jeffs post
In this clip from Sputnik, George Galloway, his female co-host and his guest Dr. Bob Gill, discuss the Tories' planned, programmatic privatisation of the NHS. Galloway states that he's due to see a skin specialist, but that this has been put back another couple of months, so that it will be about five months before he sees a skin specialist.
The Doctor informs him that this is certainly not be accident. Historically, spending on the NHS has been at 4 per cent. However, since 2010 it's been a 1 per cent, and the cracks are beginning to show. But it is a mistake to think that this is incompetence. The Tories wish to make the British public turn against the NHS. Hence they are determined to run it down and to do all they can to force confrontations and demoralise the staff. Dr. Gill warns that the privatisation won't be a 'big bang'. Instead, the middle class will drift away to seek private medical help. They point to how the private health insurers Vitality are already taking out adverts at football grounds and in the Metro. The female co-host mentions Virgin Care. They expand on this, to say that Virgin Care has done a deal with Vitality. And then, when the British public's faith in the NHS is broken, they'll present them with the false solution of going over to a private insurance system.
They point to the fact that people are already paying for a 'once-off' just to beat the queues, and George Galloway himself states that he has been tempted with the months he's been waiting for a skin specialist. He is very firm, however, that he hasn't and he wouldn't, but nevertheless, the temptation is there. Dr. Gill states that if someone like Galloway, who believes so very passionately in the NHS can be tempted to go for private health care because of these manufactured delays, so it's going to be much more tempting for an ordinary person without Galloway's commitment.
I think Dr. Gill, Galloway and the young lady co-presenter all are all exactly right. This isn't about incompetence. If it was, Hunt would have been banished long ago. This is a determined campaign to run down the NHS and replace it with a system of private insurance, exactly like the system that is destroying America's healthcare. All for the profit of the big healthcare companies like Vitality, Circle Health and virgin Care, who have been funding the Tories and Blairite Labour.
Posted by jeffrey davies] on 03 January 2018
jeffs post
Remember this, next time you see crocodile tears in Parliament from the likes of Tory backbencher Heidi Allen, who weeps at the first opportunity but also supported every single Conservative government policy on benefits.
Aditya Chakrabortty knows his subject well, and readers of This Blog are encouraged to read the full article, in which he explains how ‘Moira’ has a history of self-harm and, after a humiliating tribunal hearing that was adjourned to await medical evidence on a subject that has nothing to do with her claim, said she would cut herself “good” afterwards.
That is exactly what the Conservatives have wanted, ever since Iain Duncan Smith started his homicidal “reforms” back in 2010.
They want benefit claimants to hurt themselves; in particular, they want people with long-term illnesses and disabilities to die. ‘Moira’ is marked for death.
If I put it that way, is it easier for the reluctant to understand?
That our benefits system is broken is no longer up for debate. Ministers are told universal credit is a fiasco and MPs weep over starving families in one of the richest societies in human history. Even rightwing tabloids run grim updates on how men with terminal cancer are declared fit to work just weeks before they die.
Such cases are described as shameful. As failures. They are lined up like so many one-offs – not representative of fair-play Britain. But Pike and her colleagues know different. They see a system that routinely snatches money out of the hands of people who need and are entitled to it and bullies claimants with contempt.
That’s Moira’s experience, too. Her trouble started when she found herself feeling steadily worse – and so did as she was told and rang the Department for Work and Pensions. Her recent back operation hadn’t worked, the arthritis in her spine, hips and knees was getting worse and the heavy-duty painkillers were wrecking her kidneys. She was summoned for a reassessment in Southend, a 70-mile round trip from her home in London – tricky for a woman who cannot walk more than 10 steps without crutches. Claimants such as Moira are entitled to a home assessment, but Pike told me they are often dispatched “miles away”. She was still told off for being late, says Moira. After the examination, she lost her personal independence payment.
I have seen a copy of the report by the nurse employed by a private firm, which notes that Moira “has a bath mostly every day”. Wrong, she tells Pike. Her depression means that she needs to be “motivated” to bathe – or else “I’ll run a bath and it’ll sit there for four days.” More tears, this time of shame.
The nurse says she has three meals a day. “Lying ass,” shouts Moira, who says she doesn’t eat more than once a day. The report claims: “She is able to get on and off the toilet without difficulty.” Moira’s own form says, “I have great difficulty getting up off the toilet as the joint in my right hip gets stuck.”
