Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on February 28, 2007, the House version of the Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Department of Community Health budget. This appropriates $11.879 billion in gross spending, compared to $11.196 billion, which was the FY 2006-2007 amount enrolled in 2006. Of this, $6.600 billion is federal money, compared to the FY 2006-2007 amount of $6.042 billion, and $5.239 billion is from state tax and other revenues, compared to $5.154 billion enrolled the previous year. $8.5 billion of the spending is on Medicaid, up $667 million from the previous year. Like other House budgets and those proposed by the governor, this one is premised on passage of tax hikes of between $1.2 billion and $1.8 billion. It adds $341 million to spending proposed by the governor

The vote was 59 in favor, 50 opposed and 1 not voting

(House Roll Call 255 at House Journal 67)

Click here to view bill details.

It has been brough to my attention that there is a bill that propses a reduction in guardianship fees by 25%.

The fees that they accept for their work is way to low now. HB.4361 Seb. 1606 is appalling, and should be excluded from the appropiations bill.

Hospitals, funeral homes and other service providers can, to some extent, offset low government reimbursements for services provided to the indigent with higher fees collected from paying clients. Professional guardianship agencies have no such option. These agencies are relied upon by Probate Judges across the State of Michigan to rescue the vulnerable poor when no one else can or will. (There is no shortage of Public Administrators ready to step in to administer the affairs of wealthy individuals who have been deemed incompetent, who then bill their services privately at rates that are - ahem - well in excess of $60.00 per month. It falls to professional guardianship agencies, however, when the person needing assistance is an 85-year-old woman who has been lying for days in her own excrement on the floor of an overheated inner-city apartment. It is not pretty or easy work, but it must be done by someone. This proposed guardianship fee reduction is tantamount to reducing the minimum wage. It will translate directly into more abused and exploited elderly, and more human misery. Please think carefully about this. This work is manifestly not day care, and the need for it is acute. This proposal will drive some providers out of business, and wreak havoc on those that remain. This is a bad idea. Stephen J. Borowski Attorney at Law

The payment that Michigan provides for the care of vulnerable adults is less than the minimum per hour wage paid in the 3rd world. Right now these guardians receive $60/mo per ward. A capitation that is without elasticity. the duties of the guardians include: 1- rescuing vulnerable adults who are neglected, abused, exploited, and often left in situations that are life threatening. 2- making arrangements for their shelter, health care, rehabilitation, education, and retraining towards independence. 3- deciding on there medical care and whether to forgo medical care. 4- applying for assitance for them from both the public and the private sector. 5- advocating for their admission to programs, and facilities that are neglectful in allowing admission to the programs mandated by law [for example: mental healthy, substance abuse, and special education. 6- Planning for their independence or their final demise. 7- Providing 24/7 emergency services to these vulnerable adults and their direct care givers. 8- managing their money, paying their bills and debts, ending their financial exploitation, and assisting law enforcement to prosecute their abusers and exploiters. Being a guardian is a great deal more than filing out a form once a year Mr. Hartiman. Now you and your colleagues want to cut the payment to $45/mo. This will force the guardianship providers to give up their calling to provide care to the vulnerable adults. Many vulnerable adults will be left to the streets. Ultimately their health will fail. Some may even succumb to frost bite. The mentally ill will fail to get their medications. Many of the cognitively disabled will be exploited, enslaved, sexually abused. The elderly will be consigned to wither away on machines for monthes or even years. The bottom line is that caring for the children of a lesser god without a guardian will be more costly in both human lives and tax dollars. As sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, wives and husbands, or parents we cannot always guarantee that when problem strike we will be there for our loved ones. You need to think about that and pull section 1606 from this bill. If you keep breathing someday you may be a vulnerable adult. Start praying now that someone will be their to come for you when your life becomes desparate. Alicia A. Chapman Executive Director Alicianna LLC

To the extent we are talking about old people who have become senile and things like that - rather than unfortunate adults who were born incapacitated in low or middle income families - then why should taxpayers pay a nickel? They have had their whole lives to plan and set aside resources for this possibility, which we all face. If I plan and save and you don't, what right do you have to call on my resources when that time comes? I understand that it's a bit more complicated than this, and my intention is not to make an extreme "laissez faire" argument, but to induce you to back up a few steps and explain two things. First, answer the question above. Second, respond to the "moral hazard" issue - if I know that bleeding heart saps will "take care of me" should I get to that point, why would I make plans and accumulate resources to take care of myself? You are arguing that the care is inadequate, and needs to be made adequate. IOW, we haven't created much moral hazard now, but we need to. Unless you have serious answers to these questions, it is impossible to take you seriously.

