Letters to the Editor: The money follows the person
Published 12:00 am, Sunday, April 22, 2018
The money follows
To the Editor:
The Money Follows the Person program is the cornerstone of Connecticut’s efforts to support consumer options to live independently in the community and provide alternatives to institutional care. Specifically, MFP provides funding to transition someone from a nursing home to back home, and provide the services and supports they need to live in the community. The program helps find and secure housing, provides home health care, personal care attendance, VNA services and adult day care respite. Not only does MFP offer consumers additional options to live at home, but it’s also cost-effective for taxpayers and improves patient health outcomes.
In national comparisons, Connecticut’s Money Follows the Person Demonstration has transitioned the fourth highest number of peoples from institutions (after Ohio, Texas and Washington.) Our state has the highest number of MFP transitions per capita.
Connecticut legislative action is needed this session to remove the 5,000 person enrollment cap currently in State law so additional individuals can access the services. Since the program’s inception Connecticut has transitioned nearly 5,000 folks and if the cap remains in place, individuals in the future needing services at home will not be able to receive help through Connecticut’s Money Follows the Person program. This will result in people being stuck in nursing homes.
On Tuesday, April 10th, the CT House of Representatives took up H.B. 5253, expanding access to the Money Follows the Person Program. The unanimous bipartisan vote in the HOUSE is a major milestone! Now we need to ensure that the CT Senate acts in a similar, expedient and unified action. I would encourage readers to reach out to their legislators to support this vital program.
Peter F. Eder
46th Annual Boy Scout Tag Sale
To the Editor:
Hopefully, we are done cleaning up the storm debris from our yards and ready to tackle Spring Cleaning inside! The 46th Annual Boy Scout Tag Sale is coming up on Sunday, May 6, and we need your donations!! Clean out those closets, garages, playrooms, kitchens and basements, and help support your local Scouting community while earning a tax deduction and bringing needed goods to our hundreds of customers!
Scouts and their families greatly look forward to this period of working together and promoting reducing, recycling and reusing. In 2017, we even won the Darien Chamber of Commerce “Going Green” Award for this annual effort. We are proud to be able to help many area families find a special treasure or much-needed item, and make sure that any unsold items after the sale are passed on to other charities for those in need.
Donations can be dropped off at the Scout Cabin at 140 West Ave. on April 14, 18-21, and 25-28 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., with extra evening hours available Thursdays and Fridays April 19, 20, 26 and 27 from 6 to 8 p.m. There are pickups available for items that are too large for your car on Saturdays April 21 & 28. Visit www.darienscouts.org soon to secure a pickup time—availability is limited so be sure to schedule early.
Remember, your clutter may be another’s treasure! We welcome your lawnmowers, snow blowers, baby gear, garden tools, strollers, bikes, toys and games, sporting goods, electronics, housewares, linens, lamps, antiques, collectibles, boats and even cars. For questions or more information email email@example.com or call 203-656-1830 Ext 3. And if you have a charity that may be interested in unsold items, please let us know that as well.
We look forward to accepting your donations and seeing you at the Tag Sale on Sunday May 6.
Jay P. Shutts
Andrew Shaw Memorial Trust
background checks — Congress, what are you waiting for?
To the Editor
Universal background checks should be federal law at this juncture of our nation’s history. The fact that universal background checks are not mandated can reasonably be described as a failure of representative democracy. In the wake of the school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (Parkland, Fla.), it’s reasonable to ask — could a universal background check system have prevented the entire incident?
Police responded 39 times to emergency calls at the shooter’s home within a seven-year time span. If universal background checks had been in place, the shooter would only be able to seek a firearm from a licensed dealer or a heavily regulated private seller. From either of those locations, it’s possible he would have been flagged and prohibited access to an AR-15 rifle. The deranged fantasies of a disaffected teen would have remained fantasies.
A law that enacts universal background checks, at its core, would demand more transparency and accountability from gun dealers. The single most comprehensive version of this law would require all firearm transfers to be conducted through licensed dealers. This way, background checks would be completed on all purchasers and all sales records would be maintained for potential review by law enforcement. There is also a version of this policy that allows for private sales with specific requirements. Vendors would be required to conduct background checks through a central law enforcement agency.
As you might expect, that agency would have access to both state and federal records of purchasers. Vendors would also need to maintain purchaser records for no less than ten years. As a final tenant of this policy, private sellers would have to report all firearm transfers to state and local law enforcement. Opponents of universal background checks (as few as they are), find the compulsory record keeping pieces of this policy to be highly objectionable, effectively, an infringement of their personal freedoms. Advocates of this policy (like myself) are likely to defend this policy as a preventative measure that can screen out potentially dangerous individuals and save lives.
Our national attention span, when it comes to political news, is noticeably brief. If the hourly “Breaking News” segments that appear on most mainstream media stations aren’t distracting enough — the tri-hourly news notifications on our smart phones serve to abbreviate our level of engagement with any single issue. We shouldn’t surrender the debate over universal background checks to allegations of Russian collaboration, scandalous adult film entertainers, or the latest congressional deadlock for one simple (and unique) reason. Most of us agree.
Recent polling of the American public, conducted by two credible universities, supports the idea of far-reaching support for universal background checks.
A study conducted by Quinnipiac University found near universal support for this policy change (their words not mine). Among 1,249 self-identified registered voters (22 percent Republican, 33 percent Democrat, Independent 39 percent, “Don’t Know” 6 percent), 97 percent of respondents approved of universal background checks, including 97 percent among gun owners.
In a second poll from Monmouth University, 83 percent of Americans support requiring comprehensive background checks for all gun purchasers (including private sales between two individuals). Granted, this poll was scaled to give respondents some wiggle room - 68 percent of respondents strongly supported it, while 15 percent somewhat supported it. Much like the Quinnipiac poll, support was found across the political spectrum as 91 percent of Democrats, 83 percent of independents, and 72 percent of Republicans support the measure to some degree.
Even among NRA members surveyed, 69 percent of them supported comprehensive background checks.
In all honesty, universal background checks would prompt an exchange of sorts. Law-abiding purchasers would be accepting the loss of expedient transactions and anonymity from their status as gun owners. In return, our nation would have a genuine opportunity to mitigate (and eventually cease) the pervasive trend of gun violence that has irreparably harmed our neighbors, friends, and families.
So many of our political arguments are contentious and without end. However, we do have a rare case of broad public consensus, all along the political spectrum, when it comes to this issue. Under the law of our Republic, consensus should be enough to prompt new legislation and the subsequent change of domestic gun policies.
Congress, what are you waiting for?
Kevin J. Pallotti
Sandy Hook Promise