More companies doing this, may turn into a social phenomenon.
"Bonuses" aren't trickle down. I'd also be hypercritical of any bonuses announced by right leaning companies such as Sinclair around before Xmas, and passing it off due to the tax cuts. are they saying they never gave xmas bonuses prior to this year?
If they used this money to hire and continuously keep employed one or two more employees, or pay raises across the board, then I'd agree it was a trickle down announcement.
Right now, it sounds more like propaganda from right leaning companies to help the government swallow this pill.
Call me 50 but I am seeing ageism creep into elections(and talk of elections) more often than not, especially the last. I was glad to see so many young folks support Bernie last time round. I'll agree that candidates should have some major health screening but a number (say... 70) should not mean an automatic cutoff. Heatlh and quality of life (as well as demographics) are a changing. The pool for the number of older candidates is growing ever larger with the mass retirement of the Baby Boomer generation and it is not over yet. These people by in large will live longer and healthy lives than their previous generation which is now getting to the 'old old' classification. Mark Zuckerberg's comment in '07 "Young people are just smarter" was the height of arrogance. At 32 yr or so now, I wonder if his mind has changed since then as he is over 'his'age limit in Silicon Valley now.
More companies doing this, may turn into a social phenomenon.
"Bonuses" aren't trickle down. I'd also be hypercritical of any bonuses announced by right leaning companies such as Sinclair around before Xmas, and passing it off as a
If they used this money to hire and continuously keep employed one or two more employees, or pay raises across the board, then I'd agree it was a trickle down announcement.
Right now, it sounds more like propaganda from right leaning companies to help the government swallow this pill.
The bonus that Comcast will be paying their employees is (srsly) .00125% of their annual revenue. Its a cheap publicity stunt. They didn't need a tax cut to give out bonuses.
Trump replaced 'E Pluribus Unum' with 'Make America Great Again' on the presidential coin.
Also, Trump's name appears 3 times, not counting his signature. Previous presidents names appear once (+ signature). A White House spokesperson said that these coins will also be passed out at campaign rallies and to donors. Previous presidents have given them to soldiers and occasionally to others, like high school students who won a science fair or something. Bush the Younger used to place them on graves at Arlington. So this crass, gaudy chunk of metal is nothing more than a Trump campaign advertisement paid for by the American taxpayer.
From now on, if you have this coin you have to buy a round.
Call me 50 but I am seeing ageism creep into elections(and talk of elections) more often than not, especially the last. I was glad to see so many young folks support Bernie last time round. I'll agree that candidates should have some major health screening but a number (say... 70) should not mean an automatic cutoff. Heatlh and quality of life (as well as demographics) are a changing. The pool for the number of older candidates is growing ever larger with the mass retirement of the Baby Boomer generation and it is not over yet. These people by in large will live longer and healthy lives than their previous generation which is now getting to the 'old old' classification. Mark Zuckerberg's comment in '07 "Young people are just smarter" was the height of arrogance. At 32 yr or so now, I wonder if his mind has changed since then as he is over 'his'age limit in Silicon Valley now.
Age divides are a part of electorates. In the last UK election voters were more likely to vote Conservative than Labour over the age of 47. Voters in their 70s are 69% Con, 19% Labour.
Of course as mortality takes its toll this line may shift, which is why Conservatives are paying serious attention to 'green' issues in their policy proposals and Twitter feeds these days.
We have an age requirement for the Presidency in regards to youth, so I just don't see how it's out of bounds to talk about a limit. Beyond that, it is also a problem in Congress. People like Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd were basically being wheeled into the Senate "Weekend at Bernie's" style well into their 90s. As much as most people like and respect him, is it REALLY doing anything for the country OR his family that John McCain is trying to juggle brain cancer treatment and being one of the two Senators from Arizona?? He wasn't even able to take part in the tax cut vote, and who knows what his availability is going to be next year. At a certain point, it seems like the correct thing to do for everyone involved is to just gracefully step away when one's health starts taking a obvious turn for the worst.
I guess since I’m well into the latter half of my life expectancy I should stop hating on “old” people. How about quarterly mental compentency evaluations? It’s terrifying that Reagan was probably suffering from early stage Alzheimer’s his entire second term.
And the fact that Trump drinks a dozen diet Cokes a day should definitely make him ineligible to be in control of a nuclear arsenal.
