.

That's just my take, Kelly. Good quotes by the way...how true!

Jan 5, 2010, 10:13am Permalink
Chris Charvella

Phil, I'm not sure how you managed to make this about the school lunch program, unions and welfare; I'll remind you that this is a singular issue and completely unrelated to any of those things.

The Home is a skilled nursing facility and while I don't doubt for a minute that you would happily take in you elderly family members, I will remind the people here that most individuals are not equipped with the skills or the money necessary to care for many of the illnesses that effect the elderly. The home exists for these people, they offer a skilled nursing staff and excellent facilities to all County residents in need for just a few dollars a month on your tax bill.

What sort of return can we expect for the money we pay in taxes? How many services will be eliminated without lowering the tax levy do we have to suffer before we realize that having a fire sale on County responsibilities is pointless and counterproductive?

I will not let the teabagger society redirect and obfuscate here.

Jan 5, 2010, 10:46am Permalink
Peter O'Brien

Phil, you always express my views much more eloquently than I can

And Chris, teabagger is just a new term for Conservative. We never went away, the politicians left us. We are the majority in this country (at least as far as self descriptions go)

Jan 5, 2010, 11:01am Permalink
Bea McManis

Phil, that two hour commute is not new. I commuted for years. For the record, I also stayed with my Mom 24/7 for a few years before she passed. Not everyone has that option.
Not every situation is the same. Some had savings; others pensions; others investments that were lost. What is the option for those who don't have family to care for them.
I'm looking for the distractors to come up with concrete solutions for those who won't be able to afford private care when the time comes. For those without family.
As far as great grandma being waited on hand and foot. Is that the popular complaint among you who don't believe that the elderly deserves affordable care?

Jan 5, 2010, 11:03am Permalink
Peter O'Brien

Bea, come up with a solution that doesn't involve my money for your problem.

Thats my issue. Its my money not yours and should not be use so you can live longer and take more.

Jan 5, 2010, 11:16am Permalink

No Chris, the people on this blog made it about that. It's the first thing that we do here. We go after people and their "toys". We attack those who work hard, prosper and save.

That is a great question what can we expect for our taxes? Every year they go and my family and I get less and less! So good question, what can I expect?

And don't you dare call me a teabegger, sir. I never made single comment on the sale of this building, just those who so easily attack others that have worked for things and then demonized for it. I'm glad you found an issue to fight for, but some of us are just trying to struggle to pay our own taxes and wonder what we get for all of our hard work!

Jan 5, 2010, 11:18am Permalink
Lynn Knoop

Howard, Mr Gsell is incorrect if he told you there are only two such County owned facilities in NYS. Just in our region alone we have the Erie County Home, Wyoming County Home, Genesee County Home, Livingston County Nursing Home, Orleans County Nursing Home and TWO Cattaraugus County Nursing Homes. It is a documented fact that public health facilities run more sufficiently than their private counter parts and the employees receive similar benefits. The airport is not equivalent to those in Buffalo, Rochester and Niagara Falls, It is barely the size of Prior Aviation and that is a privately owned airport. How many county residents actually fly out of the airport as opposed to travelling to Buffalo or Rochester? I would have to say not too many.

Jan 5, 2010, 11:22am Permalink
Chris Charvella

Phil, you were the only one here to mention School lunch, unions and welfare.

I don't care about your 'toys,' I don't want to take them from you or anyone else. I'll say it again, some things are bigger than taxes. A government's function is to protect its citizens and provide for them the necessary things that they cannot provide for themselves; this is one of those things.

Jan 5, 2010, 11:40am Permalink

Bea,

A lot of people have a commute, that wasn't my point in the slightest.

I want to see what this study shows and I want a guarentee that if the facility is sold that the savings are returned to the residents.

As far as not being able to afford healthcare? Are you kidding me? I am a 29 year old adult with two kids and it gets harder for me to afford it! That's a great question Bea, How can we ALL afford it!?!?!? What happens if I lose my job or get hurt? I have to save if that happens, make arrangements if I die with my family or am incapcitated. I have to be responsible for myself and my family beacuse the Government is "HELPING" me! They are just taking EVERY LAST penny that I have and telling me that it's my patriotic duty!

Seriously. I want evry person to be able to afford Healthcare, but this new bill sucks.

Let the study happen. If they determine that we are currently doing it better than anyone else can than fine.

For the record, I did NOT make the Grandmother comment, so don't lump that on me thank you very much. I happen to love my grandparents and take care of them.

Jan 5, 2010, 11:48am Permalink
Lynn Knoop

For those of you who declare the conservatives out-number the liberals... why then do we have Obama in office and a majority in the House? I am sick and tired of politics taking precedent over the residents in the GCNH. We have over 200 residents that will be kicked out by a private sector owner. Yes, kicked out because the owner only accepts so many "poor" residents. Do you know what statistics say happens to those residents who are transferred? Many of them will die within a year of leaving the facility. Need proof? Look up the article "Relocation of the Elderly" by Nicholas G. Castle
Hey! But who cares? The Home will go private! (Did I mention you will still be paying taxes anyway? Just to the private owner!)

Jan 5, 2010, 11:55am Permalink

Your right I sure did, because the first thing that comes out of every liberal's mouth is what everyone else should give up. I asked a question as part of a series of comments that were made.
I don't think it should defuse your precious argument. I have every right to respond to the things that I see.

As far more important than taxes statement. Who gets to make that judgement? Why does the government or you for that matter get to tell me what's more important? Maybe I care more about the well being of my kids and family. Why do I have such a small voice? Why?

That's my question. You say that nothing should change with the home and I say that we should see what other options are there!

Did you ever think for a moment that just maybe if the government would stop taxing the hell out of us that maybe more of us could SAVE more?

Jan 5, 2010, 11:57am Permalink
Chris Charvella

Phil, you're not taxed any more than I am. People's lives are more important than a few bucks a month.

The current and future residents of the Home have payed taxes their whole lives to support the place, are their tax dollars worth less than yours? Should they expect less from what they put in because you don't feel like paying just like they did?

Jan 5, 2010, 12:07pm Permalink
Lynn Knoop

Phil...good luck. If opinions like yours actually materialize into reality, then the moral compass of conservatism has been totally destroyed. I am not a liberal as you like to pin on me. I was a registered Republican until this past election cycle. Once they ran McCain I jumped ship. I am a moderate Democrat and yes, the union rep for the County. I also worked as a CNA for many, many years and I am a strong advocate for geriatric rights in nursing homes! Perhaps you need to read the Book of Solomon in the bible. One baby two mothers and your ready to slice it in half. No questions asked. Good luck and good fortune to you and yours!

Jan 5, 2010, 12:09pm Permalink

Excuse me Lynn, Don't you dare tell me to read my Bible. I have given more of my time and my money to help others than you know!

The problem with all of this is simple. MY CHOICE! You all get to make my choice for me! Who are any of you to tell me what I should or should'nt think. You have no idea what I have given for or to. I am a Christian. I have given more of myself to help those in need and I wasn't paid for it!

No Chris I'm not, but maybe I don't make as much as you. Maybe those few bucks that get spent without any say that I have is important to me! Isn't it amazing how the world is compared to you and your wallet's comfort because it's your issue?

Lynn, I am a youth advocate and I have watched those budgets get cut to nothing. The GCNH has ran in the red for years. I see NOTHING wrong with the study. I NEVER, repeat NEVER said it should or should not be sold.

Maybe you should read Matthew 7:1..."Do Not Judge Others.."

Jan 5, 2010, 12:25pm Permalink
Peter O'Brien

Ok, when have I supported corporate welfare?

While I support killing those who would kill us and doing so away from our civilians, I don't support general policing of the globe.

Nurses and Doctors are going to feel the pinch soon anyways because of the death of the baby boomers, nothing can be done about that.

Tony, nice job grouping people together and then saying things that aren' true about them on the whole. When that grouping involves race, we call that racism. You are doing the same thing on a political basis. Good job!

My lost tax ocntribution wouldn't be felt nearly as bad if the governments that I support (monetarily) were not so huge to begin with.

Jan 5, 2010, 12:31pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

I just deleted one comment for a a clear personal attack. There are some others that are questionable, for sure.

This conversation is drifting further and further into the personal and moving away from the topic at hand.

If you find yourself characterizing other people, then you're moving away from a productive conversation.

Please stick to the topic and not demean people just because they hold an opinion you don't like. If you think the opinion is stupid or ill informed, keep that thought to yourself and try to refute their position without making it about the person.

Jan 5, 2010, 12:32pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Phil, let's be honest with ourselves, you don't want anyone to make your choice for you but you're willing to make choices for senior citizens. It works both ways and I really think we need to remember that.

Jan 5, 2010, 12:37pm Permalink
Tony Ferrando

Posted by Peter O'Brien on January 5, 2010 - 12:31pm

Tony, nice job grouping people together and then saying things that aren' true about them on the whole. When that grouping involves race, we call that racism. You are doing the same thing on a political basis. Good job!

--

Are you saying you aren't registered to vote? Because the rules of doing so determine that one must join a group at that time - none of which I have created or defined, the rules of registering to vote I had no hand in creating.

If you aren't registered to vote, then why are you even commenting?

If you are, then what am I guilty of, that you haven't self-defined yourself as?

"teabagger is just a new term for Conservative. <b>We</b> never went away, the politicians left <b>us</b>. <b>We</b> are the majority in this country"

Jan 5, 2010, 12:49pm Permalink
Tony Ferrando

Sure you are. You're part of the group that selected Independent. And if there was ever any organization at that level, the power that you wield would be immense. Like atheists and other non-believers, the largest minority in the country without political power (at least that hasn't organized it into power).

Jan 5, 2010, 12:54pm Permalink
Bea McManis

It is too bad that Tony's post was removed. He made a valid point. I didn't work the entire time I took care of my mother. Not every family has someone who can or will take that much time away from work.
If it ever reached the point where she required specialized care or special equipment, I certainly didn't have the medical qualifications or the means to supply it.

Jan 5, 2010, 12:54pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

No. I'm not Independent.

In New York political terms I'm "blank."

I'm not affiliated with Independents or Libertarians or Working Family or any third party.

I'm completely non-aligned both in registration and attitude.

Jan 5, 2010, 12:56pm Permalink
Peter O'Brien

This is off topic Tony,

Back to the nursing home. The only public use of money for healthcare I support is the VA. And it needs to be overhauled. Other than that, they made their choices, I shouldn't have to cover the slack.

Jan 5, 2010, 12:56pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Yes Peter, they made the choice to pay taxes for 65+ years with the expectation that the County Nursing home would be there for them should they need it. Once again, these arguments work both ways, you don't want others choosing for you, but you're willing to make choices for them; the logical disconnect is extraordinary.

Jan 5, 2010, 12:59pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Chris, we usually agree but, I have trouble understanding your position on this. Since Phil is probably driving to work right now, let me ask a few questions. First I think what he would say is that you are the one trying to make the choice by attempting to block the study.

How do you know a privately run nursing home would not be better? What evidence do you have that a private company running the nursing home would not be better for elderly people?

Jan 5, 2010, 1:00pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

(I'm not saying anything about veterans here, only asking a logically consistent question. Nor am I advocating anything on health care, just saying ... )

Peter, how can you justify special treatment for one group (veterans) and not others (anybody else).

Once you make an allowance for any special circumstance (say, service to country), you open the door, logically, to any other special circumstance (say, being under employed).

Jan 5, 2010, 1:02pm Permalink
Tony Ferrando

Sorry - my wireless dropped as I clicked save, so... what I had said in not as many words, is we're just debating the symantecs of the word. Independent, unaffliated... either way, you've given up your ability to vote in primaries. However, I think that both major national parties need people like you - because there are a lot - of the mentality that they don't agree with the party wholesale. It's those people that keep extremists in check and bring parties back towards the middle. As you ask though, back to the topic...

Jan 5, 2010, 1:15pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Regarding the sale of the nursing home. If it is sold, it may be sold to an entity out of state. Do you honestly believe that the care and comfort of those in Genesee Co. will be their first and foremost interest?

Do you honestly believe that you will see your taxes go down because the nursing home is sold?

This is a "but for the grace of God, go I" situation. No one knows what the future holds. While some may feel they sit on a higher level than the rest of us, and that they may never be in a situation where they might need the services of the county home, the sad truth is it may happen.

Your savings can be wiped out by illness. What happens then? Your insurance company can rescind your policy, then what? You may be in need of medical care or equipment that no one in your family can provide, then what?

This shouldn't be a political issue. It is a humanitarian issue. It isn't discussed just for those who are currently facing the possibility of the safety net the nursing home provides, but for those of you of the next generation who may someday require the specialized care available.

The belief that it can't happen to you or that you have provided enough for yourself doesn't take into account that life has a way of throwing curves. Are you willing to take the risk that one won't be tossed at you?

Jan 5, 2010, 1:22pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Charlie, I was just pointing out to Peter and Phil that they are attempting to make choices for others while saying that they won't let others choose for them. I'm fine with making these choices because doing so will provide a necessary service to people who are unable to provide it for themselves.

I'm not attempting to block the study either, I'm attempting to get the legislature to take sale off the table. If teh goal is to save the County some money then the focus of the study should be on how to create greater efficiency within the current structure while keeping the home public and available to those who cannot afford private care. If no money can be saved without it being detrimental to the quality of care then the county should look elsewhere to save a buck or two. Sale of the nursing home should not be an option.

However, I've heard from the horses mouth that sale is the goal. As a matter of fact, I've even discussed with a member of the legislature how much the Certificate of Need would be worth. I've been downwind of this manure pile for too long now and the smell is starting to get to me.

As far as what I know about the public home being better than a private home I would urge you to look at the ratings. I would also urge you to remember what this is all about: Quality care for those who cannot afford, for whatever reason, the costs of a private nursing facility.

Jan 5, 2010, 1:35pm Permalink
Julie Morales

“Thats my issue. Its my money not yours and should not be use so you can live longer and take more.”

Wow, that’s rude even for a troll.

You must have the antidote for aging. You’ll be there sooner than you think.

Jan 5, 2010, 2:11pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Chris, what if the only way to save money is to do away with public employees at the nursing home -- what then? What if the major area to save cost is to reduce the payout for benefits to union employees? Would you support (if it's even legally possible) to de-unionize the facility?

I ask that question because it's my impression is that the only real cost concern area for the county is public employees vs. private sector employees.

So let's stipulate: A public run facility is going to provide better care and treatment than a private one. Let's just assume for a moment that's true. Would you support every measure possible to reduce personnel cost, including getting the union out of the facility, in order to keep the facility in public hands?