It is more complicated than you realize. There is no moral issue, there are only medicaid regulations. Simply put, medicaid is designed to impoverish the individual. In my experience, the elderly do save their money, own their own homes, and live frugally. However, medicaid is not available to supplement nursing home costs until the liquid estate of the individual is below $2,000. Then, medicaid supplements the individuals monthly benefits. Nursing home costs, depending upon the level of care, is over $3,000 a month. Ventilator residents are $500 a day, dialysis, cancer treatments and others have different daily rates. So, a savings account of hard earned money is depleted rapidly. None of the individuals monthly benefits can be used to pay taxes, utilities or maintain their home. If it is leased, the rent must go to the nursing home under medicaid regulations. I have answered your first question. The elderly DO save their money, but are legally empoverished by medicaid regulations. This has always been the case. Those individuals who have larger estates must pay privately. They cannot get medicaid to pay for their nursing home care until they are under the $2,000 limit. Addressing your second part that you label as a moral issue, I think the issue is whether we return to the "poor house" situation rather than nursing homes. These aging people lived and worked in Michigan their entire lives, paying taxes, raising children, voting, keeping their homes, being citizens of this State. Now, you wish to abandon them, cut their benefits, and leave them when they lack the mental and physical abilities to care for themselves. It appears that the moral issue is with you.

Senator Cherry's statement is as follows: Mr.President I oppose the passage of House Bill No.4344 for a number of reasons; so many that I don't know that I'll be able to express all of them. But, first of all, I oppose a bill that has absolutely no funding in it. I oppose a bill that does not provide care to poor people; no health care. I oppose a bill that provides no support for hospitals, no support for nursing homes, no support for in-home care for the elderly, no support for mental health clients, and no support for substance abuse services. I understand that this body thinks that we have to pass this bill with nothing in it to move the process forward, but I say that I believe that I have some responsibility to represent the citizens who are in my district. I believe that each one of us is giving up that right if we pass this bill. We have been talking about having to move the process forward for ten months and we have not done a thing. We had a lot of time to move this process forward and we have not done it. It is my belief that we should take the time that is necessary, put in a bill that shows what you stand for, and if you don't think we need to be funding services and making cuts, then you should point out exactly where those cuts are going to be made. This is a coward's bill. I think that we are making a huge mistake. We are not representing the citizens of this state very well, and I don't think that we are standing for anything at all. So I am voting "no."

Senator Whitmer's statement is as follows: I am hearing today that it is time to move forward. Well, I could not agree with you more. After eight months of sitting her and not doing anything, I agree. I share the sentiment; we should be moving forward but with what? With nothing, with $100 here or negative $100 there or zeros, is that moving forward? Have we done our duty to do our jobs here and set priorities for the people in the state of Michigan? Have we balanced the budget? Passing zero-dollar budgets is not just irresponsible, but it is ludicrous. We have had eight months and all you can come with are zeros. This is where we are. It's embarrassing and it begs the question: Do we not have any priorities, and if we can set priorities, what is our function?" This is the Department of Community Health budget and in it there is no Medicaid funding. There is no funding for the doctors who treat the thousands of sick, poor people in our state. There is no money for the thousands of Michigan citizens who depend on free clinics for everything from preventative health care to prenatal care--nothing. I am alarmed that thousands of Michigan's children will go without dental care. A toothache is painful. Imagine having to go to school with such pain that it is impossible to concentrate. Healthy kids learn. We all say that learning and education are important. Aren't healthy kids important too? Do we stand for nothing? Are we going to vote out budgets that take the cowardly way out? I am not going to, and I don't think that any of us should.