I guess since I’m well into the latter half of my life expectancy I should stop hating on “old” people. How about quarterly mental compentency evaluations? It’s terrifying that Reagan was probably suffering from early stage Alzheimer’s his entire second term.
And the fact that Trump drinks a dozen diet Cokes a day should definitely make him ineligible to be in control of a nuclear arsenal.
If you are to believe his Chief of Staff Don Regan (for whatever reason I picked up his autobiography years ago at a used-book store and read it while at work), not only was he not as sharp mentally, but Nancy was totally dictating his schedule and controlling nearly all access to him. And then there is the obvious moment in the first debate with Mondale where he can't even find his words. Someone once said (something along the lines of) that they could tell him to go out to the Rose Garden, spin three times, and then throw an acorn, and he wouldn't even so much as ask why. Beyond the second-term mental problems, he was also, in many respects, simply the B-movie actor he had always been PLAYING the President. Plenty of people also told stories of him describing incidents from fictional films as if they were actual historical events.
As for Trump, he is a 71-year old man, who (as far as we can gather) drinks a 12-pack of Diet Coke A DAY, whose typical meal consists of two Big Macs and two Filet O'Fish sandwiches, and who seemingly never really sleeps for any significant amount of time. Add to that the pressure of the Presidency, and my guess is physical deterioration might start hitting him pretty quick.
We have an age requirement for the Presidency in regards to youth, so I just don't see how it's out of bounds to talk about a limit. Beyond that, it is also a problem in Congress. People like Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd were basically being wheeled into the Senate "Weekend at Bernie's" style well into their 90s. As much as most people like and respect him, is it REALLY doing anything for the country OR his family that John McCain is trying to juggle brain cancer treatment and being one of the two Senators from Arizona?? He wasn't even able to take part in the tax cut vote, and who knows what his availability is going to be next year. At a certain point, it seems like the correct thing to do for everyone involved is to just gracefully step away when one's health starts taking a obvious turn for the worst.
I have heard that the reason McCain hasn't retired yet is due to timing. I believe it goes something like this -
Flake Jeff Flake is retiring and out in 2018 right. But two Senators from the same state can't be on the same election cycle so if McCain can exist a while longer until after Flake's replacement gets elected then the Republican governor can appoint a replacement for a longer term. It has something to do with timing and Republican schemes to wring out a year or a few extra months or something.
I could have the specifics wrong, but believe it has something to do with that.
I don't think it is out of bounds to talk about age limits, we just don't need to stereotype everyone in certain age brackets. Reagan is from an older generation so I do not think he is the best example relevant to today's younger Baby Boomer generation who in about 15 years will hit 70. I firmly believe that turning 70 in the 2030's will be much different than turning 70 in the early 1980's. If we were to put an arbitrary age limit on the office, how hard would it be to change that given the improvements in health over the years? Especially given that the percentage of older voters is growing fast.
OK, maybe I am just more sensitive to ageism because of studying and having done research in gerontology (exercise habits and mental stimulation on health and dementia/Alzheimer's in particular), but I have seen a wide range of differences when it comes to individuals.
Better case by case than a generalization as to group. Id rather have term limits on congress members and SPJ's rather than an age cutoff. But if unable to do the job, then yeah, step down, at whatever age. Regular physical/mental evaluations by a neutral third party (do they truly exist?- hard to tell sometimes) would certainly be a start, but would need to be done on one of any age to be fair. Ive seen 80 and 90 year old's act and think better than some in their 60's.
I think it should be left up to voters whether a candidate is mentally sound. Still, I think most voters should consider age an important factor in the presidency. There is a point at which a young mind cannot compensate for limited experience, and a point at which experience cannot compensate for senility.
A president needs a strong mind; it's a massively complicated job that involves juggling lots of important priorities.
Every day, more and more Republicans are coming out straight-up calling for a "purge" at the FBI, simply based on the Mueller investigation. Even the ones that aren't using that word are pushing the same narrative with different language. The belief on the American right seems to be this: that Obama and federal law enforcement engaged in a massive conspiracy to take down Donald Trump. To believe this, you have to reconcile with 3 things:
1.) You have to believe that the FBI is a left-wing organization. As @semiticgod has astutely pointed out on many occasions, federal law enforcement swings far to the right in their political leanings.
2.) You have to believe the Obama Administration engaged in Watergate-level criminal activity
3.) (and this is the kicker) You have to believe that after going to these insane and criminal lengths to get dirt on Donald Trump, they then did......nothing. They didn't say a word, right up to the point where he got ELECTED President of the United States. Apparently they are playing a long-game that no other rational person can possibly fathom the depths of.