Jan 5, 2010, 2:40pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Yes.

I suppose there should be a reality check here though.

As long as the county owns the home the CSEA will be there. If the home is public then the workers will be public employees, if they choose to unionize (which is their right) then their union will be CSEA. So I suppose the question is moot.

Jan 5, 2010, 2:54pm Permalink
Beth Kinsley

Phil's position on this is surprising to me since he was quite an advocate for GCASA on another site. So Phil - you'll help drug addicts (many from other counties) but to hell with the elderly from our own county?

Jan 5, 2010, 5:27pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Beth Kinsley on January 5, 2010 - 3:26pm
Phil's position on this is surprising to me since he was quite an advocate for GCASA and for Medicaid money being used for drug addicts and alcoholics on another site. So Phil - you'll help drug addicts (many from other counties) but to hell with the elderly from our own county?

When Medicaid money helps support one's lifestyle, it is easy to advocate for it's use.

Jan 5, 2010, 3:33pm Permalink
bud prevost

My question- what did the elderly folks do 100 years ago? I'm not trying to be a wise guy, I really would like to know. Did Genesee County have a facility back then? How was it funded? Were people generally grouped into the "poorhouse"? If so, whatever happened to that concept?

Jan 5, 2010, 3:36pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Actually Bud, the progenitor of the county nursing home WAS the county poorhouse out in Bethany. I can get some historical links if you want them. I'm sure Lorie has them at her fingertips.

Jan 5, 2010, 3:43pm Permalink
Lorie Longhany

From Genesee County historian, Sue Conklin. http://co.genesee.ny.us/dpt/historian/countyhome.html

“Notice is hereby given that the Genesee County Poorhouse will be ready for the reception of paupers on the first day of January 1827 … The Overseers of the Poor of the several towns of the County of Genesee are requested, in all cases of removal of paupers to the county poorhouse, to send with them their clothing, beds, bedding and such other articles belonging to the paupers as may be necessary and useful to them.”

"The following were eligible for assistance: habitual drunkards, lunatics (one who by disease, grief or accident lost the use of reason or from old age, sickness or weakness was so weak of mind as to be incapable of governing or managing their affairs), paupers (a person with no means of income), state paupers (one who is blind, lame, old or disabled with no income source) or a vagrant."

What was that Board of Supervisors thinking providing for drunkards, the insane, paupers and the elderly? Were the county residents in 1827 given any choice? Maybe they didn't want their tax money used to provide for the retches of society.

Jan 5, 2010, 4:23pm Permalink

Beth that is a flat lie and should be beneath you. Bea, I'm going to give you a pass on that because I don't think that you know that Beth is lying, but that is not my lifestyle and I would caution you that is a very slanderous statement.

I shouldn't even be bothered to try and defend this, but since someone just had to make something up against my character because they do not have a true arguement, I feel I should.

AT NO POINT did I EVER agree with medicaid, Period. I actually stated at least three different times during that thread that I believe medicaid is a BROKEN system.

Someone name loriladd (maybe that's you Beth?) who does not like GCASA for whatever reason made a statement, with NO evidence that, that GCASA "milks" the system by signing people up for medicaid at an alarming rate. I called her out on it, because I believe in fact. The reality was that GCASA assited 14 out of over 1200 clients recieve benefits. I never said I agreed with that, but that is hardly what she stated.

Last, Bea and Beth, My Mother died from cirosis of the liver due to be an alcoholic. I stated that I had wished she had the opportunity at that program. Maybe she would have been alive to meet my kids.

Don't you ever put words in my mouth again or lie against my character to prove some stupid little point that you just have to have. I find it pathetic that you would lie, Beth. As far as I'm concerned, your opinions are worthless to me from this point on.

Jan 5, 2010, 4:36pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Another point of clarity here, Beth wasn't saying that you agree wholeheartedly with Medicare/Medicaid, she was saying that you agree with the county funding GCASA.

Jan 5, 2010, 4:48pm Permalink
Beth Kinsley

You are correct on both points Chris. I was just surprised that Phil was such an advocate for GCASA but so unwilling to help the elderly. It is no secret that GCASA gets a great deal of their money through Medicaid reimbursement.

Jan 5, 2010, 5:04pm Permalink

Beth posted: Phil's position on this is surprising to me since he was quite an advocate for GCASA and for Medicaid money being used for drug addicts and alcoholics on another site. So Phil - you'll help drug addicts (many from other counties) but to hell with the elderly from our own county?

That is not what you said, Beth. Read my above post. I am not for medicaid or advocating for GCASA, never said that I agree with the county funding it or not and I NEVER said that I was for drug addicts. That was a lie and beneath you. Re-read your post and think about what kind of personal attack that looks like. I had friends calling me at work saying that people were claiming I support drug addicts. Shame on you.

That is a lie and an attack. Please feel free to go to the Daily News, which is the other publication and pull the whole thread so everyone can see how you twisted every last word.

I have already reached out to Howard on this. If you can't have a discussion like an adult, then don't.

Jan 5, 2010, 5:18pm Permalink
Beth Kinsley

Hah! Chill out Phil. Got your panties in a bunch or what? Friends calling you at work saying people were claiming you support drug addicts? That is rather silly don't you think? I never said you supported drug addicts. I said you were advocating for GCASA. I did change my original post to take out the part about Medicaid but, I will state again, it is no secret that GCASA gets a great deal of their money from Medicaid. I personally think that GCASA does a great deal of good - but so does the Genesee County Nursing Home. We all have a right to pick and choose which members of society we think deserve our support. I just found it odd that you expressed your support for GCASA but are not in favor of helping the elderly. Just wondering if your mother had lived and was a resident of the nursing home if you would feel the same way?

Jan 5, 2010, 5:39pm Permalink

Panties in a bunch? Excuse me? READ YOU POST:

Phil's position on this is surprising to me since he was quite an advocate for GCASA and for Medicaid money being used for drug addicts and alcoholics on another site. So Phil - you'll help drug addicts (many from other counties) but to hell with the elderly from our own county?

Excuse me? I think it's embarrassing that someone called my work and told me that. Who do you think you are? I have worked hard in my life to build a good reputation. You don't use a shred of fact to make a comment and I'm suppose to care what you think is ok to write. What gives you the right to make those statements? WHAT? That was inappropriate. You think this is funny Beth? Really?

Jan 5, 2010, 5:58pm Permalink
bud prevost

Phil- RELAX! No one is calling you anything. Beth was simply pointing out the irony of supporting one medicaid leech(GCASA) and bashing the other leech(nursing home). I'm sure it was just misundrstood

Lorie- thank you for the link. I am always interested in history, and where we came from. You wondered about any uproar from the citizens about using tax money to fund a poorhouse. The big difference between then and now is income taxes. There were none then, tax money was collected through tarriffs, excise taxes and real property taxes.

Jan 5, 2010, 6:40pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Beth, nice example of “win at all cost politics”. I guess in your world it is ok if you are losing the debate to kick the man’s wife in the teeth. Class move, you lost…

Jan 5, 2010, 8:40pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Charlie, please explain how that was a kick in the teeth? It is a legitimate question. The fact that his wife works there is no surprise. She has posted often, and with great clarity and intelligence, on this site.
Phil supports GCASA, a portion of his family income comes from Medicaid payments to GCASA.
If his wife worked for the nursing home, and part of their income came from Medicaid payments from there, would he be more apt to supprt the nursing home?
Beth isn't losing, she is just asking a question.

Jan 5, 2010, 9:20pm Permalink

Wow Beth, you really wanna continue to get personal huh? Well let me answer this as plain as I can; yes. Not that its one damn bit of your business, but my wife doesn't work in the area where all the questions came up. Her area actually generates monies, not receives them.

However, since you are so hell bent on coming at me...When GCASA found out that they were going to have a budget gap, do you know what they did? They made cuts. They didn't get extra money or sign more people up for medicaid as has been incorrectly stated...they cut jobs. They did want a business has to do. They corrected the ship. Do you know what the GCNH did when they found out about their shortfall? Nothing. They took more money from taxpayers. No cuts...why? Give me a break Beth.

This has nothing to do with these seniors. This has to do with protecting union jobs. Do the study. See what comes of it. If a private company can do a better job, then let them. If not, then don't, but please all of you, stop trying to sell everyone on this humanitarian argument.

Stop coming at me personally, Beth. Grow up.

Jan 5, 2010, 9:31pm Permalink
Beth Kinsley

For me, this has absolutely nothing to do with saving union jobs. I don't work for a union. To me this is about the people who have worked their entire lives and paid their taxes only to have the door of the nursing home, that they paid for, slammed in their faces.

Jan 5, 2010, 9:37pm Permalink

For the LAST time Bea. Because I'm REALLY tired of saying it so I am going to say it ONE LAST TIME for you and everyone that has a problem reading.

I DON'T SUPPORT MEDICAID! I think it is a broken system and should be re-done. I know that this is a hard point for you all to get with me saying it over and over again, but there you go.

Jan 5, 2010, 9:39pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Bea and Beth are you serious? You are involved in a friendly debate and out of the blue you bring up the man's wife on a public forum. Hello, there is the line and you crossed it. Your move is a classic scare tactic. It shows other people how far you are willing to go for politcal gain. Scare off the other side and claim victory. Not today!

Jan 5, 2010, 9:46pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Phil Ricci on January 5, 2010 - 9:31pm
but please all of you, stop trying to sell everyone on this humanitarian argument.

What is wrong with the humanitarian argument?
Whether you support medicaid or not is of no interest to me.
What I am concerned about is the lack of humanity and the ability to place blinders on when it comes to the care of the current residents of the home, those who may need it in the near future, and those, of the next generation, who may face the need to enter the home - regardless of their financial situation.
As I stated before, life has a way to throw curves with little care if it is someone well to do, or someone who is less fortunate.
I'm all for fiscal responsibility. What disturbs me is that those who claim to be fiscal conservative seem to feel that it goes hand in hand with being heartless.
That lack of humanity can come back to bite. I hope it never does.

Jan 5, 2010, 9:52pm Permalink

There is no lack of humanity in doing a study Bea. Please. You all have no argument until something comes back. You have no proof that it will or will not work.

I came from nothing Bea. I was homeless and I worked my tail off. I volunteer, give to charity and donate my time and money whenever I can. I am not heartless. Just because I feel that we should be responsible doesn't mean that I'm heartless.

What are you all afraid of finding out? Just do the study! Maybe you will all be right.

Jan 5, 2010, 10:01pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Charlie,
It may be water cooler discussion, but no where on this thread was Phil's wife attacked.
Please, if I'm wrong, document where someone attacked her.

Jan 5, 2010, 10:02pm Permalink
Beth Kinsley

Yeah Charlie - I'm sure it's going to be very difficult for his wife at work tomorrow when everyone is discussing how her husband supports the agency that they all work for.

Jan 5, 2010, 10:06pm Permalink

No Bea, it just shows how childish grown women are that you have to do it. Beth brought up another site's discussion, misquoted it completely and then brought up my wife and her job. It shows you have no respect for her and will do whatever you can to make your point. It's sad since she respects you, Bea.

Do not bring my family in again, please. Have some shred of respect for those that have nothing to do with you.

Jan 5, 2010, 10:08pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Phil, I have no problem with a study. But, it appears that the sale is already on the table. Take that off the table, do the study, bring the information to the public.
Don't massage it with little blurbs like, "there will be no change in the operation of the nursing home during the transition". That makes me cringe. All that means is that the residents have a home until the ink is on the contract - transition complete.
The residents of the home have a valid concern. They deserve to be heard (even if they are no longer tax payers).
The belief that everyone in the nursing home could be cared for by family members is beyond comprehension. Perhaps you have the financial ability and medical knowledge to do that, but most people don't.

Jan 5, 2010, 10:09pm Permalink
Beth Kinsley

Are you ashamed that your wife works for GCASA? Was it supposed to be a secret? Sorry but I didn't get the memo. You talk about your family all the time. You opened that door.

Jan 5, 2010, 10:10pm Permalink

I not ashamed of anyone. I will not use my wife or what she does in my discussions. To be honest here's your memo...LEAVE MY WIFE OUT OF THIS DEBATE! Did you get that?

I talk about them in pride or how I am trying to care for them, not what they do. That is no one's business unless my wife makes it so. That's called respect. Really, just leave my family out of it.

Jan 5, 2010, 10:16pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Am I going to have to shut down this thread?

It would be a shame, because there is an important discussion to be had here about the issues.

Why not discuss the issues?

Jan 5, 2010, 10:21pm Permalink
Beth Kinsley

Your wife's job is no secret. Here's an excerpt from a recent post of hers right here on this site:

I am incharge of the DWI Victim Impact Panel that has, on average 30 people from the area who have been charged with DWI or DWAI. To hear month after month stories from people who have been affected by drinking and driving (some have lost children or they themselves have been injured)is heart wrenching to me. It's such an easy decision to not drive under the influence. The number of people it could ultimate affect is immeasurable. I certainly am not saying people can't drink. Just don't get behind the wheel of a vehicle.

Jan 5, 2010, 10:21pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

1. Fight for Union jobs
2. Look for ways to spend taxpayer money
3. Crush anyone who disagrees
4. Go to step 1

Bea, time for a new script.

Jan 5, 2010, 10:22pm Permalink
Beth Kinsley

Agreed Howard. I made my point of view clear. I am not in favor of the Legislature even considering the sale of the nursing home. It is not fair to the people who have worked and paid taxes their whole lives who may need it some day. Many people who thought they had enough to retire on have lost so much in the current economic crisis. They deserve, in the very least, to have the nursing home as a safety net. None of us knows what the future may hold for us. Any one of us on here may need it some day.

Jan 5, 2010, 10:32pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

I've yet to see how studying all of the options in anyway jeopardizes any sort of safety net. Please explain that too me.

It's a study. It's words on paper.

I wonder if some people are not just more concerned that what it will reveal is that taxpayers are overspending a great deal on union jobs? Isn't that the real issue?

I for one am hoping the county finds a very talented and competent consultant who can untangle all of the nuances of this issue and put it all in relevant context and then there might be something real to debate.

Opposing a study strikes me as pure obstinacy. It's a head-in-the-sand approach that says "we're afraid of what they'll find."

Why be afraid of a fact-finding study? How does that betray current or future residents or even remotely rise to the level of being somehow unhumanitarian?

