Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Unkindest Cut of All
The Oregonian ^ | 1/19/03 | Editorial

Posted on 01/23/2003 7:01:51 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker

E d is one of the mentally ill Oregonians scheduled to be evicted from three care centers on April 15 because of cuts in state services. But he's not worried.

"I can make it on my own," he said. "The CIA taught me how."

There's no place better than Ed's longtime residence, the Hoodview Residential Care Home, a concrete block building on Gresham's noisy Powell Boulevard, to come face to face with the insanity of some Oregon budget cuts. The Legislature is eliminating funding for Hoodview and two other care centers, which provide some of the best and least-expensive mental health home care in Oregon.

Look at some of the 122 people lawmakers are evicting: Eric, whose family tried to care for him at home but gave up when he went after his sister's boyfriend with a knife. Scott, who was sick and emaciated, weighed only 80 pounds when he arrived at Hoodview eight years ago. Larry, whose obsessive-compulsive disorder stirs him to repeatedly wash his hands in scalding water.

There's Dennis, who used to dress up in cheerleader outfits. Tim, one of five Hoodview residents on record for having committed felonies but declared criminally insane. There's another man at Hoodview who tried 12 times to live on his own, until his last try ended with him leaping from a bridge.

And there's Robin, who already has three kids being raised by her parents, and often declares that she's eager to have more children.

Who's really crazy here? Is it these frightened and confused disabled residents facing eviction? Or is it the legislators, mental health providers and Oregon taxpayers prepared to oust them from their homes?

There are plenty of painful stories amid the state's cuts. The choices are truly difficult -- the state already has cut $56 million in human services and must make another $88 million in reductions in those programs unless voters approve Measure 28.

Yet evicting these helpless Oregonians is not just a hard decision, it's a cruel one. These people should not be bearing the brunt of cuts no matter how severe the state's financial crisis.

Every resident of Hoodview requires psychotropic medication. Many hear voices. Some moved into Hoodview from state institutions and have never lived anywhere else. Some are as old as 75. Left alone, nearly all would pose dangers to themselves or others.

Yet Oregon is about to send many of them out on the street with vouchers for motels and apartments. The state has moved the eviction date from Feb. 1 to April 15.

The Department of Human Resources put these care homes on a cut list approved by legislators because the facilities receive no federal matching funds. Each houses more than 16 people, and at that size, the federal government considers them state hospitals. Under a law that dates back more than 150 years, the feds will not contribute to covering their costs.

It doesn't seem to matter that the centers provide some of the least-expensive mental health home care. Oregon pays only $613 a month per resident -- and gets round-the-clock supervision and care that residents and their families say is exceptional.

The only proposal from the state and Multnomah County to save the funding is to divide up the facilities, in effect creating multiple 16-bed facilities, under one roof, eligible for matching funds. That, too, seems crazy. Remodeling would cost tens of thousands of dollars and require separate kitchens, recreation areas, staffs, even administrators, for each section of the building.

Dennis Murphy, who has owned Hoodview for 24 years, has rejected that idea. He's also refused to help mental health workers decide which of his residents would be most likely to survive living independently in motels or hotels. "I will not play 'Schindler's List' with these people," he said.

When Murphy gathered Hoodview residents together in groups to inform them about the impending evictions, it sent a tremor through the care home. One resident, Alan, shouted, "I've got money buried out by a tree. If you need money, I can go out and get it." And an elderly man, Mark, recalled that his father had once told him that he could make money mowing lawns. "We can cut grass," Mark said.

There are still opportunities to save the Hoodview residents from more trauma. Attorneys have filed a class-action lawsuit to stop the state and Multnomah County from requiring the evictions. A hearing is likely this week.

If Oregonians approve Measure 28, it's more likely that money could be shifted to protect the homes. However, even if the court challenge and tax measure fail, legislators and Gov. Ted Kulongoski must find funding for them.

Kulongoski spoke of "sacrifice" at his inaugural address. Surely he didn't mean the lives of Ed, Larry and Mark.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; US: Oregon
KEYWORDS: federalregulation; govwatch; mentalhealth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last
When will the citizens and governments of the various states rise up and say ENOUGH to the federal government confiscating their money and then attaching insane, cost-inflating, benefit-reducing regulations as a requirement for getting some of it back?

This federal law goes a long way towards explaining why states keep dumping mentally ill people into undersupervised group homes and seedy motels.

1 posted on 01/23/2003 7:01:51 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
When will the citizens and governments of the various states rise up and say ENOUGH to the federal government confiscating their money and then attaching insane, cost-inflating, benefit-reducing regulations as a requirement for getting some of it back?

It will eventually because the system will become too top heavy and inflexible to adapt at which point it will collapse under it own weight. My hope is we can alter the direction first.

2 posted on 01/23/2003 7:12:28 PM PST by The Obstinate Insomniac (Oppose Constitutional Verbicide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Its either cut programs and keep the current rate of taxation in the midst of a recession, or its keep the programs, and increase the rate of taxation and drive more businesses into the ground.

How was it done before when government was not running these types of facilities? Was it done by the family of the patients? Or was it done by private charities?