I was actually visiting my great-aunt (who is 88) over the weekend. We talked about the treatment my grandmother received when she was in a nursing home. If it wasn't downright abusive, it was certainly bordering on it. And I'm sure most people here have a similar story. I'm not saying all nursing homes have these problems, but MANY do, and it's an industry that is rife with elderly neglect and abuse. And any government that chooses to protect these businesses at the expense of the elderly should be driven out of office as quickly as possible. The argument the nursing home lobby is making in favor of this is that the regulations preventing abuse are what is preventing staff from spending actual quality time with the residents. Do we have a show of hands on who believes that one?? If this is indicative of a typical argument against government regulation, I'd say we probably need twice as many as we have. Because this is rotten to the core. Everyone knows it. This kind of move is indicative of a country that is in the midst of a full-blown moral dumpster fire.
I was actually visiting my great-aunt (who is 88) over the weekend. We talked about the treatment my grandmother received when she was in a nursing home. If it wasn't downright abusive, it was certainly bordering on it. And I'm sure most people here have a similar story. I'm not saying all nursing homes have these problems, but MANY do, and it's an industry that is rife with elderly neglect and abuse. And any government that chooses to protect these businesses at the expense of the elderly should be driven out of office as quickly as possible. The argument the nursing home lobby is making in favor of this is that the regulations preventing abuse are what is preventing staff from spending actual quality time with the residents. Do we have a show of hands on who believes that one?? If this is indicative of a typical argument against government regulation, I'd say we probably need twice as many as we have. Because this is rotten to the core. Everyone knows it. This kind of move is indicative of a country that is in the midst of a full-blown moral dumpster fire.
The number one way to help prevent abuse or neglect of elderly patients in various facilities is for the family members to be visiting them on a regular basis--thrice weekly is probably ideal. Oh, and make sure that your visits are at random, not scheduled or planned in advance--nothing keeps a nursing staff on their toes like a family member showing up without warning and advising the staff that they are there to see their elderly relative. Of course, this presumes that the family members themselves are not the source of the abuse, which is very common.
Anyway...I am normally a fan of having fewer government regulations but in this instance those regulations are necessary because without them we would have elderly patients who might have been literally beaten up, purposefully passed over for a meal, or suffer some other travesty which should never occur. This doesn't count all the cases of staff--or fellow patients/residents--stealing your elderly relative's belongings.
Trump has never been civil or nice or a decent human being especially to Obama but to many others as well.
If you are hoping for something else now from Trump you are ignoring a vast amount of evidence. It reminds me of the stories of battered women who thinks maybe it was her fault and maybe this time she won't get beat up. Whatever her wills or promises that were made to her, that abuser is going to be a bad guy again. But sometimes they fool themselves into thinking that a leopard can change it's spots.
I was actually visiting my great-aunt (who is 88) over the weekend. We talked about the treatment my grandmother received when she was in a nursing home. If it wasn't downright abusive, it was certainly bordering on it. And I'm sure most people here have a similar story. I'm not saying all nursing homes have these problems, but MANY do, and it's an industry that is rife with elderly neglect and abuse. And any government that chooses to protect these businesses at the expense of the elderly should be driven out of office as quickly as possible. The argument the nursing home lobby is making in favor of this is that the regulations preventing abuse are what is preventing staff from spending actual quality time with the residents. Do we have a show of hands on who believes that one?? If this is indicative of a typical argument against government regulation, I'd say we probably need twice as many as we have. Because this is rotten to the core. Everyone knows it. This kind of move is indicative of a country that is in the midst of a full-blown moral dumpster fire.
The number one way to help prevent abuse or neglect of elderly patients in various facilities is for the family members to be visiting them on a regular basis--thrice weekly is probably ideal. Oh, and make sure that your visits are at random, not scheduled or planned in advance--nothing keeps a nursing staff on their toes like a family member showing up without warning and advising the staff that they are there to see their elderly relative. Of course, this presumes that the family members themselves are not the source of the abuse, which is very common.
Anyway...I am normally a fan of having fewer government regulations but in this instance those regulations are necessary because without them we would have elderly patients who might have been literally beaten up, purposefully passed over for a meal, or suffer some other travesty which should never occur. This doesn't count all the cases of staff--or fellow patients/residents--stealing your elderly relative's belongings.