I have absolutely no clue if the nursing home should be sold or not, but before I take a pro or con position, I would like more facts. What's wrong with more facts?

Jan 5, 2010, 10:33pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Firstly, I do not object to a study, I do object to the pontential sale of a high quality home for people who otherwise would not be able to afford any care elsewhere, that is the purpose of the opposition in the Facebook group. Enough with the dismissive attitude that because the argument has a humanitarian component that is not a valid argument, it is, period. Go tell the folks who may be able to enter into the home because a private company may take less Medicare recipients that they don't matter. They do.

I am also concerned with this charge that fighting for Union jobs is a bad thing. Up until recently, and I am talking to you Charlie, you were the President of the Batavia City Council, you know how hard union workers work to plow the streets, maintain the parks, fight fires and police our city, you always commented that you admired their dedication and valor, why not have the same attitude towards the employees at the County Home? These people have a high level of training, have a difficult job, and should be paid wages that is comparable to the hard work they put in day in and day out.

I am not ashamed of defending union workers, there is a way to balance the concerns of high taxes without vilifying good and hard working people who serve the public.

Jan 5, 2010, 10:35pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Dan, I have not made up my mind about this issue. I only objected to the thug tactics I have seen in this thread. The matter needs study, period.

And yes, our city workforce earns their pay and we should all be thankful for the work they do.

Jan 5, 2010, 10:44pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Daniel, at what point does a union providing legitimate worker protection and benefit pass into being an unjustifiable burden on taxpayers?

I think New York is reaching some sort of cross roads on that issue, and this is a microcosm of that growing issue.

It's cross my mind that if the county can find some way to keep the nursing home open and functioning at an acceptable level of performance, but cut all the union costs, then we might see more government agencies looking for ways (and we'll probably see this anyway) to cut the strings with the unions -- just like the city did with the ambulance service.

It's not even necessarily an anti-union thing -- but just a dollar and sense perception that it's a place to cut costs.

Jan 5, 2010, 10:45pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Howard, workers have the right to organize. I think that there are other areas of the county budget, such giving millions of dollars of tax breaks to projects that may not see any real economic benefit.

I think that giving workers protection and legitimate wages and a democratic process is something that should never be done away with.

Jan 5, 2010, 10:55pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

I'm not arguing with the right of workers to organize.

So are you saying that even if it meant your taxes would go up 50 or 60 percent, the union should NEVER be done away with?

I mean, because my question is at what point do unions become too expensive?

Jan 5, 2010, 11:02pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

I think that argument is somewhat dramatic, municipalities can always negotiate with unions. Currently, CSEA workers are working without a contract in Genesee County..

Jan 5, 2010, 11:06pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

I'm not sure it's dramatic. I think it's one of the significant issues rising up to face New York taxpayers.

And it seems much harder for a government agency to break the hold a union has on that agency than for a private company.

The only option seems to be to abolish the agency, as the city did with the ambulance service.

And my point here, again, isn't to be anti-union but to make what I think is a legitimate intellectual observation -- there's a chicken coming home to roost here.

We're probably observing only the tip of the iceberg of government agencies struggling with what to do with the escalating cost of unionization.

The City getting rid of the ambulance service -- and I'll be curious to know if Charlie backs me up on this -- had a lot to do with saving retirement costs down the road, as a bigger issue than any current annual costs.

Jan 5, 2010, 11:12pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

And I would further ad that if union supporters don't look at this as the crux of the issue, then they're not really going to come up with a way to intelligently protect union jobs. They're going to be fighting over specious issues rather than the real issue, which is local governments are facing a crisis in supporting a uninonized work force.

Jan 5, 2010, 11:15pm Permalink
Bryant Tyson

A study on how GCH could save a few bucks would make a good first step.
They went off the grid a few years ago creating there own power useing diesal fuel just before the price of fuel went though the roof. For weeks and months at a time that system craps out and they rent a large generator to power the place. I would think some major cost saveing could be made there. Do they realy need a new maintance truck every 2 to 3 years. Do they realy need to have contract security 24 hours a day? I am sure they could tighten there belt some.

Jan 6, 2010, 12:15am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Howard, of course I can back up what you are saying. Union people have the right to organize, they also have the ability to price themselves out of a job. These terrible collective bargaining rules in NY are forcing municipalities to cut back.

Jan 6, 2010, 4:58am Permalink
Chris Charvella

This isn't about union jobs. The jobs at the nursing home are skilled and in demand, those jobs will be there no matter what happens.

I haven't had a single discussion with the CSEA on this matter.

Jan 6, 2010, 11:21am Permalink
bud prevost

Then why all the opposition to a mere study?

And the answer is....because they are afraid what they will find. Medicaid fraud opened at one entity leads to investigating another, then another, then they figure out where the BILLIONS of dollars of waste are. Government doesn't want you to know how much of your money is wasted on bloated middle management, waste, price manipulation, etc. Why, you ask? Because this enables the theory that government is there to take care of you, don't worry about anything for yourself, big brother is your everything.
Now, as far as a study at this point, we might as well just cool our heels and wait to see what healthcare "reform" brings about. By the time a study is done and paid for, the whole playing field could change and the sale could be moot point.

Jan 6, 2010, 9:43am Permalink
Chris Charvella

The opposition is to sale being on the table. If county management believes that there is waste or innefficiency at the home then that is what they should be addressing.

I'm particularly sick of hearing about waste and abuse that has 'been going on for years.' If that is the case then why weren't these things handled years ago? You can't do nothing for years and then use the problems you ignored as a crowbar to force through your agenda.

I'll reiterate the fact that a legislator said to me very plainly that the sale of the nursing home is 'a done deal.' They're not actually looking to improve the efficiency of the operation, they're dead set on having a fire-sale on county services. The nursing home is essential to the quality of life of senior citizens in Genesee County and we will NOT let it go quietly or without a fight.

So try and make it about unions or taxes, but I promise you that my only responsibility is to the people who need the home now and the ones who will need it in the future and I will do my best (and worst) to ensure that they have a voice.

Jan 6, 2010, 9:46am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Chris wrote, "The opposition is to sale being on the table. If county management believes that there is waste or inefficiency at the home then that is what they should be addressing."

But based on what I heard from Jay Gsell the biggest cost concern is associated with public sector workers.

So how isn't this a union issue? And if that is the biggest cost burden, how do you eliminate that cost burden short of sale?

Further, the only way to have a proper study is to include the sale option. If all options are not considered then you have a biased and worthless study.

Jan 6, 2010, 9:56am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Government by its nature is slow to react and therefore it is inefficient and wasteful. That has nothing to do with the employees that do the job. The problem is that politics plays apart in management. Government is incompatible with good business practices. Take a look at this example; people feel the need to interject to even stop a study into how the operation could be run better. Private businesses does this type of reevaluation constantly.

There is a rule of thumb, anything run by the free market will be better for customers and even the employees in the long run. I’ll wait for the study but, you don’t need a crystal ball to see through this problem. Its government intervention in the free market.

Jan 6, 2010, 10:06am Permalink
Chris Charvella

Given Mr. Gsell's negotiation history and previous comments about unions, I'm not surprised that he'd immediately look in that direction for a scapegoat. He's blamed CSEA for just about everything he could pin on tehm for the last few years. This is no different.

Find efficiencies within the system. Reconnecting to the power grid should save the home a ton of money, but one wonders if that was just a measure taken to make the home more enticing to private buyers.

Jan 6, 2010, 10:06am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Chris, I would never call you names. I deleted the comment; it was not my intention for you to take offence. I like you very much and usually agree with you. I simply do not agree with you on this one and am looking for nothing more than a respectful debate.

Jan 6, 2010, 10:14am Permalink
Chris Charvella

Your free market ideology works a lot of the time Charlie, but try and explain free market economics to a senior citizen who has nothing left and no means to pay for a private bed. Explain it to them when the private facility refuses to take Medicare and kicks them out on their ass. Explain to them that the free market says that they're useless, expendable, and unimportant in the grand scope private enterprise.

I love capitalism, but with no checks or fallbacks for the people the market forgot we're no better than the Spartans leaving disfigured children to die on the mountain.

Jan 6, 2010, 10:15am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Chris, there is no doubt we have a health care crisis in this country. That problem needs to be solved on a national level and not with my local property taxes.

Property taxes are a scourge on our society and are unfair in a lot of cases. It is my belief the tax should only be used for local needs such as road maintenance and public safety.

Jan 6, 2010, 10:31am Permalink
Chris Charvella

That's fair Charlie. I was having this exact discussion with my father this morning. My contention is that the nursing home ranks right up there as an essential service, the sort that a lot of people cannot provide for themselves. I don't think government should be involved with every aspect of our lives, but government does have a duty to it's citizens.

Jan 6, 2010, 10:44am Permalink
Mark Potwora

So try and make it about unions or taxes, but I promise you that my only responsibility is to the people who need the home now and the ones who will need it in the future and I will do my best (and worst) to ensure that they have a voice...Chris who made it your responsibility...Is this so you can have some kind of platform to run for a political office..

Jan 6, 2010, 10:52am Permalink
Bea McManis

Where did the assumption, from Howard and others, that those who want to keep the County Home open oppose a study?
To my knowledge, no one opposes a study. We oppose the "done deal" regarding the sale WITHOUT a study.

Jan 6, 2010, 11:15am Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Charlie Mallow on January 5, 2010 - 10:44pm
Dan, I have not made up my mind about this issue

cmallow wrote on Jan 3, 2010 12:16 PM:
" I pay enough already in taxes. County government should not be running what should be a private business. Government is not capable of adjusting quick enough to run an efficient business. It is futile for them to even try. "

Sure sounds like your mind was made up a few days ago. What changed your mind from absolute to considering the issue?

Jan 6, 2010, 11:26am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Bea, Chris wrote, "The opposition is to sale being on the table." Others have made similar statements.

So it's no assumption -- the opposition has made it quite clear, "no study that includes a sale option."

And without the sale option, there is no legitimate study.

Jan 6, 2010, 11:28am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Chris, btw, something I've been meaning to say the past couple of days -- I do think it's great that you've taken up this cause. While I question the early opposition to sale before all the facts are on the table, I do believe you are doing a good thing for the community in stepping forward as a leader. I don't care whether it's out of political ambition or not -- communities need people like yourself to step forward and be leaders on issues they are passionate about. And, should it come down to sale or no sale at a later date, you and the people you've organized will be well positioned to fight the sale, if that's what you decide to do, so you've also done the smart thing by getting out in front on the issue.

Jan 6, 2010, 11:31am Permalink
Chris Charvella

Howard, waiting until the sale is final to complain about it is certainly counterproductive. If we hadn't picked this fight now, no one would even know that the RFP had gone out. Which brings me to another point, if this is such a great idea then why wasn't the county singing its praises last October instead of waiting until 7 days after election day to release the RFP?

Jan 6, 2010, 11:49am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Chris, nobody is suggestion the opposition wait until the sale is final to complain.

It will be months if not years after the consultant finishes his work before a sale is file, so that strikes me as a spurious point to make.

And the timing is the timing. It's not really an issue. Sometimes things happen when they happen.

Jan 6, 2010, 11:55am Permalink
DOUGLAS MCCLURG

Me-following the Batavian in a silent mode.I support whatever works best for the community,was wondering.how much will these consultants charge for their findings?
And once again-Don't rock the boat when the ship Is sinking

Jan 6, 2010, 12:42pm Permalink
Karen Miconi

I would just like to offer my heart-felt thanks to The Genesee County Nursing Home, for their quality of care my father is recieving. Thank You Al Nolan, and all the wonderful staff in the 1st floor Demencia Unit. What a tight ship they run, and are compasionate wonderful people.
My father, after having to literally hand over every bit of his savings, stocks, 401K, Investments(forced to take highly taxed maximum draws), Beautiful Landmark Home(that he remodeled by himself, and is very proud of), and life he worked so hard to build, was actually smiling today, for the first time in a while, instead of crying his eyes out.
He had "too much" money to qualify for medicaid, but was forced into applying anyway?? He had enough money to pay the "300 dollars a day" to be cared for, but couldnt be taken in, until the "Medicaid Form" was proven to be in the works. Therefore he had to spend 3 weeks at the Buffalo VA(whom I would also like to thank).

4 weeks ago GCNH called to tell us they had a bed for him. We were all so thankful, that we could have him close to us(where local elderly should be, not thrown into some out of area facility!). I cant imagine having him miles away from us.

I have never seen such a screwed up healthcare system in all my life. Its quite a racket they have going. I dont see the need for unions either, and think they are also a money grab. What, the average working Joe isnt just as deserving, of the fruits of their labor, because their not in a union??
You all better be ready, to hand over EVERTHING you have worked for, all your life, to the county and state, cause it comin.. Make sure you have all your paperwork too from 20-30-40 years ago, bank statements and withdrawl slips, visits to the bathroom, ect. The state of NY demands it, and will own you, and all your money eventually. Dont try to protect your home from the State of Ny's money-grubbing hands, by signing it over to your children, because they will make you, put it back in your name, so they can take it too. The ink is still fresh...
So keep working hard people,get ready to be begging for care, when you get old, and having your family dragged through the coals.
All this bickering above is so trivial, and not at all whats important. This is the reality...
Bitter Grapes?, Most certainly Peter...

Jan 6, 2010, 3:21pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

The only public use of money for healthcare I support is the VA. Posted by Peter O'Brien on January 5, 2010 - 12:56pm

If I recall correctly, Peter, you mentioned death panels in an argument pertaining to public funded health insurance reform. Wouldn't denying nursing care to those who cannot afford it amount to de facto death sentences for the poor?

Jan 6, 2010, 1:07pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Bea that is the beauty of debate, it forces you to consider things you might not have.

The real question is how you made up your mind without any debate at all and become organized to boot? The strange thing is how people feel justified to tug on the heart strings for one needy group but, seemingly without care for those among us who might have drug and alcohol problems. To some of us, it seems there is an agenda here based more around saving union jobs then helping those who are less fortunate.

Your real agenda became apparent the minute you attacked a personal friend of mine for the good work her organization tries to do in our community. What I have come to understand is that if someone’s heart bleeds for one group, it usually bleeds for all.

Jan 6, 2010, 1:50pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Charlie Mallow on January 6, 2010 - 1:50pm
Bea that is the beauty of debate, it forces you to consider things you might not have.

The real question is how you made up your mind without any debate at all and become organized to boot? The strange thing is how people feel justified to tug on the heart strings for one needy group but, seemingly without care for those among us who might have drug and alcohol problems. To some of us, it seems there is an agenda here based more around saving union jobs then helping those who are less fortunate.