Senator Cropsey's statement is as follows: I appreciate the remarks of the previous two speakers and also the remarks of the speaker from the 10th District. Are these budgets perfect? Oh no, they're not perfect. Do we like them? No, I don't think anybody likes them, but we do have a problem. One of the problems is that we are running up against a timeline. I would just suggest to folks who are saying, "Oh, they're going to vote against it and that they don't want to see the process move along." What are you really saying, that you want to see the government shut down at the end of this month? I don't think so and I'm not going to be part of the obstructionists who want to see this government shut down for partisan political purposes. I applaud those people who say, "Let's keep this process moving. Even though it's not as good as we like it, we are still under time constraints. We must have this done." So I am not thrilled to support this budget bill, but I think it needs to be supported in order to keep the process going so that we don't stop vital services at the end of this month for some of the neediest people in our society.

Senator Pappageorge's statement is as follows: We ought to take a minute here and understand what is going on here today. Normally, by this time in the budget cycle, five people would have been in a room--the Governor, the Speaker of the House, the two Appropriations chairs, and the Senate Majority Leader--and those five people would have looked at how many dollars are available and then set targets for all of the budgets. This year, as near as I can figure, five people got into a room and three of them said, "We're not going to do it that way anymore. We're going to figure out how much money we've got and then add $1.8 billion as if it's already there." And so the result is that we can't get to closure. Until we get to closure on that issue with those five people, it is disingenuous to stand up in this chamber and say somebody isn't getting any money. What we're doing today is putting in points of difference so when those five people finally sort it out, we can do our budgets. We are going to waste a lot of time today if people get up and say, "This budget isn't big enough, but I'm not willing to vote to make it bigger." So please let's not waste our time in this chamber and let's continue with the process.

Rep. Elsenheimer, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: This conference report was issued mere moments ago. We have had no realistic opportunity to review the bill."

Rep. Agema, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: It is impossible to balance the budget without dealing with over spending in this area. It includes pay increases at a time when we can't afford them. It's a 7.6% increase. Where are the cuts and reforms?"

Rep. Sheen, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I cannot vote for these budgets as they are based on increased fees, an income tax increases, and the expansion of salestax on services on top of all the other taxes. Government deficits are spending problems, not revenue problems. I cannotbalance the budget on the backs of Michigan citizens and job providers that are barely hanging on and making ends meet. Holding government harmless is elitist, disingenuous, and wrong. I was not sent to Lansing to preserve government spending to the detriment of its citizens and its job providers. The Income tax increase of 12% (from 3.9% to 4.35%) and spreading a 6 % sales tax on many services and business-to-business transactions on top of all the other taxes will in no way benefit the state's economy or its citizens. However, it will take more money out of people's paychecks and increase the cost of living, which is a double hit to the consumer. It will drive up the cost of doing business and drive out more employers, increasing unemployment and further exacerbating Michigan's plight. We might as well put a red flashing light at the state line warning businesses not to come here. I could not vote to increase taxes on Michigan's citizens or job providers at a time when so many have either lost jobs, faced failing businesses and otherwise tightened their belts and made cuts in their own budgets. Why should government be held at a different standard than everyone else in the state?"

"This appropriates $12.048 billion in gross spending, compared to $11.196 billion, which was the FY 2006-2007 amount enrolled in 2006." Gosh, only an $800 million increase - how will we survive?

I have one question...don't you find it odd that all the comments and uproar re: reduction in Guardianship fees are voiced by only people on Guardian Care's payroll? Guardian Care makes money hand over fist from their "wards". DO NOT BE FOOLED. The owners of Guardian Care are living LARGE off the backs of the people they are supposed to be protecting.

Sounds to me like the last person posting is a DISGRUNTLED employee of named company. Not one time does any poster refer to their place of employment, especially the anonymous ones. This was an issue that was resolved in October of 2007 and the post was made in June 2008. This poster obviously has an axe to grind with said company. It is a misuse of this site.