Right after I was accepting into nursing school I changed my mind on the first day and went with Community Health Ed. instead. One of the reasons being that I spent working 3 weeks for our practicals in a local nursing home (part of the requirement to be accepted to nursing school was to get practical experience as a CNA). It was enough to give me a bad feeling for the places. I needed a broader field to deal with overall public health. It was a damn shame to see so many people abandoned there without ever a visit. The nursing home I was placed had residents used to having CNAs-in-training looking after them as we were each placed with one patient the entire time. They got more care, attn, and friendly conversation than at any other time. What bothered me in particular was majority of the staff did not wash their hands on each visit to and from a different room. A big NO in school at least. They said forget all that stuff, you don't have time. What? No time to prevent the spread of germs to an already vulnerable group? That home spread out CNA's pretty thin. CNA's are paid less than McD's workers and they are the ones giving the majority of the care to most of the patients (not the registered nurses). It is a backbreaking job and takes ALOT of patience.
I had a real drill instructor style teacher, one of my favorites I think over my schooling career as she took training CNA's very seriously. One of the students lied to her about ripping the catheter out of a male patient (he tripped over it and then said it just fell out). If you have ever had one you know they do not just fall out easily (balloon at the end). Got expelled immediately 'because' they lied (accidents can happen). So abuse even with some just training in homes. Personally I think the places need more safety checks and regulations. Random checks as @Mathsorcerer mentioned would expose a good bit after the things I saw. Mental and physical abuse, ignoring safety regulations, negligence. The push these days is for a focus on 'Aging in Place', to try and keep people in their homes or with family instead of nursing homes (many can't afford) that I support. ----- Another thing to go along with and some may know it already. NC is not the only state to have it come up. Ag-gag laws. They prevent whistleblowers from working 'undercover' in agricultural related places and using camera's to catch animal cruelty. So what does that have to do with nursing homes one might ask.
Because it can be used against uncovering abuse in nursing homes (AND daycare AND veterans facilities) in the same way, by the same law.
Obama was voted 'most admired man' for the 10th year in a row in a Gallup poll. Somehow, Trump was a close second in admiration. Hillary Clinton was the most admired woman.
I was actually visiting my great-aunt (who is 88) over the weekend. We talked about the treatment my grandmother received when she was in a nursing home. If it wasn't downright abusive, it was certainly bordering on it. And I'm sure most people here have a similar story. I'm not saying all nursing homes have these problems, but MANY do, and it's an industry that is rife with elderly neglect and abuse. And any government that chooses to protect these businesses at the expense of the elderly should be driven out of office as quickly as possible. The argument the nursing home lobby is making in favor of this is that the regulations preventing abuse are what is preventing staff from spending actual quality time with the residents. Do we have a show of hands on who believes that one?? If this is indicative of a typical argument against government regulation, I'd say we probably need twice as many as we have. Because this is rotten to the core. Everyone knows it. This kind of move is indicative of a country that is in the midst of a full-blown moral dumpster fire.
The number one way to help prevent abuse or neglect of elderly patients in various facilities is for the family members to be visiting them on a regular basis--thrice weekly is probably ideal. Oh, and make sure that your visits are at random, not scheduled or planned in advance--nothing keeps a nursing staff on their toes like a family member showing up without warning and advising the staff that they are there to see their elderly relative. Of course, this presumes that the family members themselves are not the source of the abuse, which is very common.
Anyway...I am normally a fan of having fewer government regulations but in this instance those regulations are necessary because without them we would have elderly patients who might have been literally beaten up, purposefully passed over for a meal, or suffer some other travesty which should never occur. This doesn't count all the cases of staff--or fellow patients/residents--stealing your elderly relative's belongings.
Right after I was accepting into nursing school I changed my mind on the first day and went with Community Health Ed. instead. One of the reasons being that I spent working 3 weeks for our practicals in a local nursing home (part of the requirement to be accepted to nursing school was to get practical experience as a CNA). It was enough to give me a bad feeling for the places. I needed a broader field to deal with overall public health. It was a damn shame to see so many people abandoned there without ever a visit. The nursing home I was placed had residents used to having CNAs-in-training looking after them as we were each placed with one patient the entire time. They got more care, attn, and friendly conversation than at any other time. What bothered me in particular was majority of the staff did not wash their hands on each visit to and from a different room. A big NO in school at least. They said forget all that stuff, you don't have time. What? No time to prevent the spread of germs to an already vulnerable group? That home spread out CNA's pretty thin. CNA's are paid less than McD's workers and they are the ones giving the majority of the care to most of the patients (not the registered nurses). It is a backbreaking job and takes ALOT of patience.
I had a real drill instructor style teacher, one of my favorites I think over my schooling career as she took training CNA's very seriously. One of the students lied to her about ripping the catheter out of a male patient (he tripped over it and then said it just fell out). If you have ever had one you know they do not just fall out easily (balloon at the end). Got expelled immediately 'because' they lied (accidents can happen). So abuse even with some just training in homes. Personally I think the places need more safety checks and regulations. Random checks as @Mathsorcerer mentioned would expose a good bit after the things I saw. Mental and physical abuse, ignoring safety regulations, negligence. The push these days is for a focus on 'Aging in Place', to try and keep people in their homes or with family instead of nursing homes (many can't afford) that I support. ----- Another thing to go along with and some may know it already. NC is not the only state to have it come up. Ag-gag laws. They prevent whistleblowers from working 'undercover' in agricultural related places and using camera's to catch animal cruelty. So what does that have to do with nursing homes one might ask.
Because it can be used against uncovering abuse in nursing homes (AND daycare AND veterans facilities) in the same way, by the same law.
It isn't just this latest removal of regulations. Earlier in the year, they made it more difficult (if not impossible) to sue these care facilities as well (and by "they" I mean the Trump Administration). I realize this is a difficult job that doesn't pay well. Lots of jobs are difficult and don't pay well. These companies charge MASSIVE amounts of money to have their loved ones taken care of. My great-aunt I spoke about earlier shelled out tens of thousands of dollars over six months when her husband took a turn for the worst before he died. If you are handing out that kind of cash, there should damn well be a reasonable expectation that your elderly relative is going to be treated with care and respect. IF the CNAs aren't being paid or trained well enough, that is on one person, which is the owner of the nursing home (or corporation that owns many of them, as it were). But, once again, it all comes down to money. It is the owners and operators of nursing homes who lobbied for this change (and the one from earlier in the year). You can take it to the bank that more elderly are going to be abused in long-term care facilities because of these decisions. That is what this does. It saves rich assholes money, and it will aid in the abuse of senior citizens. There is nothing else here. It's no coincidence many older people have no interest in going to a nursing home. They've heard the same stories everyone else has.
The only possible way I can see a justification for this sort of decision is if you simply don't believe that ANYTHING should be regulated in ANY way.
Pedophile Roy Moore won't go away. Today he's alleging voter fraud because god wouldn't let him lose an election in Alabama so it must be voter fraud.
And apparently Republicans can't lose elections without throwing a hissy fit. Such as when North Carolina's governor flipped blue the Republican legislature went all out on limiting his powers to appoint anybody to school boards and all kinds of crazy stuff and the loser claimed, again, voter fraud. Oh and Trump loses the popular vote and claims voter fraud.
Russia is Democrats unable to lose elections? Nope, there have been four people plead guilty so there is actually something there such as fake ads on facebook and other social media from russian sources and Trump Jr. meetings.
It's not just made up out of thin air because you are a sore loser who can't handle rejection. Probably not great for democracy either to try and break it everytime you lose.
So, in light of the big announcement that AT&T was giving a large number of workers a $1000 bonus because of the tax cut, I said wait six months for the silver-lining and the fine print. Turns out it was closer to six days (from Newsweek):
AT&T plans to lay off and fire more than a thousand workers starting early next year, according to local reports.
Across the Midwest, an estimated 600 workers were notified they were being laid off by the company on December 16, a week before AT&T announced it was doling out $1,000 bonuses to 200,000 of its employees in celebration of the Republican Party’s tax overhaul.
The telecommunications giant told the Chicago Tribune in a statement that the most of the affected workers are from its landline and other legacy service sectors, but the company did not say how many workers total would still be employed in 2018.
The announcement came days after the New York Post reported that the company “pink-slipped more than 700 DirecTV home installers.”
On Friday, the Post also reported that AT&T has recently laid off “215 high-skilled technician jobs in nine Southern states” and plans to fire nearly 700 workers in Texas and Missouri beginning in February.
Union representatives expressed concern and resentment toward the company.
“How can you lay people off and then give them $1,000 and say that there’s going to be more jobs available? I wish someone could tell me how that’s possible because I have to explain that to my members, and right now at this time of year, this is a difficult pill to swallow,” Joseph Blanco, president of Local 6360 Communication Workers of America Union in Kansas City, told Fox 4 on Thursday.
Randall Stephenson, CEO of AT&T, said in a statement that the GOP’s tax bill would improve the country’s economy and the company’s financial prospects.
Comments
If they used this money to hire and continuously keep employed one or two more employees, or pay raises across the board, then I'd agree it was a trickle down announcement.
Right now, it sounds more like propaganda from right leaning companies to help the government swallow this pill.
Mark Zuckerberg's comment in '07 "Young people are just smarter" was the height of arrogance. At 32 yr or so now, I wonder if his mind has changed since then as he is over 'his'age limit in Silicon Valley now.
Trump replaced 'E Pluribus Unum' with 'Make America Great Again' on the presidential coin.
So this crass, gaudy chunk of metal is nothing more than a Trump campaign advertisement paid for by the American taxpayer.
From now on, if you have this coin you have to buy a round.
Either way, it crass and gaudy as hell.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/
Of course as mortality takes its toll this line may shift, which is why Conservatives are paying serious attention to 'green' issues in their policy proposals and Twitter feeds these days.
And the fact that Trump drinks a dozen diet Cokes a day should definitely make him ineligible to be in control of a nuclear arsenal.
As for Trump, he is a 71-year old man, who (as far as we can gather) drinks a 12-pack of Diet Coke A DAY, whose typical meal consists of two Big Macs and two Filet O'Fish sandwiches, and who seemingly never really sleeps for any significant amount of time. Add to that the pressure of the Presidency, and my guess is physical deterioration might start hitting him pretty quick.
Flake Jeff Flake is retiring and out in 2018 right. But two Senators from the same state can't be on the same election cycle so if McCain can exist a while longer until after Flake's replacement gets elected then the Republican governor can appoint a replacement for a longer term. It has something to do with timing and Republican schemes to wring out a year or a few extra months or something.
I could have the specifics wrong, but believe it has something to do with that.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42479909
If we were to put an arbitrary age limit on the office, how hard would it be to change that given the improvements in health over the years? Especially given that the percentage of older voters is growing fast.
OK, maybe I am just more sensitive to ageism because of studying and having done research in gerontology (exercise habits and mental stimulation on health and dementia/Alzheimer's in particular), but I have seen a wide range of differences when it comes to individuals.
Better case by case than a generalization as to group. Id rather have term limits on congress members and SPJ's rather than an age cutoff. But if unable to do the job, then yeah, step down, at whatever age.
Regular physical/mental evaluations by a neutral third party (do they truly exist?- hard to tell sometimes) would certainly be a start, but would need to be done on one of any age to be fair.
Ive seen 80 and 90 year old's act and think better than some in their 60's.
A president needs a strong mind; it's a massively complicated job that involves juggling lots of important priorities.
1.) You have to believe that the FBI is a left-wing organization. As @semiticgod has astutely pointed out on many occasions, federal law enforcement swings far to the right in their political leanings.
2.) You have to believe the Obama Administration engaged in Watergate-level criminal activity
3.) (and this is the kicker) You have to believe that after going to these insane and criminal lengths to get dirt on Donald Trump, they then did......nothing. They didn't say a word, right up to the point where he got ELECTED President of the United States. Apparently they are playing a long-game that no other rational person can possibly fathom the depths of.
I was actually visiting my great-aunt (who is 88) over the weekend. We talked about the treatment my grandmother received when she was in a nursing home. If it wasn't downright abusive, it was certainly bordering on it. And I'm sure most people here have a similar story. I'm not saying all nursing homes have these problems, but MANY do, and it's an industry that is rife with elderly neglect and abuse. And any government that chooses to protect these businesses at the expense of the elderly should be driven out of office as quickly as possible. The argument the nursing home lobby is making in favor of this is that the regulations preventing abuse are what is preventing staff from spending actual quality time with the residents. Do we have a show of hands on who believes that one?? If this is indicative of a typical argument against government regulation, I'd say we probably need twice as many as we have. Because this is rotten to the core. Everyone knows it. This kind of move is indicative of a country that is in the midst of a full-blown moral dumpster fire.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/germany-energy-consumer-christmas-paid-supply-demand-outstrip-renewables-wind-solar-a8129716.html
Anyway...I am normally a fan of having fewer government regulations but in this instance those regulations are necessary because without them we would have elderly patients who might have been literally beaten up, purposefully passed over for a meal, or suffer some other travesty which should never occur. This doesn't count all the cases of staff--or fellow patients/residents--stealing your elderly relative's belongings.