Your real agenda became apparent the minute you attacked a personal friend of mine for the good work her organization tries to do in our community. What I have come to understand is that if someone’s heart bleeds for one group, it usually bleeds for all.

Charlie,
I'll ask you again to find one place where I attacked her. As a matter of fact I stated she posts with clarity and intelligence. Since when is that an attack?

I believe that those afflicted with drug or alcohol problems should be entitled to help. I also believe that those who have worked all their lives and paid taxes in Genesee county should not be abandoned and left to fend for themselves when and if their health situation requires them to reside in a nursing home. I can't pick and choose the situations where I can stop looking at those who need a voice (be they in drug and alcohol rehab; or the elderly; or the needy).

Yes, there should be fiscal responsibility. Those in charge of the nursing home, and the lack of oversight by the county legislature brought us to this place in time.

Am I advocating for CSEA? No. Do I believe that the workers have a right to organize? Yes. Do I believe that compromise is needed from all involved? Yes.

The bottom line, is that I believe that the County Home is the safety net for our elderly. It has been for almost 200 years. That is a rich heritage we have in Genesee County, people taking care of people. When did that concept become passe'?

Jan 6, 2010, 3:19pm Permalink
Lynn Knoop

Wow! CSEA is getting the blame for everything! I don't know what I am going to do with all this power. AS Chief spokesperson for CSEA I must be the person who gave all the CSEA employees their "sweet deals" The only real problem here (Charlie et al) is they only have the same benefits (with the exception of the pension system)of their private sector counterparts. Have you seen what the private sector nursing homes pay? Did you know they also grant vacation time, sick time and holiday time? Did you know the starting wages were so low at the County Home the County themselves demanded they be increased? Did you know our membership contributes to their health insurance too? We cannot help keep the GCNH open if we don't know what the Hell you want!

I bet you didn't know how closely CSEA works with the Nursing Home to resolve problems. No, you wouldn't know that because we are the EVIL! Unions do not only look for money. We look to establish joint resolutions to problems. Educators at no cost (that also helps Administration) and yes, resolve grievances.

If Jay Gsell has a problem with our benefits he can bring them to the negotiating table. It is time to do that, But do you know what? We could take no raises for 3 years and he would come up with another excuse to blame us. The General Unit has been attacked by the County over and over yet all the other unions receive their raises. This year we will not see another raise coming our way but you know what? We're ok with that! At least we prevented the County from cutting the wages of all new employees by 10%. When the Legislators and County Manager start treating every group equally, then we'll talk. Until then we shall continue to rebel.

Jan 6, 2010, 4:44pm Permalink
C D

Posted by Bryant Tyson on January 5, 2010 - 9:20am
We are going to be paying for the care of you ageing baby boomers real soon...

This has already happened. It's going to continue getting worse as more and more baby boomers retire.

Jan 6, 2010, 5:18pm Permalink
Jennifer Keys

It appears to me that the opposition isn't against the study, but rather against the sale. It appears that the county is considering only the sale and not any other options. If that is not accurate then the county legislature should come out and say it. Perception IS reality until proven otherwise.

These arguments about taking in family are all well and good, but the reality is that is very costly in and of itself, both emotionally and financially. Not everyone can do that. In addition, what happens if something happens to you after you've taken in your family? We can do our best to plan for everything with the limited resources most of us have, but things happen that can't be planned for...then what do you do?

Finally, this argument ISN'T about subsidized school lunches, but since it was brought up, I'd like to leave you with one parting thought...school lunches are such a minimal part of what our extensive taxes go to, it's nearly negligible, yet what they provide is invaluable...for many families who cannot afford to pay the full fee it provides their children with one square meal every day...one square meal (or two if they get breakfast) that their little bodies and brains need in order to develop so that they can become productive members of society. In addition, it is not only eaiser to learn, but it is also easier to behave and get along with others when you are not hungry. Remember it is not their fault that they don't have the money to take care of themselves.

Jan 6, 2010, 5:52pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Jennifer wrote: "It appears to me that the opposition isn't against the study, but rather against the sale. It appears that the county is considering only the sale and not any other options. If that is not accurate then the county legislature should come out and say it."

But the county DID come out and say exactly that. In the original post I quote the exact paragraph where they say they want to study all of the options. At no point in the RFP do they say the want to consider ONLY the sale.

Jan 6, 2010, 8:44pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Well, if the county still had the RFP up on their website I could easily clarify this for everyone, but who needs transparent government anyway?

The RFP specifically mentions sale among other options. Assistant County Manager Frank Ciaccia said of sale: 'We expect it to go in that direction.'

Make no mistake, sale is the goal and always has been; no amount of circular commenting or redirection is going to change that fact.

Jan 6, 2010, 8:54pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

The RFP is an official document that consultants will respond to. It will be the basis of a contract. There is no circular argument. You write "The RFP specifically mentions sale among other options." So by your own admission the county is officially looking at all options, including sale, so I ask for the 100th time, what's wrong with that?

The only thing that matters is what's in the RFP, not what Frank Ciaccia says or what an individual legislator says outside of a legal public meeting.

This all boils down to one very simple question, "What is wrong with gathering all the facts and looking at all of the options?"

Again, I have no position one way or another on whether the nursing home should be sold, but it just baffles me that anybody would oppose the county doing wise and prudent due dilligence on all of its options.

Jan 6, 2010, 9:13pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Howard, their agenda is sale. It has been admitted by two county officials now, one elected one not all before the RFP has been publicly discussed. If you think they won't direct whatever consulting firm they hire to grease the tracks that lead toward selling to a private company you're simply being naive.

The county isn't doing the 'due diligence,' they're pushing an agenda.

Jan 7, 2010, 8:01am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Lynn, it sounds like your membership would be far better off being managed by a private company. After reading what you wrote, I can only imagine how low the morale is for the workers at the nursing home.

As for your “exception” of the pension system, that’s a pretty big one isn’t it? That is the benefit that is draining municipalities all over this state dry.

Off topic a bit, it still amazes me what public employees are willing to say about their boss in a public forum. Most of us wouldn’t even bother going to work the next day after a rant like that about our employer. After having done the same, I’m sure my stuff would be in a box waiting for me at work.

It sure sounds like Jay Gsell is doing a fine job looking out for our county taxpayers. Keep up the good work Jay, most of us appreciate it!

Jan 7, 2010, 8:02am Permalink
Bea McManis

Just out of curiosity, is Gsell part of a pension program funded by the state? If so, does he get a pass when it ocmes to draining the state?

Jan 7, 2010, 9:50am Permalink
Jennifer Keys

Thank you, Howard, for the clarification. The thing is that even though the RFP says that the discussion that we see from County officials is about sale. Again, perception is reality.

Jan 7, 2010, 10:33am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Bea’s question wasn’t relevant, that’s why it wasn’t answered. The county needs a manager; it doesn’t need to run a nursing home.

Chris, I also read it, your right there isn’t any option. The county wastes between $566,000 and $821,000 a year trying to run a nursing home.

Jan 7, 2010, 2:30pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

Chris, I also read it, your right there isn’t any option. The county wastes between $566,000 and $821,000 a year trying to run a nursing home.

Some would say it's not wasted, Charlie

Jan 7, 2010, 2:58pm Permalink
Bea McManis

"Gsell said the sale of a publicly operated nursing home is a lengthy process that would take about two years to complete. A consultant will identify the pros and cons of selling, provide financial projections for the nursing home for the next five years and explain all of the state Department of Health requirements to be followed in the event of a sale"

So, where are the other options that we read the legislators and Gsell are considering? If it isn't a "done deal", then it pretty darn close.

This isn't hiring a consultant to provide options.

What do you think the county will do with the money from the sale of the nursing home? Lower your taxes? Somehow I doubt that.

Jan 7, 2010, 3:00pm Permalink
Karen Miconi

Bea's question is relevent if Gsell and his crownies cushy pensions, raises, and perks are coming out of our pockets, and the less fortunate will suffer at their hands. I just love how knowone will investigate, but cry broke and blame everyone else for these so called deficits. How about the "study"? What is the pricetag on that?? Im sure its in the thousands, and for what. Just like the bogus ambulance deal. Is it ever going to come out about the 200,000+ profit, that was indeed made last year, by the ambulance service?? It was admitted in front of our firefighters, why not the public??
What it is, is Avoidance Bea, The first human responce. I cant wait for the day when I can catch them all at their game..We are not fools, just have been taken advantage of by the state of ny and the county far too long. There's plenty of money to go around Bea, its just in the wrong hands...

Jan 7, 2010, 3:19pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Charlie Mallow on January 7, 2010 - 2:30pm
Bea’s question wasn’t relevant, that’s why it wasn’t answered. The county needs a manager; it doesn’t need to run a nursing home.

It also doesn't need to run an airport, but it does.
Providing affordable nursing care for Genesee County residents is as important, if not more, in the grand scheme of improving and maintaining the quality of life for all in our county.

The question of Gsell's pension is relevant. If he is in a state funded pension plan, then what he will receive is far more than the pension someone working at the nursing home.
Yes we need a county manager. We also need caring people, willing to do the work that needs to be done at the county home.

You scoff at special interest groups. That is your right. You know, Charlie, if GCASA needed people to join a special interest group to save them, I'd be there too. It isn't a pick and choose thing.
Politicians should never expect the population to give rubber stamp approval for everything they do. They are elected to govern, but they are also elected to listen. The disconnect is when the poltiicians believe that the only people they need to listen to are the ones who agree with them. They are missing the point if they don't also listen to those who tell them what they don't want to hear.

Jan 7, 2010, 3:27pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Bea, maybe they could spend the money on street, bridge repairs or sheriff patrols? This argument that says “They will raise taxes anyways” is false. Costs rise every year. Politicians are reluctant to make changes because special interest groups apply pressure. The group that you belong to that is trying to keep the status quo at the nursing home, is a special interest group. Groups like yours are responsible for increases in government spending and waste. I also don’t have a problem with you expressing yourself or pushing your cause. But, understand that “politicians” don’t raise taxes, the people that vocally ask for more services or resist change do.

Jan 7, 2010, 3:15pm Permalink
Karen Miconi

Its groups like Bea's that plow through all the red tape and crow that they are trying to feed us. My father and all the residents of the nursing home deserve the utmost respect and the best care. OMG you are blaming the elderly?? Wow

Jan 7, 2010, 3:25pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

What I'm seeing here is that the 'options' line we've been fed all week was at worst a lie and at best an obfuscation.

In typical fashion though, supporters of the county's fire-sale agenda have immediately jumped on board and are spouting the new company line: We should be selling it anyway, who needs options?

I would have a lot more respect for the folks in charge of this if they would just come out and say, 'Your opinion only counts if you pay property taxes. If you're too old, too young or too poor we're going to ignore you until you go away.'

Jan 7, 2010, 3:28pm Permalink
John Roach

Bea,
The County Manager is a civil service employee, covered by a pension, as all full time county workers are, from the bottom clerk on up.

You're right about the airport, but we are stuck with it now since we took federal money for it. We are not stuck with a Nursing Home. We have an option to keep or sell it.
But,why not wait until the study is done and then fight to get the issue on the ballot?

Karen,
Do you think all county employees should all give up their pensions because they are publicly funded?

Jan 7, 2010, 3:30pm Permalink
Bea McManis

John,
I have the RFP in front of me. There were no other considerations or options. This "study" will be skewed toward the recommendation to sell. Point blank, done deal!.

"Stuck"!
What a word. Stuck! As if the people who are in the home are just useless trash to be ignored or put out of sight. Far out of sight, if the home is privatized.

Jan 7, 2010, 3:57pm Permalink
Julie Morales

Some people seem to think they will never get old and never need help. Who do The Invincibles think will be taking care of them when they are old?

And ya know, by then it might even cost more to do it.

Jan 7, 2010, 4:51pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Bea, I don’t scoff at special interest groups. I just have a clear understanding as to them being the reason for high taxes. I am also not against the government making sure that the elderly have a place to retire too. I would join you and have frequently done so when the discussion turns to the government’s responsibility to make sure that all Americans have adequate health care. I’m far from a right wing radical or a teabagger.

This discussion isn’t about adequate health care, it is about county government running what should be a private business. As I have said repeatedly government is too slow and lumbering to run a business without waste and inefficiencies.

AS for the airport, our county needs one to compete for business. I think the folks down at the GCEDC would back up that statement. Big business factors in things like airports, before they invest in an area. I also believe that our airport breaks even.

Jan 7, 2010, 4:57pm Permalink
Beth Kinsley

Charlie says: I am also not against the government making sure that the elderly have a place to retire too (sic).

Just where do you suggest the government put them?

Jan 7, 2010, 5:05pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Beth, we are capitalists are we not? Government doesn’t run businesses in our economic system. The elderly would go into a privately run nursing home. Again, it is not county government's responsibility to provide subsidized health care paid for by property taxes.

Jan 7, 2010, 5:13pm Permalink
Beth Kinsley

What do you mean by your statement then? How would you propose that the government make sure that the elderly have a place to retire to if they cannot afford a private nursing home?

Jan 7, 2010, 5:17pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

I love how people immediately jump on the Daily story or come along now and suddenly state the RFP says something that it doesn't.

There is nothing in the Daily story nor the RFP that says selling is a done deal.

What's as clear to me as ever is that the county is looking at its options regarding bringing down the cost to TAXPAYERS regarding the nursing home. One of those options is OBVIOUSLY selling it.

Why all the obfuscation?

Jan 7, 2010, 5:28pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

What happens when the private homes turn away people because of their financial situation? How about when a person has a disease that the private facility chooses not to deal with? What do our senior citizens in need of quality care do then? Do we ship them off to a home 50, 100, 200 miles away?

If you have your way there will be no public nursing facilities left to care for these people and it will be because we choose to live with blinders on when it comes to morality and justice for the folks who need it when they need it most.

Don't tell me there's no place for a county run facility in the grand scope of a capitalist society. Leaving these people with no option but to fend for themselves when when they have no means to do so isn't capitalism, it's feudalism.

Jan 7, 2010, 5:50pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Charlie Mallow on January 7, 2010 - 4:57pm
Big business factors in things like airports, before they invest in an area. I also believe that our airport breaks even.

Major businesses (and even small ones) develop mission statements and Added Values that they strive to meet.
Most include a responsibility to their stockholders, their employees, and their customers.

Many also include mention of civic responsibility. The belief that they are part of the community in which they select to do business. The community amenities may attract them here, but it is also the warp and weave of the fabric of the community that tips the scale on whether or not they want to relocate.

