They are lying.

Local council care services that provide help in care are shambolic.

Ony the poorest of the poor get help.

In 2014, Councils spent £14bn on lining the pockets of private agencies that provide very expensive and often rushed minutes of care to frail, old people who are languishing in a modern day version of the Bastille, otherwise called their home.

1.5 million elderly people with care needs rely on family and friends for help.

10% of ‘home prisoners’ will pay over £100,000 over their lifetime for ‘care’.

It’s an industry, a target for ‘entrepreneurs’, that stinks as much as a glue factory being fed on the carcasses of the vulnerable.

But there is no money.

They are lying.

Adair Turner, chairman of the UK Financial Services Authority, has recently made the case for money being given directly to people. “There’s a good argument for doing it as (it) will then tend to produce an increase in employment and activity, as people spend more money on cars or washing machines or clothes or restaurant meals or whatever they choose to spend money on. The danger is the political danger. You break a taboo. People say ‘Oh, well, if that’s possible, I’d like to do it all of the time, and in inappropriately large amounts, and just coming up to an election I want to win. So that’s why it is a dangerous proposal, and needs to be tightly constrained”. He could have added that the vast percentage of money is not the physical type, there is only enough paper money to allow buying and selling to be carried out – if everyone went to their bank and demanded a total cash withdrawal of their assets, only 5% of demand could be met. Money is mostly an electronic illusion, an economic promisory note. What is created electronically can be increased to any level at the flick of a switch, but, as Mr. Turner, points out, the dangers are political, and these dangers involve not giving incentive to people to perform the drudge-like jobs that society relies on. Who is going to clean toilets or stack shelves, or make the large profits for American burger joints if they could live for free? No one. Making ‘pretend money’ real makes the consequences of not having it real. Society is a gigantic game of monopoly, you have got to play it for real, or else. The winners in this game, the rich, get to keep their distance from its losers, the poor, who never get out of jail, other than ‘aspiring’ to borrow ‘pretend money’. it’s a game of illusion that aims to control.

OK, you say, that sounds reasonable. I am going to be one of the winners. I am going to live in Mayfair. (Fat chance).

But, if you do not, and end up frail and elderly, or have a sick child to care for, what then?

Is there any decency in extending this game to the weak? Is there an morality in rationing ‘pretend money’ to the most needy?

This is what is coming to the UK, as a storm called F.U. crossing the Atlantic

The devastation it will bring is decribed by Carol Marbin Miller (Miami Herald, December 6, 2015), “Six-year-old Aref Shabaneh is almost entirely blind, able to read only in Braille, walks with a cane, and is so sensitive to light his parents turn them off when he’s home. For two years, he was enrolled in a taxpayer-funded health care program that provided specialists to help protect what little is left of his eyesight.

In June, Florida health administrators declared in a memo that the little boy was “NOT clinically eligible.”

His severely detached retina had not been miraculously cured by doctors. Instead, state records show, Aref had been tossed from the program by state health employees looking to cut costs. They made the move after his mother failed to see the trap door hidden in a questionnaire from the Florida Department of Health — a “screening tool” that one judge declared invalid in September, but the Department of Health is fighting to reinstate.

Emails and other records obtained by the Herald show the screening process imposed earlier this year was part of a deliberate attempt to reduce spending on kids like Aref — by making the number of youngsters in a program called Children’s Medical Services shrink to line up with the money the state wanted to spend.

Aref is among about 9,000 Florida children who have been purged from Children’s Medical Services since May as part of a wholesale reorganization of the program in conjunction with a new state law. The law, passed in 2011, changed CMS from a Medicare-like fee-for-service plan, where the child goes to a doctor and the insurer pays the bill, into state-run managed care, in which the state sets aside a pot of money — which is capped — and hires insurers to divvy it up.

The overhaul of CMS is a story about rationing of services for children who are poor and disabled, a long tradition in Florida. It is about the malleable nature of words like “moratorium,” and about numbers on a balance sheet. It is also about individuals represented by those numbers — kids like Aref.

“This is definitely rationing of care,” said former CMS division chief Phyllis Sloyer, a process that has forced administrators to choose which Florida children are “the sickest of the sick.”

Dearhearts, decent Americans hate this system. They think that importing it to the UK, like their education and welfare system, is like importing a diseased cow!

Is there any decency in extending this game to such as Aref? Is there an morality in rationing ‘pretend money’ to such as him?

And, will it be nurses who fill in the “screening tool”?, just as it is nurses who tick the boxes that catapult sick people from hospital beds. No duty to the patient. Blind mortgage-paying obediance, or a whistleblowing ticket on an express train called ‘we’ve got you now, bleeding-heart‘.

Send in the robots,  don’t bother they’re here.

There is neither descency or morality in extending this game to the sick, only profits to be made, by ‘care’ and ‘screening’ companies.

There is only a sickness of mind, experienced by Freudian-driven devils, that makes sick elderly people and young children participants in their game.

A game of rationing an illusion, of making everything a ‘market’, governed by traders in humans; not fellow humans, mark, for our masters are anything but that.


lenin nightingale, 2015



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s