I read this article in Pravada-on-the-Merrimack about a “Senior Citizens Bill of Rights” being sponsored by NH State Senator Nancy Stiles (R) and two Democrats, Reps. David Borden and Tom Sherman, read it again, and still can’t reason it out to any kind of a logical form. No, not necessarily the piece itself (although it left a LOT unexplained) but the items that are supposed to be in this upcoming bill. Words have meanings and words in legislative bills should have very specific meanings, very sharply set definitions, and very unambiguous context.
Instead, this is a hot steaming pile of a mess that I’m finding to hard to do a cogent post. And if that it true, if this “goes out into the wild”, the items (posted below) will cause all kind of grief:
The Hampton Republican plans to introduce a bill next year that would require licensed facilities, including retirement homes, senior centers and elderly housing projects, to prominently display a “Senior Citizens Bill of Rights” at all times. The bill would not create new rights but would amass those relevant for elderly individuals, such as the right to organize, the right to use and consult outside services, and the right to receive prompt service from a landlord.
The right to organize? What, she wants SEIU socialists going in to unionize “the residence” (or patients, the elderly, or whatever other term you wish to use)? Would that force them to pay union dues out of their Social Security checks? And what happens if the caretakers are ALSO union members – how’s that gonna work out?
Once again, I take exception to a Republican who decides that Government needs to step in to solve all ills – first. What about free market solutions? What about folks taking things into their own hands? What about their families, or friends? These should be the first lines of recompense – not Government actions. Now to be true, my step-dad passed away before he needed to be in a retirement / nursing home and Mom was taken care of by my brother out West so I was not involved in any of those arrangements. But in any case, there had to be free will, voluntary contracts signed to cover all kinds of contingencies. How about just enforcing those as with any other contract? And if someone signed a contract and then has buyer’s remorse, why should Government come in and break it? NOBODY is forced to sign such contracts, right? And if you don’t like the contract, don’t sign. Simple. Keep looking until you find the place that meets your needs. Here are some of the items:
- The right to organize
For what? For what reason or purpose? Unionize, or community organizing? Is there (or will be) a limit?
- The right to use and consult outside services
For….what? Does this mean that they will be able to override any agreement made in the pre-admission contract? What if it is an assisted living situation where part of the contract explicitly stated that the entity’s resources would be used? Is there any limit to what constitutes an outside service (e.g., medical, landscaping, plowing, energy provisioning, communications, entertainment) that can be overridden? It is highly ambiguous – and thus, fraught with legal and ethic potholes on both sides. That one statement could have very harmful and unintended consequences.
- The right to receive prompt service from a landlord.
Isn’t this already covered in most lease agreements?
- The right to “select or refuse services and to accept responsibility for the consequences.”
Once again, limbo language – WHAT services? In what area? And again, if one has already signed contracts, is one still bound to those contracts or does this allow for unilateral abrogation? Is the only recourse legal? Or was arbitration specified? What DOES this mean and what are the ramifications??
- The right to “develop and maintain social ties with opportunities for meaningful interaction and involvement with the community.”
Which community? In a building or campus? And are the operators of the facility responsible for transport, meeting rooms above and beyond what was contracted? Who decides what is “the line’ between compliance and non-compliance? What is the grievance procedure? SHOULD there be one – and if so, who operates it and pays for it?
Again, this is the kind of thing that Government does very poorly – it must and can only define to the lowest common denominator and to the entire span of a domain space. It rarely does point or specific situations well. When it doesn’t and then goes back and tries to do so, I rarely hear of good outcomes.
- The right to “recognition of personal space and the furnishing and decorating of personal space as private.”
Unless of course, it has been made clear that somethings cannot be accommodated. I do remember what Mom wanted to bring from her home – 5 rooms, a basement chuck full of stuff, and a garage with more. To a 3 room. Go ahead, make that accommodation.
- The right to “set the resident’s own schedule, have visitors and leave and enter the facility as he or she desires.”
We do put the Individual’s rights before “the group” when discussing issues in general. But what if the facility is in the bad part of town – coming and going could be problematic especially in the light of security – how to vet who comes in and out? One would hope that there would be some respect for the others – night owls versus “rise & shiners”. And what happens if these folks need assistance in leaving and returning? Let’s conflate two issues – this and the transgender bill out in California. Whose “rights” trump whose? Certainly taken on the surface, the above ‘right’ sounds nice but when reality intrudes who gets to pick who is right – and wrong? Picking one violates “the other’s” rights to come and go and have visitors, too, right?