Community leaders who are willing to push their infirmed and elderly out of the only safety net they have is not an attraction to civic minded businesses.

Our county owned home is just as much an attraction as the airport.

Right now the buildings are there as well as the equipment and expertise needed to care for those in residence. There is no promise that another concern (most likely from out of state) will purchase this facility and keep it open to any in Genesee Co. regardless of income. There is no promise that they won't run it into the ground then sell it off.
That has happened in other areas.

The veterans are lucky to have the VA and the NYS Vets home. Those who can afford private care have that option in Genesee Co. What happens to those who were never in the service, or married to someone in the service?
What happens to those who can ill afford private care?

Jan 7, 2010, 5:29pm Permalink
John Roach

Too bad there is now way to canvas seniors who rent or own their own home, just making ends meet and asking if they would pay more in rent or property taxes to support the Nursing Home, since they are the ones closest to needing it.

Sad fact is that medicaid will not pay full reimbursement to Genesee County for the care given. And you have all read that part of the health care plan being debated (behind closed doors) in Washington has a big cut to medicaid in it. Our own Governor has said this cut will cost us more in higher taxes.

How do you get full reimbursement for care? How much more can the low income and senior citizens pay in Taxes?

Bea, why would they be anymore out of sight and out of mind if the home was privatized?

Jan 7, 2010, 5:30pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Sale is the only 'option' that was discussed in that story.

Judging by your comment Howard about taxpayers the only people whose opinions matter around here are property owners. The rest are but serfs in Jay Gsell's Dukedom.

Jan 7, 2010, 5:33pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

What you’re all not grasping is that there is only so much money our county can raise through a regressive property tax. Like John says seniors who own their own homes will take the brunt of the escalating costs. The county cannot put off road repairs, sheriff’s patrols or close the airport to finance our own public nursing home. The county has done a good job keeping taxes down and they cannot lose focus under the pressure they will undoubtedly face in the coming months. The road signs, phone calls and letters to the editor will start pounding away at them. This is gut check time and I think they have the metal to withstand the onslaught.

Long live Duke Gsell!!

Jan 7, 2010, 5:47pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

We're not failing to grasp anything Charlie. There are ways to make the home more efficient and cost effective without selling it off to the highest bidder. I promise you that these ideas will be well outlined and specific as to the cost savings.

Jan 7, 2010, 5:53pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Funny Charlie, for you it is a game. Who wins and who loses. The 'little' people, in this game don't deserve any respect. it is all for the fun of the game.
Well, those seniors who are still paying taxes still believe that the county home will be there when and if they need it. it isn't a game to them, it isn't for laughs.
Those who are now renting, paid taxes for years to make sure the generation before them had the safety net of the county home. They also believed that it would be there for them.
Big laugh, Charlie. You can raise your glass to Gsell and wish him well. That was your hilarious answer to Beth's question about where the elderly and infirmed should go when they are turned away by private nursing home. Laugh it up, Charlie.

Jan 7, 2010, 5:57pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Charlie Mallow on January 7, 2010 - 5:13pm
Again, it is not county government's responsibility to provide subsidized health care paid for by property taxes.

Charlie,
Please read over the county mission statement and show me where the county agrees that it isn't their responsibility to provide for those who can't provide services for themselves?
If you and the rest of insiders don't believe in this mission statement (written in 1995), then perhaps it is time to change it.

Genesee County Mission Statement
I. The legitimate objective of government is to do
for a community of people whatever they need to
have done but cannot do at all in separate and
individual capacities.”*
II. To this end, Genesee County Government
promotes the basic health, safety, and welfare for
all citizens within its jurisdiction.
III. Genesee County Government actively
promotes a strong, diverse economic base and
efficient services to create a quality of life which
values our County as a desirable place to work and
live.
IV. Genesee County Government focuses on a
vision of the future which clarifies its role,
represents the citizens, and respects its heritage.
V. Genesee County Government is committed to
an environment of cooperation, integrity and
openness, with a desire to elicit active citizen
participation.
Adopted: 12 April 1995 Resolution Number 114

Jan 7, 2010, 6:12pm Permalink

What are these cost cutting measures Chris?

I'm curious about this. You are a business owner. If your company was losing money hand over fist, what would you do? Would you make cuts? Would you raise your pricing? Would you try to find more business? All of it right?

You and I both own and run businesses. You know that if you are operating the in the red for too long, you go out of business. What has the GCNH done over the past years to do any of this?

I want everyone taken care of, but why does it have to be done irresponsibly? Why can those who run the GCNH continually fail and place a larger burden on everyone else?

You are call it basic rights? Fine. Then one of you need to put up or shut up. Bea and Chris, you are both business managers, know budgets and seem to have answers. If you go to the county and tell them that you will form a group to run the GCNH more efficiently and save the money. Can make it Breakeven...NOTHING more. Not a single shred of profit, just spend what it takes...I will support you.

Will you do that?

Jan 7, 2010, 6:18pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Bea, don't lecture me from your high horse about reality. I have taken calls from seniors who I voted to price out their homes. Homes they worked for their whole life and raised their families in. I have also spoke to people who I have voted to take away their job.

This is a political game to kill time for you. In the end someone with more to lose will make the tough call you don't have too.

Jan 7, 2010, 6:39pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

I don't present information for information's sake. For two months now we've been researching how the home does business as best as we can. When we're ready we'll air out the inefficiencies.

Some of it has to do with filling beds, some of it has to do with making transitions from one function of the home to another easier for patients.

We can't be sure what to believe about the recent propaganda that says the home has been running at a deficit 'for years' either. Someone pointed out earlier today that the June 4th edition of The Daily News said that the home "finished 2008 in the black by 2.3 million dollars." The numbers in the paper today say the opposite. Someone is either full of it or can't do simple math. We'll find the truth.

Jan 7, 2010, 6:45pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Phil,
The question is who and why was this allowed to continue for so long?
How many empty beds are at the county home right now?
aren't the filled? Would those filled beds cover the deficit?
I'd do a geratric happy dance if the county did form a citizens committee to at least offer suggestions. It isn't going to happen. Why would they listen to the old (and in their perception, feeble) people? We are the generation that you and Charlie and others feel are using up your taxes so that great grandma can be waited on hand and foot. We are the people who's names on a petition don't hold credence because we no longer pay taxes. Forget, of course, that we paid those taxes for years.
Throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't always the best solution. You don't close the doors. You make intelligent decisions that take into consideration the loss of medicaid reimbursements; the cost of resources; etc.
Telling me, Chris and others to put up or shut up isn't the answer. Becoming vocal is the only thing many of us have left to communicate our concern for what we feel is an injustice.
You have already made your views known. You believe that those who can't afford private care should be kept at home. I'm not sure who is suppose to take care of them. This is a mobile society. Family units don't all live within blocks of each other as they did years ago.
Who decides what productive, working member of a family should give up their job to spend 24/7 tending to an elderly relative? Who decides which family member has the medical training to provide the care that an elderly person receives at the home? How will a family afford the equipment needed by many? It may sound good on paper...this is how you can stop spending MY tax dollars.
The reality it, most families could do it for the long term?
So the question goes back to you. Do we just abandon the elderly and have them fend for themselves if they can't afford private care? Do we look at Dickens when he wrote, "better to die and decrease the surplus population"? Is that the answer to preventing great grandma from being waited on hand and foot and squandering the tax dollars spent on the county home?

Jan 7, 2010, 6:52pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Bea wrote, "Community leaders who are willing to push their infirmed and elderly out of the only safety net they have is not an attraction to civic minded businesses."

Bea, where do you come up with this nonsense? Name one community leader who has said they want to "push their infirmed and elderly out of the only safety net they have ... "

That is such a large red herring, it's almost not worth addressing.

The idea that any current or future resident who could live at the nursing home as a government-run agency might not be able to do so under private ownership is nothing but a fantasy. There is no sound reason to believe that the residency requirements would change, or that care would diminish in any way.

Rather than saying care would diminish, it would be just as logical to say it would improve, if one were inclined to back the sale, and maybe a private company would have the wherewithal to expand the facility and create more beds for the infirm and the elderly.

There is no reason that supposition can't be made right along side the supposition that care would diminish. But suppositions about the unknowable future are equally valid.

Chris writes: "Judging by your comment Howard about taxpayers, the only people whose opinions matter around here are property owners."

I'm a renter. You think I don't pay property taxes? I beg to differ. Every renter in the county pays property taxes.

We should all be concerned about property taxes. Raising taxes is one of the worst things you can do to a local economy.

And as John correctly pointed out, higher taxes tend to be the greatest burden on those just getting by on fixed or marginal incomes. Where is the humanitarian concern for those people?

Chris, again, I respect your taking a leadership position on an issue that is obviously important to you. I'm just pointing out some of the areas where I think an alternative perspective can be applied.

Jan 7, 2010, 6:59pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Charlie Mallow on January 7, 2010 - 6:39pm
I have taken calls from seniors who I voted to price out their homes. Homes they worked for their whole life and raised their families in. I have also spoke to people who I have voted to take away their job.

...and what proud moments you have as your legacy.
Your "long live the Dukedom" statement was reality enough You can laugh about it, but it wasn't funny for those who lost their homes and for those who lost their jobs. Do we go back to The Godfather and claim it was business, not personal.

So, now those seniors who lost their homes, will also lose the safety net of the county home. Long live the dukedom!

Jan 7, 2010, 7:01pm Permalink

No Bea, That's ridiculous. Why is speaking out the ONLY thing that can be done. You just stated a ton of reasons why things could be wrong. WHY THEN again, should it be allowed to continue as it is?

Why is it you can come on this site and demand things for these people, but when ask if you will Physically lead the charge and run you dodge?

Maybe most families can't afford to take care of their loved ones, but how many of us can afford to keep having everything go up? If YOU have the answers then go and LEAD. If YOU have the courage to write on this blog THEN GO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

Yes My position is known. I am killing myself to pay for a home, my kids , my taxes and still am TAKING CARE OF MY GRANDPARENTS!!!! That is my responsibility. I'm not rich, but some person far away gets to draw a line in the sand and say:

Every person on this side gets help and everyone on this side fend for yourselves. That's the GREAT government way. I think it's garbage.

So YES I thinks its very appropriate to say put up or shut up. YOU are the biggest voice here. What YOU going to do about it beside just be a voice because it is obvious that the county can't do it.

Jan 7, 2010, 7:06pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Howard, you have never been so completely and unequivocally wrong.

Phil, Bea is doing her part for our community. What seems to be the problem? Hell, we wouldn't have to do this at all if we thought the county government gave a lick for its citizens. Please continue to complain about your tax bill. It's the only horse you have and it's been dead for a while. Maybe you should be championing the abrogation of the Department of Works, they don't bring in much cash do they? They're necessary though, they do a good job and provide a service that we absolutely must have, and so does the nursing home.

Jan 7, 2010, 7:21pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Funny too how all the folks here who were saying, 'Wait for the study,' are now convinced that the county can't operate the home. So much for waiting for more information to make a decision.

Jan 7, 2010, 7:19pm Permalink

Your right Chris it's a dead horse. That's why so many people are leaving this area... because of all the opportunities and low cost to do business right? What a well thought out remark!

Yes the Department of Works is essential, but if they were wasting money wouldn't you be calling for improvements as well? And if a private firm came in and showed that they could do everything that our public works do for a fraction of the cost, you would not be for it?

Isn't that what this whole debate is? NO ONE is saying that there shouldn't be a home for seniors!! They are saying that is irresponsible to keep allowing it to siphon money with no recourse for us all.

Jan 7, 2010, 7:27pm Permalink
Bea McManis

thank you Howard, Phil and Charlie.
First, it isn't my welfare I'm looking after, but those I see struggling on a daily basis. You know the ones, those great grandmas you don't want waited on hand and foot.
All I have asked from any of you is what will happen to those who need the safety net of the county home after it is gone.
Howard seems to believe that things will remain the same.
Phil wants them all to go home.
Charlie wants to make sure that people who own their homes and pay taxes are no longer burdened with the cost of those residing in the county home.
Should I just ignore the feeling that there is something wrong with this picture.
Phil, you aren't the first person to take care of aging relatives. More people than you would want to count have or are doing the same thing now. If you can do that for the long term, more power to you. If you figured out a way to juggle all those balls in the air, more power to you. At least you are still working.

Charlie, you keep applauding Gsell for his dukedom. Give him that "good old boy" pat on the back.
Unintended consequences? You didn't intend for people to lose their homes or their jobs? You knew full well what the consequences would be.
I do know what I'm asking the legislators to do. I am asking them to think of those "unintended consequenes", what they do now can't be undone.

As far as being the 'loudest' voice on this site. It can easily be remedied. That will be up to Howard. If he feels that I have nothing to offer this site, he can always remove me.

Jan 7, 2010, 8:04pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Anyone care to address the fact that the paper had the home running at a 2.3 million dollar profit in 2008 and now the county says it operated at a loss? Nah, why bother right?

Jan 7, 2010, 8:10pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Bea, I have one last thing before I pull out of this thread. I don’t really know Jay Gsell personally so; I won’t be giving him a “good old boy” pat on the back. We have met a few times and have maybe shared 10 words during my time in office. Make no mistake, I know the job Jay does, I know the pressures he is under, he doesn’t deserve to be insulted. I know Chris as well and I know that was not his intention so, I made light of his statement. There is no dukedom in this county and you are insulting a good man for no reason at all.

You’re too fast to punch below the belt. This site is a place for civil debate. If you want to be taken seriously show people whom you disagree with, respect.

Jan 7, 2010, 8:19pm Permalink

Yes Bea I am lucky to be working because I lost my job due to this economy. I was fortunate enough to get one back, thanks for that! I didn't know how I couldn't have an opinion because I blessed enough to have my job.

I know and have stated, how hard it is to grow old in this country. That doesn't, for at least the forth time I've said it, mean that it has to be run so poorly.

If the study shows that a private firm, can still take care of the patients there, yes the ones that are there, and that will save money for everyone else...YES really save money, not put it in a hundred different places...actually give money back to the residents? Then why not?

If the study shows that it can't...Then KEEP it the way it is!!! I have said this a few times now. I don't want people on the street.

Again, This whole system is a joke. Some Politician created a number and then drew a line in the sand. Everyone on this side gets help....Everyone on this side Screw off!

Guess what Bea? I'm on, like a lot of us, the screw off side. I'm taking care of my grandparents because they're on the screw off side! It's no power to me, it's my responsibility to my loved ones that don't fit in the wonderful bubble that is a medicaid home. THAT is where so many of us are.

You feel like you have a cause, I agree, but I think it's too one way or no way. The County doesn't have to be the only answer for these people to be taken care of. That is what this study is doing.

Jan 7, 2010, 8:41pm Permalink

I don't have the foggiest clue, Chris. That's a great question to ask them. I distinctly remember for two years in a row how the NH lost hundreds of thousands of dollars and the debate was going on then. It would be quite interesting how they were losing for years in a row and then made a huge profit. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I think something is quite off with that report.

Jan 7, 2010, 8:45pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

I don’t want to beat this to death. You said, “Charlie, you keep applauding Gsell for his dukedom. Give him that "good old boy" pat on the back.”

Is your inference somehow a complement? Or should I take your statement literally that you believe he runs the county as if he is royalty and Jay is somehow on the take or a mobster? There is no reason to play the game, words have meaning and inference. You actually insulted me as well. Do you believe I have gained in some way from knowing Jay? From your words, I’m also a member of the “good old boys” club. I’m sorry; I seem to have missed the meetings and it was still difficult coming up with all my tax money this year.

Jan 7, 2010, 8:49pm Permalink
John Roach

Bea,
I saw the mission statement and no place does it say we have to have a Nursing Home (or an airport). Health clinics, health inspections, etc, seem, to me, what the statement means by "basic health".

And, to a point, the current taxpayers are the most important people in this debate. Others may or may not have paid county taxes for years, but the current tax payers have to pay now. Jobs are gone, foreclosures up, and many want just to be able to pay this years taxes, not higher ones. People on unemployment and food stamps find it hard to justify higher taxes on their houses.

And yes, they know taxes will go up. Gas, paper, electric, water, road salt, blacktop; all go up and we have to pay more and more for it. But, when and if we can save money, and maybe keep a business or a family around here, we should.

The primary goal of the county should be, after public safety, keeping business and people here,in this area. Not force them to leave.

When the County government is the 2nd largest employer in Genesee County, we have a problem.

Jan 7, 2010, 9:18pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

It's clear several people are very passionate about this issue. I would remind everybody to be careful not to get personal or take too much personally.

Any time you find yourself writing, "NAME, you ... " and then launch into something negative about that person, you're really making It personal.

I deleted a comment for what I thought was a personal affront to a particular individual.

On the other hand, I also believe some people are taking disagreements personally. Just because somebody disagrees with you and states that disagreement doesn't mean they're demeaning or insulting you.

This is just a friendly reminder ... I'm not trying to be a scold.

Jan 7, 2010, 10:40pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

So driving to the basketball game tonight, thinking about this, I had an idea of something else to say ... so let me see if I can recompose my thoughts ...

Point A) Some private firms who could run the nursing home might do it better; and, certainly, some private firms who might run a nursing home would do it much worse.

Correlated to Point A, we don't know which type of private company might buy the Genesee County Nursing home, but there is certainly a chance it could be a bad owner.

Correlated to that last point, even if a good owner bought it first, that good owner could either sell it to a bad owner some day, or change management and go from good to bad (though, that same danger exists with public ownership).

So, as I continue with my thoughts -- keep in mind the possible continuum of good to bad private ownership -- it's definitely a sliding scale.

Point B) Some people seem to think that even if the county is or were to start losing money on the Nursing Home, it is still an "essential service" the county must maintain. Now, it's not the government's role to either run services at a profit nor should some service be expected to even break even. We don't, for example, expect our police departments to generate revenue and break even (in no direct sense). So, there may be a case made that the Nursing Home should not be expected to even break even.

Correlated to that, however, is the fact that there are nursing homes (even ones housing a substantial number of medicaid recipients) that are profitable and well run. So we know it is possible to have a well run, profitable private facility that provides care for the neediest among elderly residents.

So my question is -- where is the trade off between maintaining status quo, even if the facility is a net drain on taxpayer dollars, vs. taking the risk of having it go private.

Let me put it like this:

Let's say the study comes back and says that over the next decade, if the county doesn't get rid of it, the facility will lose $1 billion (now, I HIGHLY doubt that is even remotely true, but just go with me on this hypothetical). Is there anybody among the "do not sell it" crowd who would even remotely suggest that taxpayers should foot the bill on a $1 billion loss?

Now, let's say the study comes back and says over the next 10 years the facility will lose $1. Who among the "it must be private" still back making it private in the face of a not unreasonable possibility that making it private could be a total frigging disaster?

So that's the sliding scale -- if it were revealed that the Nursing Home would be a net drain on taxpayer pocket books, where on the scale does one say the loss is too minimal to take the risk on private ownership? Or at what point is the loss so great that it makes no sense to keep it public, no matter how concerned we might be about the quality of a private owner?

If you don't think the Nursing Home should be sold, answer me this question: How much of a loss should the taxpayers subsidize? $1? $100,000? $1 million?

If you're one who believes the government has no business being in the nursing home business, how much are you willing to gamble that a totally unacceptable owner could buy it? Would you really suggest that, say, a $10,000 yearly loss is unacceptable in the face of the risk of a bad buyer?

Like it or not, we have a public facility now, and it seems from the surface pretty nice.

There is the old saying, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water."

On the other hand, there is this rather, to me, real concern about ballooning public employee benefits to keep it in public hands.

Another point I thought about making while driving -- remember when the ambulance service was being wound down, all the signs in yards about "if you have a heart attack, who will come?" Those signs were pure scare tactics. You don't see them much any more. Why? because the non-government service of Mercy EMS has proven they can get to a heart attack or accident scene pretty well. I don't know of anybody with any real complaint about Mercy EMS.

One of the things I react to regarding this issue is scare tactics.

I see no reason to de facto assume that private ownership would be a bad thing. As I said before, it could be a very, very good thing (though as I acknowledge in this post, there is a real possibility it could wind up in bad hands).

I'm not going to fall for the scare tactics, however. We all should have learned that lesson once very recently.

My recommendation to the sales opposition isn't to employ scare tactics, but to use the logical argument of "what's acceptable risk?" Where does a pure look at dollars and sense stop making sense. Right now, I don't sense from the opposition any sense of fiscal responsibility. It seems they're willing to lose any amount of money, and to me, that's just not an argument that is going to win the day with the fairly conservative residents of Genesee County.

If you want to block the sale, you're going to have to wait until the facts are in, the study is complete, and then make your case in a way that makes sense to the conservative voters of Genesee County. I can envision circumstances where that will be possible. I just don't think scare tactics are going to work.

Jan 7, 2010, 11:10pm Permalink
Mark Potwora

Howard great point about the government ambulance service we had ,and the private one we got now...I thought the same thing..This the sky is falling crap is all BS..Wait till they do the study see what it says ..No one is going to throw anyone out in the street if it goes private..No one mentioned that we have a private nursing home on State St...I know of someone that was in there and was on medicade...They got great care by non-union staff..So lets not debate who does a better job at taking care of these people....Both union and non union alike give there best to take care of the people they are in charge of..This is all about what we can support as a county..There is only so much tax money to go around..
We have private schools and they teach children just as well as government schools..So maybe government isn't the answer to every thing...Didn't the government run post office just loose a bunch of state pension checks...Maybe if the post office was private it wouldn't of happened..It might even make money..Isn't the hospital private,its not run by the government ,How do they do it..

Jan 7, 2010, 11:49pm Permalink
John Roach

Howard,
I would only add that there is no guarantee that just because a Home is run by the government, it will be well run or give great care.

While not a problem here, now, there have been plenty of reports about bad homes and hospitals that are government run.

Jan 8, 2010, 7:12am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Mark, I could not agree more, you know someone has their hand in your pocket when they break out with the scare tactics. I think it is clear that a private company can outperform any government run debacle.

Jan 8, 2010, 9:05am Permalink
Chris Charvella

What reports, John, and how many of them have anything to do with our nursing home?

All of the numbers you're asking for Howard will be available soon. You'll be surprised, I think, at how little the home costs the average taxpayer. Keep in mind as well that it's not just property taxes footing the bill here. Sales tax plays a part as well so a couple bad years can make it look dire and a couple good years can make it look easy.

With just a little more efficiency, the home should be able to be publicly run AND operate at a near break-even point.

Jan 8, 2010, 9:13am Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Charlie Mallow on January 8, 2010 - 9:05am
I think it is clear that a private company can outperform any government run debacle.

Are you saying the NY State Vets' Nursing Home is a debacle and not performing well?

Jan 8, 2010, 9:30am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

I'll say the home in Batavia seems fine from what I've seen and heard, but the one in Los Angeles is a debacle.

The government doesn't always get it right.

Jan 8, 2010, 9:48am Permalink
Chris Charvella

The county home has a four star rating and performs above the state and national average in almost all measured categories. We're definitely not trying to polish the proverbial turd here.

One of the things that struck me when I looked through the ratings was teh amount of time residents get to spend with staff. We're not talking candy-stripers here either. The time that residents are attended to by RNs is well above average and speaks to the quality of care they're receiving as well as the dedication of the nursing staff.

Jan 8, 2010, 9:53am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Bea, I’m sure the staff is outstanding at the nursing home and they provide excellent care to their patients. There isn’t a doubt in my mind that the employees work just as hard and are just as dedicated to their profession as any private care facility. But, from a financial standpoint, if the budget figures from the county and reported by the Daily News are correct, that business loses between $566,000 and $821,000 a year.

Hospitals, ambulance services and even baseball teams don’t lose money and survive in our system. The only things that do are government debacles subsidized by my tax dollars. Before you say it’s a government service and it doesn’t have to make money, I don’t buy that. It’s a business that is being run by a government entity, which is the reason for its failure to perform. I have no problem using my tax dollars to help the poor; I do have a problem with my tax dollars being used to subsidize an inefficient business.

Jan 8, 2010, 10:25am Permalink
Chris Charvella

Charlie, I think we'll have to philosophically disagree on your money making point. They certainly could and should be doing better; they have made money for the county in the past and they can do it again.

Jan 8, 2010, 10:28am Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Howard Owens on January 8, 2010 - 9:48am
I'll say the home in Batavia seems fine from what I've seen and heard, but the one in Los Angeles is a debacle.

The government doesn't always get it right.

Which proves you can't paint them all with the same brush. The NYS Vets' Home is an exceptional model for a govenment run facility.
Is the one in California a state run facility or federal?

Jan 8, 2010, 10:52am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Bea wrote, "Which proves you can't paint them all with the same brush."

Which is exactly right, Bea, and the corollary is you can't say all private owners of of nursing homes will be bad or do bad things.

It's VA, Bea. It's Federal. And for clarity sake, I'm referring to the VA Hospital in Los Angeles, though there is a home attached to it -- I have no experience with the home.

Jan 8, 2010, 10:59am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Bea wrote, "Which proves you can't paint them all with the same brush."

Which is exactly right, Bea, and the corollary is you can't say all private owners of of nursing homes will be bad or do bad things.

It's VA, Bea. It's Federal. And for clarity sake, I'm referring to the VA Hospital in Los Angeles, though there is a home attached to it -- I have no experience with the home.

Jan 8, 2010, 10:59am Permalink
John Roach

Chris,
Long shot, but do you know of any Government run homes that make money, or break even?

The only other one I am familiar with is the Erie County Home, and it has been running in the red for decades. But they also have a very old complex that will be closed and a new one, attached to ECMC,will be built, with limited government subsidized payments.

Jan 8, 2010, 11:17am Permalink
Bea McManis

I can remember visiting great uncles in both the Erie Co. Home in Wende and at a private home in Niagara Co.
in the late 40s and throughout the 50s. They were depressing places. Nursing homes have come a long way.

Jan 8, 2010, 1:05pm Permalink
John Roach

Chris,
In the past, the Medicaid reimbursements were higher also.

The problem is now and in the future with pending cuts to Medicaid by the Federal Government, leaving us with having to make up the difference. How do you get around that without raising taxes each year?

Jan 8, 2010, 1:31pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

John, the June 4th edition of The Daily News reported taht the home finished 2008 2.3 million in the black.

The Federal governments proposed Medicaid cuts are geared toward waste in the system and are tied to a bill that hasn't even gone to conference yet. The sky is not falling.

Jan 8, 2010, 1:44pm Permalink
Bea McManis

John,
Let's assume that this is a done deal. The county home is sold and privatized.
Will the sale of the home really stem the tide of rising taxes every year?

Jan 8, 2010, 1:45pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Bea, that’s a hollow argument. Taxes rise because of escalating costs, waste and special interests. You can’t throw your arms up in the air and say, Oh who cares if we waste money on my pet project because, taxes are going up anyways.

If I remember correctly taxes have remained steady at the county level for some time. That takes planning and proactive measures like this to keep a steady tax rate. That is exactly what has been happening at the county level.

Jan 8, 2010, 1:58pm Permalink
Karen Miconi

Posted by Chris Charvella-
"John, the June 4th edition of The Daily News reported that the home finished 2008 2.3 million in the black."

Why is it that Chris has brought this up twice, but knowone is responding to it. The nursing home is in the BLACK. Thats right They made 2.3 Million in profit.
I wonder where the Daily got their info from? Like the ambulance deal, it is making a profit, yet is in threatof being sold.
Hmmm "Red Flags a Flyin here" What is going on?? Maybe some fact finding and answers are in order. Something is Arie.....Where's the 2.3 mill being transfered to, and who spearheaded this so called "expensive study" on the CGNH? Even curiouser is, what the "Study" cost taxpayers?? Any correct information would be much appreciated, and needed at this point in the game.

Jan 8, 2010, 2:03pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

To be fair Karen, it doesn't look like the home will be in the black for 2009. The County manager has also said that the home ran at a deficit for 2008, we'll find out what the truth is soon enough.

Jan 8, 2010, 2:12pm Permalink

Because Karen I have been trying to get more info.
All the County sites talke about is how it has been repaying the 2.5 million RAN loan to run it's operations.

The GCNH had to borrow that money becuase it has been running in the red for years. The County site said they paid a good amount back in 07' but it didn't make any claims for 08'.

If the GCNH made 2.4 million in profit, why does it still owe money on the RAM?

I'm not responding Karen because that doesn't make a bit of sense.

Jan 8, 2010, 2:20pm Permalink
John Roach

Chris,
The home was also listed as having lost money in other years, so I would not pick one year and leave out the others. I'd ask why 2008 made money and is it likely to happen again. I think the study will answer that.

