The Community Choice Act (CCA) has already caught on in New England and MA and NY passed similar legislation years ago. Congressmen from both parties have signed on to the bill, which was formerly named MiCASSA

The legislation known as CCA if formally known as MiCASSA (the Medicaid Community Attendant Services and Supports Act) as it is the primary piece of legislation that ADAPT wrote several years ago and is a life link to independence for people with disabilities stuck in institutions that want to get out. It’s been on top of the agenda for ADAPT and other leading disability advocates who are trying to counter the institutional bias that exists in this country.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was the first legislator to introduce MiCASA in July 1997. The bill garnered bipartisan support in the 15th Congress and more than 200 national and state disability organizations and coalitions offered their support of the legislation. Kudos for the conservatives and bipartisan supporters.

Additionally, “The Money Follows The Person” is one of the basic underlying concepts of MiCASSA. What it suggests is that the money that the states currently use to pay for an individual’s care in a nursing facility or other institution would follow that person into the community when he or she leaves the institution. This money could then be used to help pay for rent, food, or other needs that the person may have.

The Money Follows the Person is an initiative that was part of the President Bush’s proposal for a “Money Follows the Person Program”. It was included in the Presidents 2005 budget request as a major component of the President’s New Freedom Initiative to integrate people with disabilities into the community.

President Bush’s proposal provides 350 million dollars to states per year for five years for a total of 1.75 billion dollars. It provides 100% of the cost for the first year that a person moves from an institutional setting into the community. After that, the federal government pays its regular Medicaid rate.

Bush’s initiative helped states comply with the ADA and the Olmstead decision. The Supreme Court said in Olmstead that needless institutionalization was discrimination under the ADA. Again, more kudos for the conservatives and bipartisn supporters. And by the way, the preceding three paragraphs where taken from the very ADAPT site you linked us to Alex.

I guess if its not purported ‘evil” about Bush, its not worth mentioning. How bigoted we have become.

Your claim that “Apparently ten of these senior activists met with members of Obama’s staff, and were told that the President would no longer support the bill.” it is pretty serious claim and yes, it is an evil. So thank you for covering at least that evil..

Perhaps though, Obama’s administration just needs to find a way to make it look like it’s “their” idea instead and their waiting for the right opportunity. Remember, timing in politics is everything. More on that latter.

Your also right about what you claim with Leighann Spilman, the ADAPT activist from Kansas when he told you that “in some states the option exists for Medicaid to pay for in-home care for the disabled as an alternative to nursing homes.

This is true because in fact Kansas in one of the states that President Bush’s proposals went into law by Kansas State legislators. Which all states are free to move forward with if they choose. Yes you read that correctly. So way aren’t they? Good question, more on that below.

Several states have already chosen to utilize President Bush’s The Money Follows The Person initiative . In Texas, over 1,200 people came out of nursing homes under this program. Looks like Bush put his money where is mouth is there. And the state of Utah uses it as an administrative practice, while the states of Maryland and Kansas, yes Kansas, the same state your sighted activist comes from, have adopted it as law. Google it!

So now this leaves us Americans with two questions.

1) Why is Obama playing politics under the guise of “change” on this issue?

2) Why are all states not exercising their right to state sovereignty and enacting the Bush initiatives.

Answer to #1. In Obama’s case, he dose not like ralleying for support of states exercising their sovereignty because if flies in the face and thus counter productive to his desire to increase the power, scope, and reach of the federal government. It’s a tricky tight rope for him to walk because out right efforts to do so are a clear violation of the US Constitution.

So hence, his community civil core of “mandatory” volunteers, as if that is not an oximoron, all federally funded, to work in communities all over American to get as many Americans to support his agenda for “change” as possible. It will be from within this mandatory core of volunteers that you will see Obamas support for MiCASSA / CCA arise. You can mark my words on that. Hence the new loophole for by-passing state sovereignty has been established in practice and an issue of vital importance has been prostitued as its vehical. And with the name change from MICASSA to CCA, or maybe even changed again, it has cut ties with what conservatives and true bipartisims have been working hard on as MICASSA for over 12 years now.

Answer to #2. As for why not all states are enacting MiCASSA / CAC on their own and making the efforts to turn this into practice and law is the easiest question of all. Need some help with that answer Alex? Follow the money.

The greed and corruption in both Federal and State government would make Enron blush. And we as taxpayers only ever get to see just the slightest glimpse of it. When it comes to the disabled / elderly, crooks have always been scamming on the them since the dawn of time, and federal and state legislators are not one bit different, except they have more ways and means to do it and covering their acts.

Summary: Obama should be loudly voicing his concerns for way more states have not enacted the proposals of MICASSA / CCP by Bush that many state already have as evidenced above. This would (1) maintain Constitutional respect for state sovereignty while (2) at the exact same time be shaming those state legislators for having their hands in the disabled/elderly cookie jar because they will not be able to come up with an excuse. That would be a win / win political maneuver for all of us big time. But only a truly bipartisan President would do it.

The Community Choice Act (CCA) has already caught on in New England and MA and NY passed similar legislation years ago. Congressmen from both parties have signed on to the bill, which was formerly named MiCASSA

The legislation known as MiCASSA (the Medicaid Community Attendant Services and Supports Act) is the primary piece of legislation that ADAPT wrote several years ago and is a life link to independence for people with disabilities stuck in institutions that want to get out. It’s been on top of the agenda for ADAPT and other leading disability advocates who are trying to counter the institutional bias that exists in this country.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was the first legislator to introduce MiCASA in July 1997. The bill garnered bipartisan support in the 15th Congress and more than 200 national and state disability organizations and coalitions offered their support of the legislation. Kudos for the conservatives and bipartisan supporters.

Additionally, “The Money Follows The Person” is one of the basic underlying concepts of MiCASSA. What it suggests is that the money that the states currently use to pay for an individual’s care in a nursing facility or other institution would follow that person into the community when he or she leaves the institution. This money could then be used to help pay for rent, food, or other needs that the person may have.

The Money Follows the Person is an initiative that was part of the President Bush’s proposal for a “Money Follows the Person Program”. It was included in the Presidents 2005 budget request as a major component of the President’s New Freedom Initiative to integrate people with disabilities into the community.

President Bush’s proposal provides 350 million dollars to states per year for five years for a total of 1.75 billion dollars. It provides 100% of the cost for the first year that a person moves from an institutional setting into the community. After that, the federal government pays its regular Medicaid rate.

Bush’s initiative helped states comply with the ADA and the Olmstead decision. The Supreme Court said in Olmstead that needless institutionalization was discrimination under the ADA. Again, more kudos for the conservatives. And by the way, the preceding three paragraphs where taken for the very ADAPT site you linked us to.

I guess if its not purported ‘evil” about Bush, its not worth mentioning. How bigoted we have become.

Your claim that “Apparently ten of these senior activists met with members of Obama’s staff, and were told that the President would no longer support the bill.” it is pretty serious claim and yes, it is an evil. So thank you for covering at least that.

Perhaps though, Obama’s administration just needs to find a way to make it look like it’s “their” idea instead and their waiting for the right opportunity. You know, timing in politics is everything. More on that latter.

Your also right about what you claim with Leighann Spilman, an ADAPT activist from Kansas when he told you that “in some states the option exists for Medicaid to pay for in-home care for the disabled as an alternative to nursing homes.

This is true because in fact Kansas in one of the states that President Bush’s proposals went into law by Kansas State legislators. Which all states are free to move forward with if they choose. Yes you read that correctly. So way aren’t they? Good question, more on that below.

Several states have already chosen to utilize President Bush’s The Money Follows The Person initiative . In Texas, over 1,200 people came out of nursing homes under this program. Looks like Bush put his money where is mouth is there. And the state of Utah uses it as an administrative practice, while the states of Maryland and Kansas, yes Kansas, the same state your sighted activist comes from, have adopted it as law. Google it!

So now this leaves us Americans with two questions.

1) Why is Obama playing politics under the guise of “change” on this issue?
2) Why are all states not exercising their right to state sovereignty and enacting the Bush initiatives.

Answer to #1. In Obama’s case, he dose not like ralleying for supporting of states exercising their sovereignty because if flies in the face and is counter productive to his desire to increase the power, scope, and reach of the federal government. It’s a tricky tight rope for him to walk because out right efforts to do so are a clear violation of the US Constitution.

So hence, his community civil core of mandatory “volunteers”, all federally funded, to work in communities all over American to get as many Americans to support his agenda for “change” as possible. It will be from within this mandatory core of volunteers that you will see Obamas support for MiCASSA / CCA arise. You can mark my words on that. Hence the new loophole for by-passing state sovereignty has been established. And with the name change from MICASSA to CCA, it has cut ties with what conservatives have been working hard on as MICASSA for over 11 years now.

Answer to #2. As for why not all states are enacting MiCASSA / CAC on their own and making the efforts to turn this into law is the easiest question of all. Need some help with that answer Alex? Follow the money.

The greed and corruption in both Federal and State government would make Enron blush. And we as taxpayers only ever get to see just the slightest glimpse of it. When it comes to the disabled / elderly, crooks have always been scamming on the elderly and disabled since the dawn of time, and federal and state legislators are not one bit different, except they have more ways and means to do it and covering their acts.

Summary: Obama should be loudly voicing his concerns for way more states have not enacted the proposals of MICASSA / CCP by Bush that many state already have as evidenced above. This would (1) maintain Constitutional respect for state sovereignty while (2) at the exact same time be shaming those state legislators for having their hands in the disabled/elderly cookie jar because they will not be able to come up with an excuse. That would be a win / win political maneuver for all of us big time. But only a truly bipartisan President would do it.

2. I understand this – however, it still, in my mind, would make more sense to prod the people who can actually do something about it right now as opposed to (better yet, in addition to!) in future. But perhaps I’m shortsighted.

2. The protesters are well aware of the status of the CCA. If the president identified this bill as a priority item as part of health care reform (long-term care), it would bloody well move out of committee.

3. The president and many of his advisers come from Illinois, which is at the bottom (below *any* others) in terms of community-based supports for people with disabilities. While Obama, as a Senator and candidate, endorsed the CCA, it’s entirely possible that the Illinois pro-institution mindset followed him into the White House.