- The right to “be treated with consideration, respect and due recognition of personal dignity, individuality, and the need for privacy.”
And, and sometimes, there just is no pleasing some people. BTW, in case the inevitable legal fight breaks out, what does “individuality” mean anyways? “Dignity” as well? We all have our own notions as to what these are, or should be, or at least what *I* mean – that may not line up with yours. Or hers. Or his. Or theirs. Again, how is this defined legislatively (or will be) is either going to cause a lot of controversy or…..a lot MORE controversy.
- The right to “private communications, including receiving and sending unopened correspondence, telephone access, and visiting with persons of one’s choice.
If someone is opening your private mail, one can go to the Post Office and complain. Phone access? Depends if it is a private phone in one’s room or a public phone somewhere.
- The right to “exercise civil and religious liberties.”
Not allowed to have church services? Not allowed to have a religious leader in to conduct a services? Not allowed to have Bible / Koran / Torah / prayer / meditation classes or sessions? This I can understand but again, what was agreed to before hand/ If a facility is not living up to its contract, there is a process available to have it enforced. If it was not allowed, well, then there is bargaining to be done or a change to another facility may be in order.
And this last one is a real head-scratcher:
- The right to “establish and maintain a garden if such housing project or congregate housing has land appropriate for use as a garden; provided, that any such resident establishing a garden shall consult with the authority, developer, or corporation regarding the type of herbs, fruits, flowers, vegetables or other plants the resident would like to plant in the garden.”
Er, who owns the property? It doesn’t seem to be the residents. Who is the Government to come in and demand that the property owner give up their Right to Private Property (even as they “rent” out some usage of it) if the owner does not want his land engaged in this activity? I see this as yet another instance of Government, in the minds of Stiles, Borden and Sherman, believing that it can just override landowners?
No, this whole thing may be a disaster – both for landowners / facility operators and the residents. From this view point, with the information in the paper, this just seems like another attempt by a Republican putting her nose where it shouldn’t be. Sure, people complain – so do I. But most of the time, I’m not complaining that Government does too little but that it does way too much. Once again, I see that again.
There are times that politicians need to believe, think, and say “This is NOT the Proper Role of Government.” Government can’t solve all problems in all situations for all people – but there are those that believe that it can and should (and usually have a D after their name). Yes, Government can and should enforce contracts – that IS a function that Civil Society needs Government to do – enforce that voluntarily signed contracts are honored.
Maybe that is what is trying to be said – maybe. In a number of items, it seems to want to add ‘extra-contractural” restrictions on the facility operators. Sorta like what the Federal Government has done with Obamacare – artificially added new restrictions (“Thou shalt…”) on insurance providers when people, in a lot of cases, were perfectly happy with what they had.
To insure 30 million people, Obama decided to totally upend the entire system by taking control of it from stem to stern (even as Obama tries to make noises that this Government micro-managed deal is no different than a free marketplace). Result: millions have lost their current policies with few gaining it. It has also been exposed as being a Gigantic Wealth-Transfer mechanism – fitting for the most “social justice” / socialist acting President ever.
Obamacare – one of the largest Governmental social engineering projects ever – and it will wipe out yet another industry (seems to be an Obama addition – don’t like it, put it out of business). I’m not saying what Stiles is going to try to do is anywhere similar, but the similarity is that both politicians have made a decision;
Safety and Security over Freedom.
When choosing between those two values, please always remember this.
If the bill is signed into law, facilities would have until Jan. 1, 2015, to display the document. Violators would be subject to license suspension and other penalties, Stiles said. She said the flier would detail how residents with harassment concerns can notify law enforcement.
Borden said in his meetings with elderly constituents, he gathered they often avoid making requests out of fear of retribution from management, particularly in low-income housing facilities.
“People tend to hold in their grievances until they become quite major,” Borden said. That’s especially a concern for older residents, he added.
“Time is incredibly important to someone elderly and maybe living by themselves,” he said. “Responding faster doesn’t really cost any more.”
Some of the other rights to be displayed:
