Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

NHS vs. Red Cross - a humanitarian crisis?

145679

Comments

  • aliwibble said:

    I have no idea about the reset your password process but I'm sure that in the scheme of the whole policy it's a pretty insignificant factor.

    Well, as I understand it, the idea of the digital system is that everything apart from meetings with your jobcoach is supposed to go through the system rather than them sending letters out, so if you can't log in to the damn thing in the first place, you're screwed.

    Yes the conditionality regime is a potential catastrophe but there are a retract rules about when a section can be applied and when it can't. And it has to be agreed by 2 people so it can't just be applied case of them 'not liking what you are doing'. A sanction for missing applied reread meeting only occurs on the second time it happens and only if there is no warning of such. I.e. a phone call to say you can't make it can we rearrange would suffice. Simple communication, the 'relationship' goes both ways.

    That may be how it's supposed to work in principle, but it's not how it's working in practice. See here for just one example: http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/10140/

    [snip]

    I believe the plan was to have 2 parts to the same test to allow for one appointment, and one visit to the doctor rather than having 2 separate ones for the benefits. A thoroughly sensible idea of you ask me.

    But it's not just a question of the appointment (which isn't necessarily with a doctor btw), it's also the other processes surrounding administration of the claim before and after the assessment that are different, because they serve different purposes. It will also make it more difficult for claimants who need to dispute the outcome of an assessment, as it'll potentially mean entitlement to two benefits is in the balance, not just one.
    Let's see how Universal Credit is going in practice: http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/three-in-four-universal-credit-tenants-in-arrears/7015512.article

    http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/universal-credit-arrears-soar-in-scottish-council/7018125.article
    I said I wasn't going to comment any more on this. But I promise this week be my last comment on the topic.

    The rest aspect is just a small part of UC. It is one of the bits that I have criticised heavily in my thesis. I like the idea of paying benefits monthly in the same way that you would be paid for a job. In theory it encouraged personal responsibility of finances and prepares people for the working world. And for those most likely to get a job this will be the case. However for many other the reality is that they simply don't have the ability to manage their own finances. Or even if they do they will need support and aren't being given this. People now have the ability to blow their entire monthly income in a couple of days buying 'stuff' and so don't pay their rent.

    It's an area that I would revise and will continue to be a problem of not resolved.

    I will say there are measures in place to help this. If someone gets refused a house on this basis a special arrangements can be made to pay rent straight to the landlord.

    If they are to persist with it there need to be better support and training for it.

    However as I said it is just one part of UC and overall I think it is a good policy and has been a success so far.
  • edited January 10

    What generally happens in poorer parts of the country is that those hardworking or ambitious enough to get a few 'ologies leave and unsurprisingly move to places where there are jobs and opportunities for betterment.

    However I know from my own family's experience (and continue to believe) that it only takes one generation to break the vicious cycle of poverty/low expectations and then once broken it typically isn't reversed.

    So...given infinite time, everyone will be rich!!!
    Funny how virtually 100% of say Jewish or Indian immigrants (who generally arrived here with nothing) are middle class or rich within a generation or two (regardless of which part of the country they landed in) yet millions of working class indigenous people somehow are stuck in their current lifestyles.
  • What generally happens in poorer parts of the country is that those hardworking or ambitious enough to get a few 'ologies leave and unsurprisingly move to places where there are jobs and opportunities for betterment.

    However I know from my own family's experience (and continue to believe) that it only takes one generation to break the vicious cycle of poverty/low expectations and then once broken it typically isn't reversed.

    So...given infinite time, everyone will be rich!!!
    Funny how virtually 100% of say Jewish or Indian immigrants (who generally arrived here with nothing) are middle class or rich within a generation or two (regardless of which part of the country they landed in)
    Ridiculous statement.

  • Addickted said:

    What generally happens in poorer parts of the country is that those hardworking or ambitious enough to get a few 'ologies leave and unsurprisingly move to places where there are jobs and opportunities for betterment.

    However I know from my own family's experience (and continue to believe) that it only takes one generation to break the vicious cycle of poverty/low expectations and then once broken it typically isn't reversed.

    So...given infinite time, everyone will be rich!!!
    Funny how virtually 100% of say Jewish or Indian immigrants (who generally arrived here with nothing) are middle class or rich within a generation or two (regardless of which part of the country they landed in)
    Ridiculous statement.

    Unfortunately it's an inconvenient truth - emphasis on education, family values and hard work goes a long way.
  • edited January 10
    There is intense poverty amongst the Hasidic Jewish community in both London and Manchester.

    Perhaps you were looking the wrong way in New York with one in five NY Jews living in poverty.

    http://www.metcouncil.org/site/PageServer

  • Addickted said:

    There is intense poverty amongst the Hasidic Jewish community in both London and Manchester.

    Bit of a false equivalence given they are too focused on prayer to work - can we say non-Hasidic jews then (the vast majority)?
  • edited January 10

    Addickted said:

    There is intense poverty amongst the Hasidic Jewish community in both London and Manchester.

    Bit of a false equivalence given they are too focused on prayer to work - can we say non-Hasidic jews then (the vast majority)?
    So not 100% then. As I said, ridiculous statement.

  • Too, few doctors, too few nurses, not enough beds, not enough car parking. Housing shortage, close the pubs - build flats, close down the race courses - build housing estates. Congested roads - build more, widen, rip up the country side.
    Poor quality of life, over eating, obesity, drugs, alcoholism, depression. When is someone going to wake up to the real problem in this country, too many f'ing people.
  • Too, few doctors, too few nurses, not enough beds, not enough car parking. Housing shortage, close the pubs - build flats, close down the race courses - build housing estates. Congested roads - build more, widen, rip up the country side.
    Poor quality of life, over eating, obesity, drugs, alcoholism, depression. When is someone going to wake up to the real problem in this country, too many f'ing people.

    When you fly over the country it always looks serene and sparsely populated!
  • 30% of the Indian community in the U.K. Live in poverty.

    http://www.poverty.org.uk/06/index.shtml
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited January 10
    Addickted said:

    There is intense poverty amongst the Hasidic Jewish community in both London and Manchester.

    Perhaps you were looking the wrong way in New York with one in five NY Jews living in poverty.

    http://www.metcouncil.org/site/PageServer

    Exactly the national average.

    It is embarrassing that the numbers 1 and 5 economies in the world have any group of people who live in poverty at a 1/5 rate, regardless of their skin colour, ethnicity, or religion. have Jews who live in poverty when we're all doctors, lawyers, bankers, and Hollywood moguls. We must raise our people up, as we're going to need all of us to continue our Illuminati control over all world banks and media because that shit takes a lot of time and work and frankly, I'm not very good at maths.
  • Addickted said:

    30% of the Indian community in the U.K. Live in poverty.

    http://www.poverty.org.uk/06/index.shtml

    I said within a generation or two - let's check in with them in 25 years time.
  • Anyhow this thread was about the NHS and thank goodness so many Indians and Jews trained to be doctors else it would be in even more trouble!
  • What? You mean like the ones expelled by Amin back in 1972?
  • Suspect most of those are retired or dead by now.
  • Suspect most of those are retired or dead by now.

    So no kids for second and third generation?

    I admit both communities do pretty well living and working (hard) in the UK and generally intergrate well.

    However to say 100% do is a ridiculous statement.
  • Addickted said:

    Suspect most of those are retired or dead by now.

    So no kids for second and third generation?

    I admit both communities do pretty well living and working (hard) in the UK and generally intergrate well.

    However to say 100% do is a ridiculous statement.
    I can only apologise....thank you in advance for your mercy :-)
  • Thirty years ago a friend was a nurse manager and was involved in setting up a community mental health multi dislinary team which included nurses and social services staff to help people in the community. The Thatcher government introduced health cuts and the team was disbanded.

    The current government is now trying to introduce similar community teams, pity that they disbanded them 30ish years ago.
  • Leuth said:

    Leuth said:

    Also, those greedy f**kers paying no tax, living on as much as 10k pa! They should be f**king grateful to the wealthy for subsidising the country for them!

    Well if the entire country comprised people with the average skills, education, work ethic and enterprise as those earning £10k then I can't help thinking we'd resemble a Third World country rather than the rich one we are. So yes, I think they ought to be a little bit grateful that they don't have Third World quality of life....
    Seen much of the UK outside of central London lately?
    Have you ever been to an actual 3rd world country?

  • Sponsored links:


  • Corbyn led on this stuff in PMQ's.
    By his standards it was all guns blazing, Theresa May came back with we need a strong economy to pay for things, Labour love spending and Corbyn is useless. May struggled on the particulars, and Corbyn was rousing enough to play to a wider audience. I thought it was a narrow Corbyn win today.
  • edited January 11
    I've got a lot of reading to do here, and generally need to better educate myself surrounding UC and UK tax rates thanks to @cantersaddick dumping his bloody dissertation on us (love ya fella, you are very bright and very, very well spoken).

    I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the dialogue that has gone on in this thread (some early forays by yours truly excluded). I appreciate that this conversation has remained mature and detailed (so. bloody. detailed. ;) ). That you all seem to be coming from a place of genuinely wanting to improve care and improve the NHS, and that there is a strong desire to talk about policy, reform, taxation and everything above. In our increasingly partizan world (or at least my partizan country) where the level of dialogue can be so low, I can't begin to to tell you how refreshing it is.

    NYAddick, I appreciate your articulation of the private sector being preferable to the public one, even if I don't agree with it. You are absolutely right that there is no such thing as "free" health care, it's more about the point of payment. And I also appreciate that you understand that, to work, the private sector must be regulated, because that's something that a lot of people, in the States anyway, just don't believe in.

    SHG I appreciate your insight from having been inside for 30 years. Likewise various others. Prague, we agree on many things, but beyond that you are always thoughtful and incredible articulate.

    So yeah, just, thank you for being smart and decent people.
  • SDAddick said:

    I've got a lot of reading to do here, and generally need to better educate myself surrounding UC and UK tax rates thanks to @cantersaddick dumping his bloody dissertation on us (love ya fella, you are very bright and very, very well spoken).

    I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the dialogue that has gone on in this thread (some early forays by yours truly excluded). I appreciate that this conversation has remained mature and detailed (so. bloody. detailed. ;) ). That you all seem to be coming from a place of genuinely wanting to improve care and improve the NHS, and that there is a strong desire to talk about policy, reform, taxation and everything above. In our increasingly partizan world (or at least my partizan country) where the level of dialogue can be so low, I can't begin to to tell you how refreshing it is.

    NYAddick, I appreciate your articulation of the private sector being preferable to the public one, even if I don't agree with it. You are absolutely right that there is no such thing as "free" health care, it's more about the point of payment. And I also appreciate that you understand that, to work, the private sector must be regulated, because that's something that a lot of people, in the States anyway, just don't believe in.

    SHG I appreciate your insight from having been inside for 30 years. Likewise various others. Prague, we agree on many things, but beyond that you are always thoughtful and incredible articulate.

    So yeah, just, thank you for being smart and decent people.


    Get a room SD.

    American parlance I believe.
  • SDAddick said:

    I've got a lot of reading to do here, and generally need to better educate myself surrounding UC and UK tax rates thanks to @cantersaddick dumping his bloody dissertation on us (love ya fella, you are very bright and very, very well spoken).

    I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the dialogue that has gone on in this thread (some early forays by yours truly excluded). I appreciate that this conversation has remained mature and detailed (so. bloody. detailed. ;) ). That you all seem to be coming from a place of genuinely wanting to improve care and improve the NHS, and that there is a strong desire to talk about policy, reform, taxation and everything above. In our increasingly partizan world (or at least my partizan country) where the level of dialogue can be so low, I can't begin to to tell you how refreshing it is.

    NYAddick, I appreciate your articulation of the private sector being preferable to the public one, even if I don't agree with it. You are absolutely right that there is no such thing as "free" health care, it's more about the point of payment. And I also appreciate that you understand that, to work, the private sector must be regulated, because that's something that a lot of people, in the States anyway, just don't believe in.

    SHG I appreciate your insight from having been inside for 30 years. Likewise various others. Prague, we agree on many things, but beyond that you are always thoughtful and incredible articulate.

    So yeah, just, thank you for being smart and decent people.

    Kind words SDADDICK! :)

    I'm an economist and policy is my thing... people think it's weird but I love it. There is a problem, what are the possible solutions and how do we evaluate those solutions? Which criteria are we trying to meet.
  • aliwibble said:

    I have no idea about the reset your password process but I'm sure that in the scheme of the whole policy it's a pretty insignificant factor.

    Well, as I understand it, the idea of the digital system is that everything apart from meetings with your jobcoach is supposed to go through the system rather than them sending letters out, so if you can't log in to the damn thing in the first place, you're screwed.

    Yes the conditionality regime is a potential catastrophe but there are a retract rules about when a section can be applied and when it can't. And it has to be agreed by 2 people so it can't just be applied case of them 'not liking what you are doing'. A sanction for missing applied reread meeting only occurs on the second time it happens and only if there is no warning of such. I.e. a phone call to say you can't make it can we rearrange would suffice. Simple communication, the 'relationship' goes both ways.

    That may be how it's supposed to work in principle, but it's not how it's working in practice. See here for just one example: http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/10140/

    [snip]

    I believe the plan was to have 2 parts to the same test to allow for one appointment, and one visit to the doctor rather than having 2 separate ones for the benefits. A thoroughly sensible idea of you ask me.

    But it's not just a question of the appointment (which isn't necessarily with a doctor btw), it's also the other processes surrounding administration of the claim before and after the assessment that are different, because they serve different purposes. It will also make it more difficult for claimants who need to dispute the outcome of an assessment, as it'll potentially mean entitlement to two benefits is in the balance, not just one.
    Let's see how Universal Credit is going in practice: http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/three-in-four-universal-credit-tenants-in-arrears/7015512.article

    http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/universal-credit-arrears-soar-in-scottish-council/7018125.article
    I said I wasn't going to comment any more on this. But I promise this week be my last comment on the topic.

    The rest aspect is just a small part of UC. It is one of the bits that I have criticised heavily in my thesis. I like the idea of paying benefits monthly in the same way that you would be paid for a job. In theory it encouraged personal responsibility of finances and prepares people for the working world. And for those most likely to get a job this will be the case. However for many other the reality is that they simply don't have the ability to manage their own finances. Or even if they do they will need support and aren't being given this. People now have the ability to blow their entire monthly income in a couple of days buying 'stuff' and so don't pay their rent.

    It's an area that I would revise and will continue to be a problem of not resolved.

    I will say there are measures in place to help this. If someone gets refused a house on this basis a special arrangements can be made to pay rent straight to the landlord.

    If they are to persist with it there need to be better support and training for it.

    However as I said it is just one part of UC and overall I think it is a good policy and has been a success so far.
    TBH I think this whole "make tenants responsible for their rent out of UC" thing has two main purposes that are different to the purported one of encouraging people to be responsible. These are to force consolidation in the housing association sector/finish off what council housing there is (a long term aim of the Tories) and save the state money long term by abolishing housing benefit and getting people used to the idea that they'll have to pay rent out of their state pension when they retire.

    I don't disagree with anything that simplifies the arcane and cruel benefits system, but the driving force for this reform has always been about saving money, at least in the long term.
  • edited January 11
    @PragueAddick.

    It was David Hartnett at HMRC who did the handshake deals with his old mate Connors at Vodaphone as well as signing off lump sum payments for Goldman Sachs without consulting lawyers and costing about £10m in lost interest payments.

    My old mate Hislop has some fascinating stories about his off the record deals at HMRC.
  • @SDAddick, you're a mench
  • Addickted said:

    @PragueAddick.

    It was David Hartnett at HMRC who did the handshake deals with his old mate Connors at Vodaphone as well as signing off lump sum payments for Goldman Sachs without consulting lawyers and costing about £10m in lost interest payments.

    My old mate Hislop has some fascinating stories about his off the record deals at HMRC.

    My bad. Hartnett. Ta.

  • Think Frankie got this one nailed.
    image.png
    361 x 640 - 215K
Sign In or Register to comment.