3 posted on 01/23/2003 7:16:57 PM PST by Frohickey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Also the expenditure of public funds on frivolous and perverted schemes has to be curtailed before cutting needed services for those who are unable to care for themselves.
4 posted on 01/23/2003 7:23:26 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
The answer is simple: Make these people federal airport security inspectors. They get a good federal job with a pension & healthcare, and travelers won't see a lowering of job performance.
5 posted on 01/23/2003 7:38:23 PM PST by yooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frohickey
How was it done before when government was not running these types of facilities? Was it done by the family of the patients? Or was it done by private charities?

Many who were not able to care for themselves were housed in hellish facilities and I imagine that others were cared for by their families or charities. We can always manufacture one plausible justification after another for someone else caring for the poor and disabled among us, but I wonder how God will judge us in the end.

6 posted on 01/23/2003 7:56:01 PM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Frohickey; Cultural Jihad
The issue here is the federal government effectively forcing state governments to do things in the most expensive, least effective way. Granted we could find plenty of things in the state government's budget that we'd do away with, but sticking to the matter of housing the mentally incompetent, the state government has no laws against doing this in the most cost-effective and patient-beneficial way.

The state government is constrained in the tax burden it can impose on its citizens, largely because of the huge federal tax burden imposed on them. And the only way any of that federal tax money comes back to the states is with these absolutely insane rules attached. There probably isn't a single citizen in the state of Oregon, and perhaps in the whole country, who thinks this particular federal regulation makes sense, and yet everybody's stuck with it. And of course, this is just one of thousands of equally idiotic regulations.
7 posted on 01/23/2003 8:48:25 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Free the USA
ping
8 posted on 01/23/2003 8:50:34 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
When did the government make these cuts? The Republicans have only been in charge of the senate for a few weeks now.
9 posted on 01/23/2003 8:55:37 PM PST by gitmo ("The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain." GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: Cultural Jihad
Sorry my friend, but the US Constitution doesn't say a single word about forcing taxpayers to pay to house the criminally insane with Federal Funds. Not unless they've committed a Federal Crime of course.

If you want to house them, open your front door.

If you want to pay someone else to do it, write a check.

If the citizens of Oregon want to do it, fine. Let them foot the bill. If not, the Salvation Army, the Loyal Order Of Moose, or the Elks can step up to the plate.

11 posted on 01/23/2003 9:04:24 PM PST by Lurker ("Needed services" is the clarion call of Socialists the world over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Accepting matching funds is in no way mandatory from what I gather. Furthermore, old regulations declaring 16 beds as a 'hospital' can be re-written at any time there is a political will to do so, IMHO.
12 posted on 01/23/2003 9:08:59 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Otherwise, what you say about private charity holds true, just that there is no Constitutional prohibition against tax-supported charity.
13 posted on 01/23/2003 9:27:12 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: Lurker
I am of the opinion that people have the right to determine what sort of a society they are to live in, within the framework of our Constitution. Again, there is nothing unconstitutional about spending public funds on charity. A case can be made about it efficaciousness or lack thereof, though.
15 posted on 01/23/2003 9:42:04 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Frohickey
How was it done before when government was not running these types of facilities? Was it done by the family of the patients? Or was it done by private charities?

I suspect that many people with serious mental illness did not live very long lives. If there are no relatives, or relatives can/will not help a seriously ill person would not survive very long.

You would be amazed at how many people just "disappear" form skid rows all over the country.

16 posted on 01/23/2003 9:48:32 PM PST by CurlyDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Actually, our Constitution was specifically designed to prevent the Federal Government from spending public funds on 'charity'.

The fact that you think it was puts you in the same company as Dick Gephardt and Maxine Waters.

Perhaps you would be more comfortable spending your time over at DU. They agree with your line of thinking.

Folks here think the last thing the FedGov should be doing is spending money extracted from honest people at the point of a gun on whatever 'charity' Congress can dream up.

Another liberal shows his stripes.....

(Yea, I mean you.)

Regards,

L

17 posted on 01/23/2003 10:15:29 PM PST by Lurker (The definition of insanity is repeating the same action and expecting different outcomes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
There has been no court ruling that collecting taxes in unconstitutional, and a people can choose to spend their public funds as they see fit. Obviously we should strive to foster a state of affairs whereby people are as self-sufficient and responsible as possible. That is why religion in the public square should be honored while irreligion and licentiousness should be discouraged, for the former promotes a healthy populace and the latter an unhealthy, dependent, irresponsible, and addicted populace. For those who are unable to act responsibly, there is charity, both private and public.
18 posted on 01/23/2003 10:25:04 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Seems like a typical liberal ploy to me. The tone of the article also fits right in. Liberals win either way. They either blackmail the government, state or federal, into ponying up more money or they dump these poor folks onto the streets so they will have more "homeless" to cry over and insist the government must do something. It was similar federal legislation years ago that created the "homeless" crises which is so widely ballyhooed today.

I have sincere sympathy for the truly unfortunate and mentally disabled but I am not in favor of large, inefficient federal programs to take care of them. State and local governments have that responsibility if government is to be involved at all. Churches and charities are the preferred choices when families can't do the job.
19 posted on 01/23/2003 10:25:49 PM PST by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson