Re: Family upset over treatment of father, Burnaby NOW, Sept. 26.
I am shocked by the treatment to which Mr. Evans has been subject, but I am astounded by the response in the media.
As usual, the path of least resistance is to blame the government and the healthcare system.
Is no one prepared to take on any responsibility for themselves and their "loved ones?"
I happen to live in Mr. Evans' neighbourhood, and am somewhat aware of his circumstances, as well as having been exposed to a similar case involving my father-in-law. I can state from experience that with just a bit of initiative and reasonable expectations, a perfectly acceptable solution is currently available without any of the hand wringing and casting of blame.
I am floored by his daughter's statement that "the family" can't afford the $4,000 to $5,000 per month that a place in a private care facility - available on demand - would cost.
There is no way that Mr. Evans could not afford that size of outlay himself without "the family" having to put up a dime.
As a retired union executive, his pension, on top of his CPP and OAC (which is likely clawed back because his income may be above the $70,000 claw-back threshold) is hardly likely to be less than $60,000, and much of the care cost is tax-deductible.
On top of that, his house, which is hardly likely to be mortgaged at his age, is worth in the order of $1 million. So the daughter's financial concern appears hard to justify.
If Mr. Evans' income does not cover his cost of care, it may impact the size of the family's inheritance - hardly a reason for the rest of us to subsidize that care, and even less reason that he should be so poorly treated.
So what Mr. Evans actually needs is not the government to provide us with an unlimited number of extended-care beds, but someone to take a reasonable interest in his welfare and take charge of his affairs - a function most of us would prefer our families to undertake.
In my view, Mr. Evans' problem is personal rather than political.
Thomas Hasek, Burnaby