Lawsuit Attacks Ga. Mental Health System; Could Cost Millions

[Reba]

Well, there is election and people of Georgia can vote irresponsible and mishandling politicians out and replace with more common sense politicians and know how to avoid lawsuit as possible.

In Alabama, you can request the ASL interpreter at state hospital, no problem for deaf people.

Same in South Carolina. We have some signing counselors or terps can be requested.

 

[jillio]

I was responding to Beowulf's question about using terps. I said make it an option as opposed to making it a requirement. That is, allow for signing counselors AND interpreters. For that matter, allow for any other options that a client might prefer (for non-signing deaf/hoh clients).

Sorry. Misunderstood. To this I agree.

 

[jillio]

No. The premium increases for the state hospitals will mean they will have to either increase their fees for their services, or the taxpayers will have to pay to make up the difference. If policies are canceled, then clinics will close, and then there will be even fewer resources available to those who need them.

Sometimes lawsuits can backfire, and people need to be aware of that possibility.

Not necessarily. State hospitals and mental health facilities run on a bare bones budget. Profit is not the be all and end all the way it is in a private facility. And, to cover salaries of staff, etc, grants are often used.

The population using the state facilities generally have minimal to no insurance coverage. The vast majority are on disability, or simply unemployed. State facilities are under mandate to treat indigent clients. In fact, private facilities generally refuse them, period. And, given the nature of many mental disorders, those most severely affected and in need of treatment are also those that are indigent.

 

[Reba]

Not necessarily. State hospitals and mental health facilities run on a bare bones budget. Profit is not the be all and end all the way it is in a private facility. And, to cover salaries of staff, etc, grants are often used.

Even if profit is not their goal, they still need to cover expenses. Grants aren't available to cover everything, and with government deficits, grants might start drying up. (Who provides the money for the grants?)

The population using the state facilities generally have minimal to no insurance coverage. The vast majority are on disability, or simply unemployed. State facilities are under mandate to treat indigent clients. In fact, private facilities generally refuse them, period. And, given the nature of many mental disorders, those most severely affected and in need of treatment are also those that are indigent.

So, state hospitals and clinics won't be financially hurt by a large lawsuit? Taxpayers won't have to pay for any increased costs that are incurred by the lawsuit?

From what pot of money do state hospitals and clinics get their funding?

 

[jillio]

Even if profit is not their goal, they still need to cover expenses. Grants aren't available to cover everything, and with government deficits, grants might start drying up. (Who provides the money for the grants?)


So, state hospitals and clinics won't be financially hurt by a large lawsuit? Taxpayers won't have to pay for any increased costs that are incurred by the lawsuit?

From what pot of money do state hospitals and clinics get their funding?

The largest expense is the staff.

Taxpayers might have to pay for additional services, taxpayers might not have to pay for additional services. It depends on how the mandate to provide is put into place.

But, you seem to be so concerned about mentally ill people walking the streets. How would you suggest we treat the indigent? Leaving them without treatment is a risk that you should be concerned about moreso than making services available to them at some small increase in cost. Can't have it both ways. Either they receive treatment at a state hospital that the state funds through taxes, or they don't receive treatment at all.

 

[Beowulf]

Jeez, there is such a stigma in being mentally ill.

*stomping off angrily*

 

[Reba]

The largest expense is the staff.

Taxpayers might have to pay for additional services, taxpayers might not have to pay for additional services. It depends on how the mandate to provide is put into place.

But, you seem to be so concerned about mentally ill people walking the streets. How would you suggest we treat the indigent? Leaving them without treatment is a risk that you should be concerned about moreso than making services available to them at some small increase in cost. Can't have it both ways. Either they receive treatment at a state hospital that the state funds through taxes, or they don't receive treatment at all.

I never said don't provide treatment. I said that lawsuits can eat into those dollars that would be used for treatment, especially since taxpayers can provide only so much money to pay for the hospitals and clinics.

 

[jillio]

I never said don't provide treatment. I said that lawsuits can eat into those dollars that would be used for treatment, especially since taxpayers can provide only so much money to pay for the hospitals and clinics.

Lawsuits become necessary simply because treatment is not being provided.

 

[jillio]

Jeez, there is such a stigma in being mentally ill.

*stomping off angrily*

No doubt. It is disgusting. And it adds a dimension to mental illness that creates further complications for the person who is already dealing with an illness.

 

[Foxrac]

Even if profit is not their goal, they still need to cover expenses. Grants aren't available to cover everything, and with government deficits, grants might start drying up. (Who provides the money for the grants?)


So, state hospitals and clinics won't be financially hurt by a large lawsuit? Taxpayers won't have to pay for any increased costs that are incurred by the lawsuit?

From what pot of money do state hospitals and clinics get their funding?

I'm not understand Jillio's post at all and her answer is very complicated.

For your question, yes, if state get sued so it does cost a lot of taxpayers for lawsuit. State hospitals are owned by state and funded under taxpayers, if deaf people sue the state hospital for lack of interpreter that need meet under ADA law so it will cost to taxpayers and their taxes will goes on lawsuit, damage, settlement, etc.

 

[jillio]

I never said don't provide treatment. I said that lawsuits can eat into those dollars that would be used for treatment, especially since taxpayers can provide only so much money to pay for the hospitals and clinics.

Simple solution. Provide accessible treatment and lawsuits won't be necessary. Tax dollars certainly weren't going to treatment costs for deaf clients.

 

[jillio]

I'm not understand Jillio's post at all and her answer is very complicated.

For your question, yes, if state get sued so it does cost a lot of taxpayers for lawsuit. State hospitals are owned by state and funded under taxpayers, if deaf people sue the state hospital for lack of interpreter that need meet under ADA law so it will cost to taxpayers and their taxes will goes on lawsuit, damage, settlement, etc.

Ask questions about my posts and I will answer them.