Relative caregivers catch a break

  • Article by: ABBY SIMONS , Star Tribune
  • Updated: January 24, 2013 - 9:58 PM

The Legislature had cut their pay by 20 percent in a cost-saving move, but a ruling that deemed the cut unconstitutional will stand.

  • 31
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
pattik1111Jan. 26, 1311:22 AM

Why is it?... those who provide good service have to pay for those who abuse the system? I am a care provider for my autistic grandson. My daughter went through many 'non-relative' care providers who failed at understanding his issues... now that I am the care provider, he is excelling in all areas. Should I be paid less because I am a relative - or more because I provide better service? I sacrifice time from my other job (which pays much more) and gas to drive there every day because it is best for him - can someone tell me why my time should not be compensated?? Maybe the system and it's methods for monitoring services provided should be addressed - ya think???

0
0
NoMasBSJan. 25, 13 5:41 PM

What!!!??? Did I just read that a RIGHTIE wants the state to limit the pay of caregivers??? Can't be since you RIGHTIES are totally for capitalism even to the point that it totally destroys our economy. Why is it so hard for you RIGHTIES to see that corporate welfare far out paces any fraud by any governement program?? Just unbelievable really.

1
1
nonimausaJan. 25, 13 5:10 PM

A disabled relative spent the past seven years caring for his disabled, and then blind mother, living only on her SS and his own disability, totalling just under $19,000 a year. Nobody ever offered him any payment for his work, though she was ill enough that he couldn't be out of the apartment longer than a couple of hours at a time, had to do all the cooking and shopping, and often was up several times a night to help her. For at least five years she could not have lived without his continuous care. When she became too ill for him to care for her, she had to go into a care home. This is costing the taxpayer about $6,000 a month, $72,000 a year, not including the cost of her medications, of which she had been covering co-pays out of her SS previously. A little figuring shows us that his home care for those five years alone saved Minnesota taxpayers roughly a quarter million. If he had been paid $11 an hour for a 40 hour week (still less than half of the hours he actually worked or was on call) that would have been about $20,000 a year after taxes, and would have STILL saved taxpayers $150,000 over those five years. Now, after those five years of work, what has he got to show for it? Not even a brownie point or a gold star for the quarter million he saved Minnesotans. Good going.

3
0
cmpatteJan. 25, 13 3:43 PM

When the caregiver has given up their "golden years" with their family only because said family member REFUSES to go to a facilty that can better handle their needs and caregiver wasn't given a choice then what? All other family members are busy and have their families but not me. I'm stuck and not getting paid. So where is the payroll office?

5
0
member11Jan. 25, 13 3:38 PM

Give these people the assistance they need, but radically step up fraud investigations and enforcement. The stories that have been reported in the media recently on the frequency and amount of fraudulent benefit claims clearly show that this has become a systemic problem.

5
0
rileraJan. 25, 13 2:07 PM

Being a caregiver for a loved one is one of the hardest 'gigs' out there. Not to mention the fact that it saves taxpayers millions of dollars in public assistance that would be needed if family members didn't step up to the plate to care for loved ones and instead placed them in facilities. These caregivers should be applauded not vilified. It's a small price to pay, taxpayers, and it gives the family peace of mind knowing that their loved one is cared for in the best possible way.

3
1
jeffportJan. 25, 13 1:37 PM

To avejoecon - Sorry neither a "Leftist or a rightist" I'm a fiscal conseverative/social liberal. I'm an Independant with a sense of morals to other people that need help. Give up your life for a family member that needs help 24/7. Should they get no help? Should they just say "Ok, my life is over now because I have to take care of XYZ" for the rest of thier lives" Oh by the way, I make minimum wage and we will both have to live in a 1 room apt because I only make $800 a month but thats ok because it's my total responsibilty as the persons family member. Better check yourself and just how much a family person should be doing.

5
1
odinmanJan. 25, 13 1:19 PM

I have had a home office for 14 years and noticed that in just the past couple of years, more and more commercials are airing during the day from law offices pining for your disability claim business. (know your target audience?) This is a recent thing and makes one wonder why claims are skyrocketing. My former neighbor hurt his knee and was collecting SSDI but had no trouble working on cars, motorcycles, going fishing, hunting, golfing...you name it. But darn it..he was just too disabled to work. See ya at the bottom.

4
3
avejoeconJan. 25, 13 1:03 PM

Lets see how your family feels when you become laid up and not able to care for yourself. I can only wonder how happy your family will feel to take care of you 24/7 with no assistance. FYI, they may not say it out loud, but under thier breath they will not be happy, I promise. I have a question, are families supposed to give up thier own lives because of anothers issue? Just how fair is that to the others? Just how much of thier lives are they supposed to give up? Yes, when there is a minor issue they should be ok but when that medical issue eats up 75+% of anothers life how fair is that? They need help to care for another person either financially or physical assistive type of help.-----------------------Typical leftist response. The gov't is responsible and the family has no responsibility. years ago, the family gladly took care of their own. Now, people are told that it is gov'ts job to provide for everything.

1
12
avejoeconJan. 25, 13 1:01 PM

ziggym---Your stats on disability mean absolutely nothing because you are comparing apples to cars. The number of applications and the percentage approved is NOT the same. If applications SPIKED during Obama's term, that has nothing to do with how many were approved. Lets look at it this way. If 1000 People applied in 2009 and 35% were approved, that has no comparison to saying that 5o Applied and 25 of them were approved in Bush's terms.

1
5

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: Can the Wild rally to win its playoff series against Colorado?

Weekly Question

ADVERTISEMENT