Candidate
Questions & Responses
Van
Presley
Green Party
Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives
8th Congressional District
How
will the new federal prescription drug benefit being implemented
in 2006 help or hurt the 9 million non-elderly disabled Americans
receiving Medicare? Would you support (or author) a technical amendment
that would make prescription drug coverage more accessible for
persons with disabilities-- persons who have dual eligibility under
Medicare and Medicaid?
Everything I’ve
learned about the federal prescription drug benefit is negative,
from the writing of the bill by drug company lobbyists, to arm
twisting in back rooms, to the attempted bribery of Representative
Nick Smith of Michigan, to prolonging the debate for the longest
time in history. This law hurts all Americans, able-bodied or differently-abled,
because it doesn’t allow for negotiating
group discount prices with the drug companies, nor re-importation
from Canada, and because of the “donut hole” in the center
of the “benefit.” This law should be scrapped, and all
drug benefits should be part of a universal coverage, single-payer,
publicly funded, national health insurance plan. I would support
any and all amendments, up to and including scrapping the entire
law, to make drug coverage more accessible for all citizens.
Currently
in 38 states people with physical, sensory and cognitive disabilities,
who seek assistance from vocational rehabilitation programs are
being placed on a waiting list because the programs do not have
the funds to serve them. In view fact that studies -- including
studies conducted by the Congressional Budget Office -- have shown
on the average for every dollar put into rehabilitation programs,
the federal government will receive 9 dollars in tax revenue over
the persons working life, would you support increased funding and
support for vocational rehabilitation programs so all applicants
can be served and begin returning needed tax revenue to the federal
government?
Enthusiastically
yes. I started my first physical therapy job in 1971, and have
been a licensed PT specializing in rehab since 1977. I know first
hand that human potential must be encouraged and rewarded by any
society that claims to be fair and just.
The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is commonly
referred to as the civil rights act for children with disabilities
because it guarantees access to a free and appropriate public education.
The act is currently being considered for reauthorization and both
the House and Senate bills significantly weaken key components
of the current law that ensure accountability. These include such
things as opening the door to the development of three year individual
education plans (IEP's), rather than one year; eliminating the
requirement for short term objectives to be included in IEP's;
changing the way parents are notified of their rights; making it
easier for schools to suspend or expel students with disabilities
(even if the behavior is related to the student's disability);
and watering down due process protections. If this bill is not
reauthorized during the current session of Congress, will you support
reauthorizing an IDEA bill next session that will not strip current
rights from children with disabilities and their families?
The
destructive proposals you refer to are part of a coordinated
attack by free market fundamentalists and corporate pirates, who
consider “a public dollar is a wasted dollar,” unless
they can get a piece of the action. The next thing you know, they
will want to contract out publicly provided therapies and special educations
services to some huge conglomerate, and then outsource the IEP’s
to subcontractors in India, to boost their stock price. I will
absolutely support reauthorizing an IDEA bill next session that
will not strip current rights from children with disabilities and
their families.
Please
outline your thoughts on the proposal to "block grant" Medicaid
funding to the states, instead of the currently used formula.
Block
granting Medicaid funding (and probably the regulations that go
along with it) to the states is a bad idea, because we need uniform
standards in this country. Otherwise, it will pit state against
state, in a race to the bottom, as states then begin the nasty
practice of contracting out services (probably to temp agencies,
that offer no benefits) and pinching pennies. This will be sold
to the public as “the efficiency of the market place,” but
it will just be a way to stuff more public dollars into private
pockets, and reduce living-wage jobs with good benefits to poverty
wages. One need only look at Texas, where public sector employees
are battling this type of scheme, which is part “shrinking
the federal government until it can be drowned in the bathtub,” that
Grover Norquist and the Americans for Tax Reform are working toward,
as their main goal.
Do
you support the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment
Act of 2003?
Enthusiastically
yes.
How
is Minnesota doing in response to the 1999 US Supreme Court Olmstead
decision?
I would
give Minnesota a C, no thanks to the current governor, who would
have entirely eliminated funding. It’s no wonder
that with such limited funds the state does not have an official
Olmstead task force. While the governor’s short-sighted, Americans-for-Tax-Reform
approach is no surprise, one would think that an Olmstead program,
that offers such good potential savings, would be attractive even
to him. I see no problem linking to faith-based organizations, but
no public dollars should go directly to faith-based organizations.
How
can the Medicare system be altered to provide incentives for funding
community-based, versus institutional care or services to those
who are "home-bound"?
The
cuts that were made in the 90’s should be restored,
for example, the skilled nursing services that were disallowed. In
addition to RN’s and PT’s, Occupational therapists should
be allowed to open skilled care cases. The OASIS needs to be liberally
rewritten to make it a more sensitive tool to measure progress in
mobility. It is now a “blunt instrument” that fails to
measure rehab progress accurately. This rewriting would probably
make home services under Medicare more widely available. Besides
incentives for Medicare, Medicaid should not put a lien on people’s
homes if they need home services, because taxes should be used
for this purpose.
Given
that recent government surveys show some 6,690 or 18.7% of Minnesotans
living in nursing homes express a preference to live in the community.
What is your position on MiCASSA (S.971 and H.R.2032) and Money
Follows the Person Act (S.1394 and H.R.1811)? Please elaborate
on the pros and cons to the legislation and the rationale behind
your position.
As a physical
therapist specializing in homecare for the past 9 years, including treating
patients in assisted living facilities, I can attest to the value
of community-based services. My perspective also comes from my
15 years’ experience as a PT in skilled
nursing facilities. Because of each individual’s uniqueness,
it only makes sense that the “money should follow the person.” There
must be safeguards to guarantee adequate quality and quantity of
staffing for each person’s needs, and the best way to do this
is to upgrade the compensation for caregivers to truly living-wage
jobs, nation-wide. That way, more highly-skilled people will be attracted
to the caring professions.
