Health and safety snoops to enter family homes

Published

A page in the chapter of our "model" systems brings up an interesting debate.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6917328.ece

"Health and safety inspectors are to be given unprecedented access to family homes to ensure that parents are protecting their children from household accidents."

"Until now, councils have made only a limited number of home inspections to check on building work and in extreme cases where the state of a house is thought to pose a serious risk to public health."

"About 100,000 children are admitted to hospital each year for home injuries at a cost of £146m."

I was actually thinking about this earlier today, before I came across this article. There's no doubt in my mind that if and when health care becomes a government responsibility, that much like social security, it will ultimately run into a huge budget crisis. Not all at once, mind you...but progressively over the years. Anyone who disagrees need only take a look at the current debt levels across the board, the projected debt levels, and the projected spending on SS entitlements.

In order to reduce costs when they're budgets fails, common sense dictates they do what they can to lower costs. So what can the government do to reduce their overhead? They certainly can't reduce coverage in any way shape or form. There's no option to suspend COLA's. They have to pay the full price for each and every patient requiring treatment. So naturally, the only way they can cut costs is by putting an emphasis on preventative care. There's already another thread on that topic, and how it's limited at best. But the scary thing is, there are many other options the government has at it's disposal.

This is one example from across the pond, which I'd like to believe is too extreme to take place here. But sadly, It wouldn't surprise me. But it doesn't need to go that far at all. When it comes down to it, there are a lot of things the government simply wont be able to afford once it's financially responsible for our care.

Look at the legal stigma surrounding smoking as it is. We all know its bad for you, it kills...a lot. Imagine just for a moment, how much the smoking industry would cost a single payer system. Alchohol being another obvious one. Now...there are plenty that consider these as vices that shouldn't be permitted anyways. Fair enough. But it doesn't even have to be that extreme. How much would fast food cost the government in health care? What about sodas and sugary candy? Okay...again, I'm sure there are people that believe these things are evil and we shouldn't have the choice of whether or not we'd like to indulge in them. Fair enough.

With things like consumables, it's highly unlikely that you'll ever see another ban on alchohol, or outlawing cigarettes. However, it's entirely feasible that these items will be taxed on an escalating rate, much like gasoline taxes go to support the roads, this will be sold as individuals paying taxes that will go towards healthcare in return for the additional liability they're putting on the system. And these taxes -will- rise continuously, until the majority of people cut down considerably. Thus serving the intended purpose, and removing freedom of choice.

But far beyond consumables, the government is suddenly -financially- motivated to oversee safety in all areas. What about vehicles? Motorcycles? Very, very high risk injury wise. You'll start to see fees levied on an annual basis, to hold motorcycle class licenses. Again, with the intent of discouraging expensive behavior.

And what about illegal drugs? Personally, and i'm hesitant to post this because It'll draw fire, I have nothing against personal, even non medical, marijuana use. But illegal drug use as a whole, and they would all be clumped together as one, would again be very costly to the public option. Too costly to allow. So anyone who goes in for blood work and has THC show up, do we impose court mandated rehab for them?

What about sports? Hazardous occupations? Where do you draw the line? A public option opens to the door to government intervention in virtually all aspects of our lives.

I'm writing this, and I swear to god, it feels like I'm jumping on the conspiracists bandwagon even to me. It seems so far fetched to make these conclusions. But it's honestly very within the realm of possibility. Dangerously slow.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
A page in the chapter of our "model" systems brings up an interesting debate.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6917328.ece

"Health and safety inspectors are to be given unprecedented access to family homes to ensure that parents are protecting their children from household accidents."

"Until now, councils have made only a limited number of home inspections to check on building work and in extreme cases where the state of a house is thought to pose a serious risk to public health."

"About 100,000 children are admitted to hospital each year for home injuries at a cost of £146m."

I was actually thinking about this earlier today, before I came across this article. There's no doubt in my mind that if and when health care becomes a government responsibility, that much like social security, it will ultimately run into a huge budget crisis. Not all at once, mind you...but progressively over the years. Anyone who disagrees need only take a look at the current debt levels across the board, the projected debt levels, and the projected spending on SS entitlements.

In order to reduce costs when they're budgets fails, common sense dictates they do what they can to lower costs. So what can the government do to reduce their overhead? They certainly can't reduce coverage in any way shape or form. There's no option to suspend COLA's. They have to pay the full price for each and every patient requiring treatment. So naturally, the only way they can cut costs is by putting an emphasis on preventative care. There's already another thread on that topic, and how it's limited at best. But the scary thing is, there are many other options the government has at it's disposal.

This is one example from across the pond, which I'd like to believe is too extreme to take place here. But sadly, It wouldn't surprise me. But it doesn't need to go that far at all. When it comes down to it, there are a lot of things the government simply wont be able to afford once it's financially responsible for our care.

Look at the legal stigma surrounding smoking as it is. We all know its bad for you, it kills...a lot. Imagine just for a moment, how much the smoking industry would cost a single payer system. Alchohol being another obvious one. Now...there are plenty that consider these as vices that shouldn't be permitted anyways. Fair enough. But it doesn't even have to be that extreme. How much would fast food cost the government in health care? What about sodas and sugary candy? Okay...again, I'm sure there are people that believe these things are evil and we shouldn't have the choice of whether or not we'd like to indulge in them. Fair enough.

With things like consumables, it's highly unlikely that you'll ever see another ban on alchohol, or outlawing cigarettes. However, it's entirely feasible that these items will be taxed on an escalating rate, much like gasoline taxes go to support the roads, this will be sold as individuals paying taxes that will go towards healthcare in return for the additional liability they're putting on the system. And these taxes -will- rise continuously, until the majority of people cut down considerably. Thus serving the intended purpose, and removing freedom of choice.

But far beyond consumables, the government is suddenly -financially- motivated to oversee safety in all areas. What about vehicles? Motorcycles? Very, very high risk injury wise. You'll start to see fees levied on an annual basis, to hold motorcycle class licenses. Again, with the intent of discouraging expensive behavior.

And what about illegal drugs? Personally, and i'm hesitant to post this because It'll draw fire, I have nothing against personal, even non medical, marijuana use. But illegal drug use as a whole, and they would all be clumped together as one, would again be very costly to the public option. Too costly to allow. So anyone who goes in for blood work and has THC show up, do we impose court mandated rehab for them?

What about sports? Hazardous occupations? Where do you draw the line? A public option opens to the door to government intervention in virtually all aspects of our lives.

I'm writing this, and I swear to god, it feels like I'm jumping on the conspiracists bandwagon even to me. It seems so far fetched to make these conclusions. But it's honestly very within the realm of possibility. Dangerously slow.

Tomorrow is already here; with the new thoughts and advice on breast cancer screenings. Actually, Britain already only does mammograms every 3 years after age 50. And WHO has the same recommendations as the new ones proposed today. So much for preventative medicine.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Vents, Telemetry, Home Care, Home infusion.

Home Care RN's in US are already mandatory reporters of abuse and neglect, including severe home conditions under current laws....at least for the past 25yrs I've been in home care.

When visiting patients for home care eval or well mom baby programs, under state and federal laws already on the books we are required to report to protective services homes without running water, caved in roofs, no front doors, open drug dealings, pest infestations, lack heat/food/electricity, lead paint for kids so that Protective SW can help intervene with public programs available to eliminate problem, help in contact landlord or family to resolve issue.

Since 2007, OB units in PA are required to file police report on any nonmarried female under age 16 giving birth if man is 4 years older to eval for rape charges..

Seen an upswing in reporting since 2008 in our homecare referrals.

http://www.pamedsoc.org/DocumentVault/VaultPDFs/GovernmentPDFs/LawsAffectingPhysiciansPDFs/ReportingletterPDF.aspx

These are all seen as patient advocacy provisions --has saved life/extended life of many infants and seniors.

Council staff will then be tasked with overseeing the installation of safety devices in homes, including smoke alarms, stair gates, hot water temperature restrictors, oven guards and window and door locks.

For those with limited income, Police departments provide smoke alarm, while office of aging programs will provide other devices for seniors to remain at home for those declared nursing home eligible....even stair lifts.

Mom mobile program provides cribs, car seats, infant clothes while PA medical assistance will provide diapers: cheaper to pay for incontinence management that heal skin breakdown in those less than age 3, permanent urinary incontinece in disabled age 3-62 and over age 65.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

When visiting patients for home care eval or well mom baby programs, under state and federal laws already on the books we are required to report to protective services homes without running water, caved in roofs, no front doors, open drug dealings, pest infestations, lack heat/food/electricity, lead paint for kids so that Protective SW can help intervene with public programs available to eliminate problem, help in contact landlord or family to resolve issue.

All fine and dandy. Warranted even. But there's a big difference between what you listed and "stair gates, hot water temperature restrictors, oven guards and window and door locks."

Gross negligence is one thing. Over the top baby proofing is quite another.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Home Care RN's in US are already mandatory reporters of abuse and neglect, including severe home conditions under current laws....at least for the past 25yrs I've been in home care.

When visiting patients for home care eval or well mom baby programs, under state and federal laws already on the books we are required to report to protective services homes without running water, caved in roofs, no front doors, open drug dealings, pest infestations, lack heat/food/electricity, lead paint for kids so that Protective SW can help intervene with public programs available to eliminate problem, help in contact landlord or family to resolve issue.

Since 2007, OB units in PA are required to file police report on any nonmarried female under age 16 giving birth if man is 4 years older to eval for rape charges..

Seen an upswing in reporting since 2008 in our homecare referrals.

http://www.pamedsoc.org/DocumentVault/VaultPDFs/GovernmentPDFs/LawsAffectingPhysiciansPDFs/ReportingletterPDF.aspx

These are all seen as patient advocacy provisions --has saved life/extended life of many infants and seniors.

For those with limited income, Police departments provide smoke alarm, while office of aging programs will provide other devices for seniors to remain at home for those declared nursing home eligible....even stair lifts.

Mom mobile program provides cribs, car seats, infant clothes while PA medical assistance will provide diapers: cheaper to pay for incontinence management that heal skin breakdown in those less than age 3, permanent urinary incontinece in disabled age 3-62 and over age 65.

And how many of these deporable conditions does the state really remedy. The most dangerous place for a kid is their own homes. How many parents have been reported and yet the kids end up dead because the state doesn't have enough SW. They are totally over burdened. But the theory looks good on paper. And that's really all Americans seem to care about. That we have a program, that we can say we did something, whether that program really works or not is irrelevent. We tried. Trying is great. Doing is for real.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion