Health aide shortage too complicated for one fix to work | Letters

Regarding “In-home caregivers heading toward crisis — mainly for women,” a recent op-ed by Linda Siessel of Bayada Home Health Care:

I applaud Siessel’s description of this national problem, which is spot-on, but disagree with her primary route to redress. Better lives and living wages for home health aides will not happen only by approaching state and national lawmakers for higher Medicaid reimbursement to caregiver agencies.

Now retired, I have worked in various nursing roles in home health care since prior to Title 18 of the Social Security Act. This 1966 law established Medicare, reimbursement for home health agencies, and described the role, functions and method of reimbursement. This law was soon followed by Title 19, which legislated Medicaid, a program co-funded by the states.

Sorry, Ms. Siessel, but home health aides as individuals are largely in the same disadvantaged position as they were in 1966. Except in extremely rare instances, they still work for below-poverty wages, receive no higher rate for overtime, and lack paid sick/vacation time, health insurance and retirement benefits.

---

 
 
    Don’t miss the best in editorials, opinion columns and commentary from NJ.com writers. Add your email here:

   
   
   

---

The route to these benefits, which a majority of American workers enjoy, is not through the legislatures. Our pleas have been falling on their deaf ears for 63 years, and hearing seldom improves with age.

The solutions ultimately lie in legislated national and state cost-establishing regulations, and an immediate route for collective bargaining for home health aides. First, you have to get the legislatures’ attention.

Lois Young, West Caldwell

Freedom incompatible with freeze-outs

The syndicated Leonard Pitts Jr. column that appeared in the Star-Ledger print edition on March 27 was correct to note, as its headline indicated, that the right to free speech does not give the speaker the right to freedom from consequences.

Hate speech or vile speech normally is refuted by the public at large. The issue today is a different reaction to this type of speech than in the past. Today, anything deemed vile or refutable is condemned by colleges, by media “cancelation” or use of physical force. Parents, and others who assume parental roles, seem to want to cut off young people from hearing anything the parents disagree with.

Pitts and others who seem to think there’s nothing wrong with shaming or shunning a speaker for a particular opinion should themselves be diminished by any adult who believes they are smart enough to distinguish between fact and opinion and can choose by themselves what they prefer to listen to.

Pitts and others should feel free to argue any thought on its merits. However, seeking to prevent others from expressing thoughts in the first place is not a good argument against those thoughts. On the contrary, doing so is an admission of not having a strong counterargument.

Richard W. Ferris, New Providence

Foul shot on NYC vaccination rules

I find it interesting to hear about New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ new “Let them eat cake” double standard for entertainers and sports figures vs. those for civil service and other city employees.

Adams has lifted a COVID-19 vaccination mandate for these celebrities, which until now, has kept unvaccinated professional sports stars from playing in city venues. The most obvious example is the Brooklyn Nets’ basketball player Kyrie Irving, who had been unable to play in home games at Barclays Center.

The public-sector workers were there during COVID-19, no matter what — until some of them were let go if they refused to get the shots. But now, Adams grants exemptions to the money-makers such as Irving who now can perform in the city without the shots.

I see where the loyalty of Adams — a former New York Police Department officer and captain — lies. By the way, my wife and I are fully vaccinated and boosted.

Jim Kerner, Bergenfield

Say where the fentanyl is coming from

“The root cause.” It’s a phrase that you read about and hear all of the time now. Democrats keep talking about getting to the root cause of our problems. I have heard Vice President Kamala Harris speak these words countless times.

I read a very interesting article earlier this month in the Star-Ledger, “The changing face of opioid addiction: Overdoses among Blacks in New Jersey have skyrocketed.”

The synthetic opioid fentanyl seems to be the drug that is at “the root cause” the rise in overdose deaths. Well, it’s been reported that a record amount of fentanyl is being seized by the Border Patrol at the border with Mexico.

Why, I wonder, is this fact not mentioned frequently? It was not cited in the Star-Ledger article. If only there were real journalists out there to report about “the root cause.”

Don Montefusco, Maplewood

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.

The Star-Ledger/NJ.com encourages submissions of opinion. Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow us on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and on Facebook at NJ.com Opinion. Get the latest news updates right in your inbox. Subscribe to NJ.com’s newsletters.