If you are hoping for something else now from Trump you are ignoring a vast amount of evidence. It reminds me of the stories of battered women who thinks maybe it was her fault and maybe this time she won't get beat up. Whatever her wills or promises that were made to her, that abuser is going to be a bad guy again. But sometimes they fool themselves into thinking that a leopard can change it's spots.
It was a damn shame to see so many people abandoned there without ever a visit.
The nursing home I was placed had residents used to having CNAs-in-training looking after them as we were each placed with one patient the entire time. They got more care, attn, and friendly conversation than at any other time.
What bothered me in particular was majority of the staff did not wash their hands on each visit to and from a different room. A big NO in school at least. They said forget all that stuff, you don't have time. What? No time to prevent the spread of germs to an already vulnerable group? That home spread out CNA's pretty thin. CNA's are paid less than McD's workers and they are the ones giving the majority of the care to most of the patients (not the registered nurses). It is a backbreaking job and takes ALOT of patience.
I had a real drill instructor style teacher, one of my favorites I think over my schooling career as she took training CNA's very seriously.
One of the students lied to her about ripping the catheter out of a male patient (he tripped over it and then said it just fell out). If you have ever had one you know they do not just fall out easily (balloon at the end). Got expelled immediately 'because' they lied (accidents can happen).
So abuse even with some just training in homes.
Personally I think the places need more safety checks and regulations. Random checks as @Mathsorcerer mentioned would expose a good bit after the things I saw. Mental and physical abuse, ignoring safety regulations, negligence.
The push these days is for a focus on 'Aging in Place', to try and keep people in their homes or with family instead of nursing homes (many can't afford) that I support.
-----
Another thing to go along with and some may know it already. NC is not the only state to have it come up.
Ag-gag laws. They prevent whistleblowers from working 'undercover' in agricultural related places and using camera's to catch animal cruelty.
So what does that have to do with nursing homes one might ask.
Because it can be used against uncovering abuse in nursing homes (AND daycare AND veterans facilities) in the same way, by the same law.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/366561-poll-obama-is-most-admired-man-for-the-10th-year-in-a-row
The only possible way I can see a justification for this sort of decision is if you simply don't believe that ANYTHING should be regulated in ANY way.
And apparently Republicans can't lose elections without throwing a hissy fit. Such as when North Carolina's governor flipped blue the Republican legislature went all out on limiting his powers to appoint anybody to school boards and all kinds of crazy stuff and the loser claimed, again, voter fraud. Oh and Trump loses the popular vote and claims voter fraud.
Russia is Democrats unable to lose elections? Nope, there have been four people plead guilty so there is actually something there such as fake ads on facebook and other social media from russian sources and Trump Jr. meetings.
It's not just made up out of thin air because you are a sore loser who can't handle rejection. Probably not great for democracy either to try and break it everytime you lose.
AT&T plans to lay off and fire more than a thousand workers starting early next year, according to local reports.
Across the Midwest, an estimated 600 workers were notified they were being laid off by the company on December 16, a week before AT&T announced it was doling out $1,000 bonuses to 200,000 of its employees in celebration of the Republican Party’s tax overhaul.
The telecommunications giant told the Chicago Tribune in a statement that the most of the affected workers are from its landline and other legacy service sectors, but the company did not say how many workers total would still be employed in 2018.
The announcement came days after the New York Post reported that the company “pink-slipped more than 700 DirecTV home installers.”
On Friday, the Post also reported that AT&T has recently laid off “215 high-skilled technician jobs in nine Southern states” and plans to fire nearly 700 workers in Texas and Missouri beginning in February.
Union representatives expressed concern and resentment toward the company.
“How can you lay people off and then give them $1,000 and say that there’s going to be more jobs available? I wish someone could tell me how that’s possible because I have to explain that to my members, and right now at this time of year, this is a difficult pill to swallow,” Joseph Blanco, president of Local 6360 Communication Workers of America Union in Kansas City, told Fox 4 on Thursday.
Randall Stephenson, CEO of AT&T, said in a statement that the GOP’s tax bill would improve the country’s economy and the company’s financial prospects.