And while not yet a done deal, it looks like the closed door bill being done in DC will cut medicaid. Our Governnor seems to think so also. To say it is to cut waste is shaky at best. They are supposed to be doing that all the time. In fact, that is one of the reasons they gave when they cut the reimbursement rate before.

Fact: We do not get paid from medicaid for what it cost us. To make up the cost, either we pay higher taxes, or the home charge private insurance payers more to make up for it, or both.

Now, if you could get the our two US Senators to give us full payment for service and care, this would be easier. Instead, they take care of Nebraska and Louisiana. How about us?

Jan 8, 2010, 2:50pm Permalink
John Roach

Karen,
The cost of the study will be public once the contract for it is awarded.

However, the group they are putting together to pick the contract winner will have two legislators, unnamed yet.

Since only one legislator, DeJanniero (D,) has come out against the sale, no matter what, I hope he is one of the two picked for balance.

Jan 8, 2010, 2:56pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

John, I was just proving that making money is possible. While I don't believe it to be necessary, it certainly can be done.

No use discussing Federal bills that haven't gone to conference yet. There is no way to properly gage their impact. We can have that conversation when there are facts to discuss.

Jan 8, 2010, 3:05pm Permalink
Karen Miconi

John an Chris, Thank You for your quick responce to my legitimate questions. Its all important, in one way or another. Cant wait for the totals,documentation, and reason for this RAN loan. The taxpayers of Genesee County, have EVERY right to have access to this information. Exersize Your Rights People!! Thats what they were given to you for....

Jan 8, 2010, 4:13pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

Agreed John, whatever the study shows and if the Legislature decides we should sell, the final decision should rest with the voters of Genesee County directly. So, putting all the acrimony and arguments in this thread aside, it's good that Chris's group is causing the discussion early.

Jan 9, 2010, 7:53am Permalink
Bea McManis

Dave,
I agree.

Yes, the disposition of the Genesee Co. Nursing Home should be decided by the voters.
What possible reason would the politicians object to bringing this to a vote? Isn't that democracy at work?

Deriding those who are spearheading a discussion only makes one wonder why. What reason is there to attempt to shut down or diminish the importance of an opposing point of view?

I don't understand the animosity against a special interest group. There are many who champion a cause for or against an issue that I may not agree with, but I certainly understand that they have a right to be heard.

Jan 9, 2010, 8:35am Permalink
John Roach

Bea,
The special "interest group" hints that if you want to sell the home, you hate old people and want them to die, that you don't care.And no private home run for a profit can or ever will be any good. Maybe the group should have been more careful in its choice of words at times. And who knows, maybe some of them really believe it.

On the other side, people see a bunch who want cradle to grave care, paid for on the backs of the middle class taxpayer and call it "social justice". That gets them fired up, just like the other side.

Too bad the nursing home was ignored during the past election.

Jan 9, 2010, 9:02am Permalink

I agree John.

During my run one of the Big things that I constantly pushed for was just that, Open Government and putting things out to vote! There are too many of these decisions made behind closed doors without the taxpayer having a say.

Regardless of were I stand on this issue compared to Chris or Bea, we should ALL have the right to vote on big things like this.

Jan 9, 2010, 9:35am Permalink
Chris Charvella

I'm not sure where the law stands on this issue being put to referendum. It would certainly be the equitable way to handle it though.

Jan 9, 2010, 10:07am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

A ballot resolution will do nothing but, bring fear and disinformation into this process. We have County Legislators in office who won in landslide victories or obtained their positions without opposition. This tells me the public is VERY happy with who we have in those positions. I know I am so, let those with the facts make the call. That’s what they are paid to do. We live in a representitive democracy, if you don’t like what your legislator is doing, run for his/her job.

Jan 9, 2010, 4:39pm Permalink
Lorie Longhany

Does it mean that after an election we have no rights left as citizens to ask for a democratic process? That we just roll over and accept any and all decision? Public officials work FOR the people they represent and that includes those elected without opposition. And just because an election is over doesn't mean that the citizens have no recourse. They work for us!

Even with this 'Bowling Alone' disconnect, people are and will pay attention to this issue. The County Home connects many in Genesee County in a very personal way. Example: At my adult art class the other night, I was the only person in the room that <b>didn't</b> have a relative living in the County Home. They had already signed the petition in the entryway of the facility as they visited their loved ones. This issue touches many lives in Genesee County and from what I'm hearing people are paying attention.

It isn't fear mongering or peddling misinformation to alert the public about the Legislature's agenda, especially when the agenda could have very real consequences on people's lives.

A ballot referendum would be the very best way to decide whether or not to privatize a public facility that's been a safety net for the residents of this county since the 1820's.

Wonder what some would think about selling off jails and prisons. That would be a good way to get rid of all the legacy benefits from those facilities.

Jan 9, 2010, 8:21pm Permalink
bud prevost

Lorie said" Wonder what some would think about selling off jails and prisons. That would be a good way to get rid of all the legacy benefits from those facilities."

AMEN!! I see no difference. As a matter of fact, if it were an either/ or thing, I would prefer private prisons. There are a few states out west that I know have them. Not sure if they make or lose money, but who cares. They aren't subsidized by the taxpayer directly, and I think are run with less bull**it bureaucy. Think of all those correction officers with a state pension. Makes sense

Jan 9, 2010, 8:00pm Permalink
John Roach

Lorie,
Just as a side note to your comment about selling prisons.

Democrat Governor Mario Cuomo did sell Attica in a slight of hand, to another State agency. Of course it was just a budget scheme, but it was sold.

Jan 9, 2010, 8:22pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

Charlie Mallow wrote: "A ballot resolution will do nothing but, bring fear and disinformation into this process."

I say it'll bring transparency and will reflect the will of the people of Genesee County. I don't want to be a legislator, does that mean I'm supposed to shut up and accept what they do blindly?

Jan 10, 2010, 7:20am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic, a representative form of government.

We already had a vote on the fate of the Nursing Home. It happened in November when the current legislature was elected.

Charlie's right -- a ballot initiative would be subject to manipulation. It wouldn't reflected "the will of the people." It would reflect which ever sides' pure emotional appeal captured the imagination of the most voters.

A fascinating book on propaganda and how a select few use it to bend "the will of the people" to its purposes is Public Opinion, by Walter Lippmann, written in 1922. When I first read it, I had a very negative attitude toward Lippmann's message (because of stuff I had read previously put Lippmann's opinions in a negative light), but the more I think about it, the more I think he was on to something.

The majority of people don't take the time to really get to know an issue.

The Nursing Home sale will be, should that be what the county decides to do, an incredibly complex issue. How many voters are going to take the time to read and understand the probably 100-page document that might just help them start to understand the issue?

I suspect my argument against a ballot initiative is going to find the most disagreement with the anti-sale coalition, so let me put it like this: A large portion of Genesee County's voters are conservative. Do you want to risk that A) they won't switch because they see not selling because it's purely a Democratic issue; B) because they think the more conservative thing to do is sell, make it private, save taxpayer money; C) because the "it's all going to go to hell of sold" argument doesn't appeal to them.

All three of those reasons could combine to defeat the anti-sale coalition, and none of the reasons would be founded on solid logic or facts. Keeping the Nursing Home public could be in fact that absolutely right thing to do it and selling it could be a huge mistake, but selling it could pass in the face of all logic and reason.

The best course safest course of action for the anti-sale crowd is develop their own case, appeal to reason and publicly state their case and lobby the legislators. The flip side of not enough people paying attention is that a small vocal group can have a huge impact on their representatives, even when those representatives seem to be a lost cause.

If the public option for the nursing home is the best option, then the best hope for keeping it public is to convince the legislators.

Jan 10, 2010, 9:10am Permalink
Dave Olsen

Howard, I know it'll be messy; and you're right not many people will bother to get all the facts, they rarely do. I just think some issues are important enough to warrant a referendum. Sure, some will try to manipulate one way or another. I believe the truth will come through. I've been called naive and worse before. I'll say that we need to see a study on the Nursing Home, and this isn't me, but it seems the people on the side of not selling have a serious trust issue with the Legislature. What is that about?

Jan 10, 2010, 10:13am Permalink
John Roach

One question that is really unknown right now is how many people even really care about the home.

If you have a friend or family members in the home, you care a great deal. If you think you might need to go there, you care.

But if you are young, or moved here in the past few years, or are planning to move out of the area when you retire, you might not care too much or not at all.

Jan 10, 2010, 10:34am Permalink
C. M. Barons

Since the 70s, New York State has discouraged referendums (with the exception of school districts). I believe the discouragement came from the top-down as state lawmakers questioned the practicality of tacking bond selling referendums onto election ballots for things such as transportation funding. The state constitution was interpreted to vest the decision-making power in the hands of representative proxy- the people elect their decision-makers, a mandate to make any and all decisions for the electorate. As county government began overseeing local zoning and planning, town and village boards, who had conducted referendums out of conscience to validate projects of major expense, were discouraged (if not barred) from polling. I recall when Bergen was redesigning the street-side parking in the village, some nay-sayers were advocating a referendum. The mayor noted at one public meeting that there would be no referendum. That project included state, county, local and Conrail funding. Such projects are front-loaded with studies and engineering; a commitment to go is necessary before the intitial planning funds are approved.

Jan 10, 2010, 10:57am Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by John Roach on January 10, 2010 - 10:34am
One question that is really unknown right now is how many people even really care about the home.

If you have a friend or family members in the home, you care a great deal. If you think you might need to go there, you care.

But if you are young, or moved here in the past few years, or are planning to move out of the area when you retire, you might not care too much or not at all.

John,
While shopping, yesterday, I was approached by three different people who are reading thebatavian. One of them DOES have a parent in the nursing home right now. Another's parents were both residents there before they passed. The third has no one in the home and admitted she has never visited there. However, Howard' pictures of the Batavia paintings prompted her to make a date with a friend to visit next week. She said she wanted to see what the home was like.
While we were talking, the man in line behind us chimed in and said he has been following along on thebatavian as well.
His first comment was "how do you deal with people who feel their tax money is wasted on the old?".
Sad question, isn't it?

Jan 10, 2010, 11:14am Permalink
bud prevost

Bea said "His first comment was "how do you deal with people who feel their tax money is wasted on the old?".
Sad question, isn't it?"

I don't believe anyone (except perhaps Peter) feels their tax dollars are being wasted on the old. I do believe that many people feel their tax dollars are being wasted IN GENERAL.
I'd also like to see real numbers as far as P/L statements, medicaid reimbursements,etc. While health care should not be a business, the reality at this time is that it is. Until such time that the government provides ALL with birth to cradle health care, I don't see it as fair to select some and not others. I have a difficult time with that "sand in the line" that Phil referred to.
I do want to point out that I still am a proponent of federal government run health care. It, along with providing a military, are the only 2 things the US government should be concerned with. Everything else can be dealt with on the state level, and down. Government needs to be downsized, not maintained, and certainly not grown. We have far, far too much bureaucracy in this society, and not enough common sense and empathy.
This nursing home issue is just one of millions of bubbles in the boiling caldron that is the USA, and my fear is an explosion is imminent.

Jan 10, 2010, 11:50am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Bea, wrote: His first comment was "how do you deal with people who feel their tax money is wasted on the old?".

But that isn't the issue. The issue is how much money should the government lose before privatization is the better option for both the old and the taxpayers?

The "taxpayers vs. the old" is a false dilemma. Nobody is talking about or suggesting doing any harm to the old, and attempts to paint it that way are disingenuous.

Right now, nobody can honestly say whether selling it is a good or bad idea. There simply isn't enough information available yet.

Jan 10, 2010, 11:54am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

This debate we are having has nothing to do with people’s feeling towards the elderly. It has everything to do with continuing to allow county government to subsidize a poorly run business with our property taxes. It is a failed argument to say that if the nursing home is privately run it would be bad for those who live there. My thinking is the opposite, it would be better for the residents. From what we have heard, there is no doubt a private company would probably even serve the employees better.

Bea and a few others have tried to turn their fight for union jobs into an emotional argument. They are wrong to say if you don’t agree with them, you don’t care about the elderly. That is irresponsible and nothing more than a scare tactic created to push an agenda that will be bad for the taxpayers, elderly and even the employees.

I’m sorry Bea; your group should have done a better job planning before you initiated your campaign. The people I talk to tell me they see through your transparent arguments and believe them to be inspired by the union.

Jan 10, 2010, 12:56pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Your group fails to understand that a good portion of our tax money comes from elderly people who can not afford the burdens already placed on them.

Jan 10, 2010, 1:01pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Charlie,
first, this isn't "my" group.
I was asked to join because I advocate for the senior citizens.
second, the group was not formed as a political tool or a union tool.
third, when you talk about the people who have a burden placed upon them, by taxes, then why not push for a vote and let the people make the decision after the study is completed.

Rumors run rampant on a hot issue. What you consider 'fear mongering' really isn't. The fear that the county home will not be available for those, regardless of income, is real. The seniors discuss it often because they know how private homes are run. Many of them, even with their social security, can't afford a private home.

How difficult is that to understand? For many, it isn't the case of poor cash management, but caught in the same hole as the rest. They paid or pay their taxes; they had savings diminished; they stocks went south. They are paying co-pays that are out of sight.

Granted, I can understand why you and the rest don't want to be responsible for a generation that is no longer productive. As Phil stated, why should he commute and work 12 hours a day while there are those who sit and do nothing. Or, as Peter mentioned, why should his taxes pay for great grandma to be waited on hand and foot.

You and the others may think those are just clever bon mots to throw out, but to others take them serious.

Just for one moment, consider if you are wrong. The home is sold and the private organization only allows a small percentage of people with limited incomes. I know you think it is a stretch, but just think about it.
After the home is sold will it effect you or your lifestyle? Not in the least. But, what happens to those who can't afford private care? What happens to those who don't have family to care for them? These are the questions seniors are asking, and they are being asked by those who are still paying property taxes. Somewhere along the line there has to be a real answer to those questions just to quell the fear that you believe is manufactured.

Jan 10, 2010, 1:35pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

It is a fear that is manufactured. That's not a belief. That's a statement of fact. There is no evidence available right now, other than imagined evidence, that selling the home would mean any senior would be out on the street.

The only way I can think of to prove that it would be true is to survey all of the public nursing homes that have been made private and then look at the increase or decrease in the number of beds occupied by elderly patients on public assistance.

If the number decreased significantly, then you would have a legitimate reason to fear the nursing home going private would mean elderly patients would be put out on the street.

Absent some proof like that, there is no reason to believe based on current available knowledge, to fear it being sold. It is illogical for anybody, regardless of age, to fear it being sold based on available evidence.

The other possible case study might be to survey private nursing homes with a mission of serving elderly patients on public assistance, and look at such things as percentage of patients at each facility on public assistance, look at quality of care ratings and health inspection records, and come to some conclusion as to the average expectation for care.

Surely, some agency or NGO has already done some such study.

Obviously, there are private facilities that only cater to those who can afford a certain level of private care, but with all the money to be made off of public assistance patients, surely there is a market for public facilities that cater to that clientele.

But the point is: To make blanket statements that selling the facility will automatically lead to elderly people on the street or with no where to go has no basis in fact, because nobody has presented credible evidence that it is reasonable to expect that outcome. Absent that evidence, to live in fear of a negative outcome from a sale is unreasonable.

Two other aspect to this topic that is never discussed is:

Even if the county wants to sell, that doesn't guarantee there would be a buyer.

And nobody has raised the issue of ensuring that covenants are placed on the buyer to ensure that a certain number of beds (if not all beds) be reserved for or go first to elderly patients on public assistance. That is also an alternative approach to both get county taxpayers off the hook for escalating costs and ensure that no poor elderly patient is put out on the street.

Jan 10, 2010, 2:10pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Howard Owens on January 10, 2010 - 2:10pm Obviously, there are private facilities that only cater to those who can afford a certain level of private care, but with all the money to be made off of public assistance patients, surely there is a market for public facilities that cater to that clientele.

Apparently there isn't enough money to be made by providing a home for those who most need it.
That is why the county wants to get out of the business and why private institutions limit the number they will take in.
So, once again, where do these people go?

Jan 10, 2010, 2:40pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Bea, the county wants to EXPLORE the idea of getting out of the business because of concerns over rising personnel cost, directly attributable to the nature of public sector employment in New York.

These are factors that would not impact a private employer, who would no longer be employees covered under a public employee collective bargaining agreement.

Absent those costs, there's no reason not to believe that a private company (or a non-profit) could operate the home at a profit (or break even).

So to answer your question: They go to the Genesee County Nursing Home, just as in the past and the present.

Jan 10, 2010, 2:52pm Permalink
Mark Potwora

The nursing home on State st. is private and they taken in medicade people ,So does the Village Green in LeRoy ,so there are two place that they can go..Plus as Howard just said "They go to the Genesee County Nursing Home, just as in the past and the present. "

Jan 10, 2010, 2:59pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Bea, I have no problem paying my Social Security tax. I would have no problem paying extra payroll taxes to reform our health care system and ensure that elderly can have adequate nursing homes. All of those things would benefit me one day as well.

This fear on the other hand is an intended by product of the group you are working with. As Howard says it is completely manufactured. This stand will end up hurting your cause in the long run.

My argument with you is very limited. I do not believe county or any other level of government should run a business. That is socialism and it is not a function of our government to run businesses. I don’t want to rehash my reasons but, it comes down to efficiencies and government is not efficient.

Jan 10, 2010, 4:35pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Just to be clear -- I say it's manufactured at this point. I'm cognizant of the idea that facts or research may come forward that will validate the concerns. I'm just saying, we're not there yet.

Jan 10, 2010, 4:44pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Howard Owens on January 10, 2010 - 4:44pm
Just to be clear -- I say it's manufactured at this point. I'm cognizant of the idea that facts or research may come forward that will validate the concerns. I'm just saying, we're not there yet.

What difference will it make, Howard? No matter how many facts or studies are quoted will not even make a dent in the belief that all the facts and figures were manufactured. Haven't you figured it out yet, anything that goes against what they want can't be right.

"My cause"! I love that. My cause is to make sure ALL the facts come out and not just the information that the county feels we should see. The same people who claim they don't trust "government" to run anything, seem equally capable of trusting the "government" on this one. Odd isn't it?

Jan 10, 2010, 5:02pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Restructuring Local Government, from Cornell University
I placed a link at the bottom for the entire report.
This is just a small portion:
More and more, counties are asking whether they should even be in the nursing home business. Because some, if not most, of the higher costs associated with county homes stem from the fact that they are units of county government, counties are looking into options that limit their role in the operation of the nursing home. Along a continuum ranging from the least limitation of the county’s role to complete divestiture of responsibilities, options that counties have considered or tried include:

Contract for management services to operate the county home. Under this option the county would retain ownership of the home, but in contract out responsibilities for varying degrees of the day-to-day management of the home.

Sell licensed beds. The county could transfer the license to operate some of its beds to a new operator. While the county would lose control of those beds, it would gain financially from the sale and could convert the sold nursing home beds into lower levels of care while retaining the remaining unsold beds for nursing home care.

Convert the home to a public benefit corporation. The nursing home would become a quasi-governmental entity essentially divorced from the county, though the county could retain some control by appointsing some members of the PBC board. Two counties in New York State are attempting to put public benefit corporations in place. This option frees counties from the responsibility of operating the nursing home, and depending on the enabling legislation, preserves civil service protections for employees.

Transfer the home to a not-for-profit corporation or sell to a proprietary corporation. A county could transfer or sell the home to a newly created or already existing not-for-profit corporation or sell the home outright to a proprietary operator. In each of these scenarios, the county is freed from the costs and responsibilities of operating the home, but also loses control. Its ability to help assure a continuation of the home’s historic mission will vary by the type of organization to which the home is transferred.
These and other alternatives to the existing relationship between counties and their nursing homes are discussed in greater detail in the report. While giving up ownership of its nursing home may save a county home, the county will also lose the ability to control the home’s future and the extent to which the new owner maintains the homes’ historic mission. Many administrators expressed concern about what would happen to the county’s more difficult-to-place patients; many were also concerned with job protection for their staff (an average of 300 employees per county home).

In the report, CGR details the points that county policymakers will need to consider as they grapple with decisions about the county home in a changing environment. The most appropriate options must be determined on a case by case basis, depending on the circumstances unique to each county.

http://government.cce.cornell.edu/doc/reports/options/summary.asp

Jan 10, 2010, 5:12pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Fulton County and Albany County are also grappling with this.

Fulton County
"....RFP, eventually will go to health care businesses and nursing homes, which would have to explain why they want to buy and operate the county facility. He said the RFP would go to health care facilities primarily in New York state, but possibly throughout the Northeast.

"They're going to have to explain their goals and how they would fit into the county," he said.

Stead said the county wants to have a return date for the proposals of sometime during the first quarter of 2010.

Pryor couldn't be reached for comment.

Facility Administrator Jennifer Gilston said Wednesday that residents and their families at the county nursing home are "absolutely" concerned and "fearful" about whether the facility will be privatized. In particular, she said residents are worried they might be forced out of the infirmary if a private company takes over.

"The reason is fear of the unknown," Gilston said.

She said there are only two other nursing homes in the county - Nathan Littauer Hospital's Gloversville Extended Care Facility and the Wells Nursing Home in Johnstown. She said the main question asked at her facility's Resident's Council meetings is, "Is there a possibility I might be displaced?"

Gilston said that when there is a potential buyer for the county nursing home, "anything can happen.
http://www.leaderherald.com/page/content.detail/id/518022.html

Albany facing the same issues, but looking for different solutions.
"We have an obligation to provide care for the indigent in the NYS Constitution. A new nursing home is desperatly needed. Regulations require sprinklers by 2013 and our existing facility will not be in compliance.

More than the new facility, we need effective leadership. Our residents and staff deserve better. The current leadership must be replaced with a recognized nursing home expert. In other words, we need the John Egan of the nursing home industry to run our facility.

We have offered a remedy, a public benefit corporation (PBC), much like the Airport Authority and Sewer District. The PBC would lease all of the County employees from the County except the Director. The Director would be hired by the board, chosen by the County Legislature, CountyExecutive, NYS Legislature and Governor.

The proposed Legislation to acheive this result would require action by the County Legislature, New York State Legislature, County Executive and Governor. The appointment of a high quality director for the Nursing Home would free the County from the management of the facility, improve the service to residents and staff, reduce the enormous loses to the taxpayers and allow for the construction of the new facility.

We cared enough in the past to provide excellent management for the Airport and the Sewer District but fail to provide this level of managment for our elderly residents of Albany County.

Majority Leader Frank Commisso and County Legislator and County Chairman Dan McCoy assured me yesterday at the Memorial Day Parade that they were prepared to move forward with the new facility soon. The key to a sucessful facility is to put top notch management in place.

Our children are watching how we treat the medically frail and elderly. Let’s do the right thing and get top notch management and a new facility for Albany County. We can improve lives and save tens of millions of dollars doing the right thing."

http://blog.timesunion.com/conners/albany-county-needs-a-new-nursing-ho…

Jan 11, 2010, 5:26am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Bea wrote: "What difference will it make, Howard? No matter how many facts or studies are quoted will not even make a dent in the belief that all the facts and figures were manufactured. Haven't you figured it out yet, anything that goes against what they want can't be right."

That in no way addresses anything I wrote.

Nor do the other items you posted.

Rather than repeating myself, please go back and read my previous comments.

Jan 10, 2010, 6:30pm Permalink
Bea McManis

The other items I posted? A Cornell study and the concerns from other counties were not in response to your psot, Howard. They are just food for thought.

Jan 10, 2010, 7:43pm Permalink
Lorie Longhany

"Does Investor Ownership of Nursing Homes Compromise the Quality of Care?," by Charlene Harrington, Steffie Woolhandler, Joseph Mullan, Helen Carillo, and David Himmelstein, answers its own question in the strongest possible affirmative: "Our results suggest that investor-owned nursing homes deliver lower quality care than do nonprofit or public facilities."

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/91/9/1452.pdf

Jan 10, 2010, 10:47pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Lorie Longhany on January 10, 2010 - 10:47pm
"Does Investor Ownership of Nursing Homes Compromise the Quality of Care?," by Charlene Harrington, Steffie Woolhandler, Joseph Mullan, Helen Carillo, and David Himmelstein, answers its own question in the strongest possible affirmative: "Our results suggest that investor-owned nursing homes deliver lower quality care than do nonprofit or public facilities."

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/91/9/1452.pdf

Lorie, I was especially struck by the findings:

Our findings on quality in long-term care
mirror data from acute-care settings.

37 Investor owned hospitals have higher costs

38–48 despite spending less on clinical personnel than do
nonprofit facilities.

47 Death rates and postoperative complication rates also are higher at investor-owned hospitals,

46,49 and nurse staffing levels are lower.

49 Investor-owned health maintenance organizations have worse quality scores and spend less on care and more on administration and profits than do not-for-profit
plans; overall costs are identical.

50 Nursing homes care for many people who
are too frail, too sick, too poor, and too powerless
to choose or even protest their care.

We believe that it is unwise to entrust such
vulnerable patients to profit-seeking firms.

Jan 11, 2010, 6:43am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

The propaganda link says, “47 Death rates and postoperative complication rates also are higher at investor-owned hospitals”.

That makes lots of sense because, everyone knows that people who are in the health care field and who don’t belong to a union are bad at their jobs… HA

Like I said FEAR tactics….

Links are like _____, everyone has one! I have found that once people resort to posting links, the discussion is over.

Jan 11, 2010, 8:02am Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Charlie Mallow on January 11, 2010 - 8:02am
The propaganda link says, ....
I have found that once people resort to posting links, the discussion is over.

Howard asked for study results. You consider any study propaganda. Discussion is over.

Jan 11, 2010, 8:17am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Where the hell does the Daily get this, "... seeking proposals from companies that might be interested in purchasing it ... "?

That is factually wrong.

Again, from the opening paragraph of the RFP:

"Genesee County Purchasing Director is seeking a professional service/consultant to assist the County in evaluating of options for the operation, management and/or sale of its 160 bed Skilled Nursing Facility and adjoined 80 bed Public Adult Home which comprise a long term care facility located in the City of Batavia, New York."

Jan 11, 2010, 8:24am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

BTW, since I had the RFP open again, there's also this that the consultant must address:

"3. Community impact
a. Availability of Medicaid beds – safety net facility considerations"

And address this, "NYS future consideration for Genesee County being classified as underbedded by 2013."

Jan 11, 2010, 8:41am Permalink

That's the point of all of it Howard.

The RFP has been out for awhile now. If you read it, it never states that there is an awaiting sale. It does however open up the question.

I'm pretty sure that we have all said at one point or many, that if the information comes back that the county is better served to keep the facility, we should.

I think the one point that really gets me is this. I spent months walking this city and meeting my neighbors. The one thing that just blew me away was how many seniors/retirees had to have part time jobs just pay their tax bills.

I know that the taxes debate is a "dead horse" to some, but I disagree. There are so many in our county who have worked hard and earn just a little too much for help, but not enough to stay retired. All they want is for the people in charge to due all that they can to stop the constant increases in spending.

I honestly believe that is what the county is doing here. I know that is not agreed upon by many and I don't think that we will ever agree on this site.

We should do the study, publish it and let the voters decide. I know that only a select few will read it. I know that those who do will try to paint their positions by using the parts that support their case, but nevertheless it should be done.

Jan 11, 2010, 11:43am Permalink
Chris Charvella

I took a break from this for a couple days, but we're still where we were when I left on Friday.

Allow me to make a few things clear to the posters here:

You ask for links to studies but when you are supplied with them you categorize them as propaganda. This tells me that ideology has trumped judgement. I will no longer accept at face value your claims that you want to 'see the study' before making up your minds. You already know how you feel about the issue and I'll have more respect for your opinions if you'll just be more honest about them.

You continue to tell me what my group should be fighting for and concerning itself with. Let me be perfectly clear, I know exactly what my group is fighting for. I determine the goals of my organization, not you. Our goals have been set, our plan has been determined and we have been implementing our strategy exactly the way we want it. No amount of scapegoating or redirection will move us from our path.

Our only concern is for the people of Genesee County who needed a voice but didn't have one. We are offering them the opportunity to have that voice and they are using it. All of you would do well to take a moment and listen.

Jan 11, 2010, 11:50am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Charlie didn't ask for links, though he's the one who characterized them as propaganda.

I didn't ask for links (per se), but I didn't respond to them either way. I will say it looks like interesting information that rightfully belongs in the stew.

So I'm not sure what you're talking about on that point, Chris.

Jan 11, 2010, 12:05pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Chris and Bea whether I agree with you or not I like the idea that you have taken up the cause. People need to stand up for things they believe in.

Jan 11, 2010, 1:48pm Permalink

Authentically Local