Cuts, what cuts?
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Here are three examples from my own recent experience. First (as they might put it) a not rich but "comfortable" elderly couple are spoken to by a medical social worker after a hospital visit. They are financially-independent and in reasonable (though not perfect) health for their age. Both are fully-mobile and active. Each has a car and they get around (a lot!) without difficulty. However one is deemed disabled and the other is therefore offered a payment of several hundred pounds a month to look after him. The social worker making this offer looks askance when the lady proudly retorts that she vowed to be with her husband "...in sickness and in health..." and does not need to be paid to take care of him.
Secondly, a millionaire middle-aged couple. The wife is seriously-ill and being treated privately. The hospital (rather against her will) involves a charity providing support to people in her position. A representative shows up bearing forms for her to claim disability allowance. She declines and the charity worker mistakes her reasons. "Don't worry love," she says, "...we can help you fill in the form." When put straight, she snorts "That's not the point. Everyone's entitled!"
Thirdly a man who works for a fake charity. His organisation has a contract from the government to interview a category of unemployed people about their suitability for work and help place them in jobs. The "clients" have been told their benefits will be stopped unless they present for this service. So he spends his working days with people who (at best) sit in front of him with earbuds in, listening to their MP3 players, while he goes through the pointless motions of his contract.
This dying civilisation is bleeding money from its every wound but still employs (directly or through fake charities) armies of social workers to push state dependence. I would like to say that no taxpayers' money was wasted during the incidents reported here. That is almost true in the first two cases, due to the laudable responses of the two women concerned. But of course none of the public servants concerned work for free.
The "clients" have been told their benefits will be stopped unless they present for this service. So he spends his working days with people who (at best) sit in front of him with earbuds in, listening to their MP3 players, while he goes through the pointless motions of his contract.
Got it in one, Tom. I've seen it.
Posted by: jameshigham | Thursday, April 14, 2011 at 02:27 PM
And while they are doing this sort of thing, how many families are in dire need of direct intervention and not getting it?
Posted by: JuliaM | Tuesday, April 12, 2011 at 03:31 PM