The nurse concludes: “Since her last assessment two years ago, this lady’s restrictions have considerably improved.” Yet Moira’s own GP has written to the tribunal, “I would feel that her general overall condition has got worse.” None of these contradictions surprises Pike. Moira, she says, is simply the latest victim of “a lack of care and a culture of money-saving”.
Moira never went looking for welfare advice; she was just starving.
Posted by jeffrey davies on 02 January 2018
jeffs post
The DWP said anyone who thinks they are entitled to out-of-work benefit should contact Jobcentre Plus. What they didn’t add was that these people would then be subjected to a period of ritual humiliation followed by the rejection of their claim on a trumped-up excuse [Image: Danny Lawson/PA].
The Resolution Foundation is right to highlight this – but wrong to expect anything to be done about it.
Governments habitually do nothing to inform people of their rights with regard to benefits. They expect the public to be aware of these details, even when none are supplied.
The reason is obvious: Another benefit claimant is another drain on the public purse. The current Conservative government would rather these people just die off.
In addition, anybody claiming a benefit is then subject to the Tory government’s humiliating benefit assessments process, which seeks to use the most humiliating methods possible to identify any and all possible reasons for refusing the claim, no matter how petty.
It seems bizarre to suggest that the rollout of Universal Credit is a good opportunity for the DWP to encourage these people to claim; UC is more punitive than the benefits it replaces and has been shown to cause more harm than good.
The simple fact is that the benefit system will never actually benefit its users while we have a Conservative government.
About 300,000 British people without jobs or on very low wages are not claiming benefits they are entitled to, according to a think tank study urging the government to focus more attention on the issue.
The report from the Resolution Foundation says the “forgotten unemployed” are disproportionately likely to be older women or young men, who are missing out on at least £73 a week and potentially far more.
While many appear not to claim benefits because they have other means of support – for example living with a partner in work or with parents – the report warns that some people, particularly women, are put off by a benefits system viewed as complex and overly punitive.
The report, titled Falling Through the Cracks, urges the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to do more to examine the reasons why so many eligible people do not claim, arguing that the rollout of universal credit would be a good moment for this.
The study says that while the bulk of the group not claiming benefits they are entitled to have no work at all, a significant minority do work, but for sufficiently few hours that they could still claim jobseeker’s allowance or, where it is in use, universal credit, which replaces a series of existing benefits.
The Resolution Foundation says the issue exists in part because of a lack of attention paid by all governments from the late 1990s onwards to a growing gap between the number of workless people and those claiming benefits.
Posted by jeffrey davies on 02 January 2018
jeffs post
What a divided land our once-United Kingdom has become.
We already know that Universal Credit is hugely harmful to those who are unlucky enough to have their lives blighted by it – including people who are looking for work and those who are working part-time or on low pay.
Here’s one account of the harm it does:
“There was a preoccupation with people who were not working, and a belief that many had made a lifestyle choice to live on benefits. Because of this, making life on benefits far more difficult for people and thus driving or ‘incentivising’ them into employment became an overriding aim of welfare reform and UC. The fact that UC is also a benefit for people who are in work, or who cannot work because of ill health, disability, or caring responsibilities appears to be an irrelevance, with ‘making work pay’ and getting people into work still being cited as the justification for UC.
“The suspicion and disrespect for people reliant on benefits even extended to seriously ill and disabled people, who have been treated with such harshness that the United Nations says the government has committed ‘grave and systematic violations’ of their human rights, leading to a ‘human catastrophe’. Almost unbelievably, UC continues this process, with the abolition of both the Severe Disability Premium and the Enhanced Disability Premium, and the slashing of the allowance for a disabled child. So whilst families with a disabled member are more likely than others to be living in poverty, many will be even worse off under UC.
“One of the most remarkable features of UC is the introduction of in-work conditionality. This means low paid workers who may previously have claimed Housing Benefit but now rely on UC to make ends meet can be subject to sanctions which previously only applied to those who were not working. This is a radical (some may say extreme) move which may be unique in the world. The latest evidence suggests that people on UC are much more likely to be sanctioned than those on ‘legacy’ benefits, and the sanctions are more severe.
“Whilst UC is sold to the general public as a simplification of the benefits system, it is sold to employers as giving them ‘access to a more flexible and responsive workforce’. Part-time jobs and zero-hours contracts have proliferated in recent years, because they suited employers, but UC seems designed to keep workers in this casual, insecure employment under constant pressure. They will be required to attend a Jobcentre and demonstrate that they are attempting to work more hours or increase their pay, on pain of sanction. So UC is paid monthly in arrears because it wants claimants to behave as if they have a steady and secure income, pressures them to try to increase their earnings, but enables and encourages employers to turn those same workers on and off like a tap.”
So you see that the Conservative government’s version of Universal Credit intentionally – and this is a very important point; the plan is quite deliberately to do this – pushes people into poverty.
Firstly, the amount of money available on the benefit has been cut – drastically – in comparison with the benefits that were available before, and it is paid in arrears. The stated intention is to encourage people to manage their own finances responsibly. But it is impossible to make ends meet without any money coming into the household so we may safely conclude that the actual intention is to force people into poverty, because lack of money limits their life choices.
This nudges (those of you who are familiar with ‘nudge’ theory will understand why I use that word) claimants towards any work that is available to them, no matter how low-paid, or how poor the conditions of the job – fulfilling the Tories’ promise to exploitative employers of providing a “flexible and responsive workforce”.
People who have gained employment in this way are then put under even more pressure by the government, to demand more work and higher pay, at pain of losing their benefit, which is still paid if the hours they work don’t add up to the required number. Failure to demonstrate that one is doing this will lead to a sanction, meaning the benefit will be cut for a period of time, plunging the claimant back into poverty (or more likely further into poverty) because they won’t be able to make ends meet.
Meanwhile, employers are being encouraged by the same government to use the same workers as throwaway commodities – so anyone kicking up a fuss about wanting higher pay or more work is a target for removal. And getting the sack for demanding more is a certain route to a sanction, This Writer is sure.
Add it all up, and we may safely ignore the government’s stated intentions and rely on the evidence to reveal the actual intention: Push people into poverty. The fact that UC is paid in arrears, with the first payment usually made more than a month after the claim is made, means that claimants are in danger of eviction by private landlords, and a cause of financial hardship to housing associations and councils, making it likely that they will face a constant battle to avoid being thrown onto the streets, even if they do get work – and full-time employment is no guarantee of safety if it is on low pay.
Now we see a second level to the unfairness of Universal Credit: It is also a postcode lottery.
The extract below shows that local government is stepping in to help UC claimants who are falling into difficulty – but councils are being starved of funds by a Tory regime in Westminster that couldn’t care less. Putting money to this means taking it from other funding streams, and this means spreading the suffering, rather than providing emergency relief.
Meanwhile, other councils – predominantly Tory-run councils – either don’t have a large number of people claiming UC or can’t be bothered to help, meaning they won’t spend the money.
Result: Caring councils run out of cash while Tory councils stay solvent. And the government can then say the caring councils are being run badly.
See how this works?
Cash-strapped councils are being forced to set aside extra resources to cushion the blow of switching to universal credit for vulnerable households, according to analysis by Labour.
Responses to a series of freedom of information requests submitted by the party have revealed many local authorities are allocating significant funds to support tenants with rent arrears and provide advice to help them navigate the new system.
Margaret Greenwood, the shadow minister for employment, said: “Universal credit is causing misery and hardship for thousands of families this Christmas and councils are being expected to pick up the pieces. This is yet more evidence that the government should immediately pause the roll out of universal credit so its fundamental flaws can be fixed.”
Newcastle city council reported that it was spending £390,000 supporting UC claimants, almost a quarter of which was for additional rent arrears support.
Liverpool city council said it had spent £175,000 from its local welfare provision scheme on UC claimants, while Shropshire council said it had set aside £20,000 to help food banks to “diversify the type of help they are able to give specifically to suit universal credit.”
In London, Tower Hamlets council said it had set aside £5m over three years to help those affected by the shift to UC, while Barking and Dagenham is budgeting £50,000 from January 2018.
In total, 26 councils said they had set aside extra resources or anticipated increased demand for welfare support as the UC rollout reaches their area.
Posted by jeffrey davies on 31 December 2017
