Posts by Neil
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Trump waged a vendetta against what he perceived to be a Manattan elite that excluded him. Various Manhattan neighbourhoods paid the price - being destroyed by his developments.
This is the same dynamic but with the neighbourhood being a lot larger.
That vendetta mentality is why people ranging from Assange and Greenwald through to Putin find common ground.
-
The question is, “why would that be a bad thing?”
I was suggesting it wasn't a bad thing - contra Russell's post suggesting a clear distinction between subsidies and more conventional govt welfare spending.
-
Some of the home made synthetic recipes out there being sold for good money are quite horrifying. None of it illegal but certainly brain rotting.
-
Any form of wealth redistribution by the State can be viewed as a subsidy. The State paying for the building of social housing is subsidising building companies and the employers of those who will either rent or buy those homes. Free GP visits are a subsidy to GPs.
There are issues with WFF but it is away of redistributing to those with children from those that don't. The other way would be for employers to take over that role and pay parents more, or equivalently, non-parents less which might have its own issues.
The discussion about how we move foward has been going on for two generation now - ever since Britain joined the common market. I have vague memories of The Knowledge Wave. What I think we tend to do is overlook how well we have done in terms of diversification and added value over the last few decades.
And planning ahead is continually made more complicated by the ground figuratively and literally moving beneath our feet. Technology changes, markets change, disasters strike.
-
Access: Fighting seclusion with…, in reply to Sacha,
We seem to hear that position mediated only by risk-averse managers, which does not enhance trust.
It would be difficult for anyone in the treating team to speak out because of privacy issues. I can discuss this because I have no involvement and stick to generalities. But I'm conscious that I have to be careful what I say.
Also, these issues often have to be handled via the DHB public communication apperatis - which is understandable and unavoidable perhaps - but does tend to strip away a lot of important detail that would be difficult to communicate anyway.
-
Speaker: Britain: the crisis isn't…, in reply to Matthew Andrews,
...it is highly unlikely in the UK that you would get 500,000 people that have views that are strongly enough held to pay to join an organisation, but at the same time be so completely out of step with public opinion that the party has no future.
Given the current state of the polls that paradox looks likely to come to pass. A decimated PLP with a large party membership. Corbyn being essentially a protestor may think this will solidifying a true labour movement around a true Labour Party but it will have little influence.
There was a genuine wave of enthusiasm initially for Corbyn as an agent of change but I don't think the majority of new members shared Corbyn's core values as represented by the appointment of Seamus Milne - a decision that can't be blamed on Blairites.
-
Access: Fighting seclusion with…, in reply to Angela Hart,
However I realise you are talking about the narrower field of mental health which might just possibly be an exception.
Yes that's the case, possibly could have been clearer.
The two areas intersect with Ashley Peacock. I don't think we're going to agree but I do think it's worth considering what if the treating team are knowledgable and well meaning. There is this schism of opinion with those involved in his care on a daily basis on one side and community-based people advocating for him on the other.
-
Access: Fighting seclusion with…, in reply to Angela Hart,
If it were the case that a key decision maker with oversight of Ashley’s care was able to allocate up to a million in the most appropriate ways to obtain best care for Ashley and best safety practices for staff, that could and, I think, would be done.
I think you're assuming that quite a number of senior health professionals haven't looked long and hard at alternatives. He poses an ongoing high risk to others which because of the complex nature of his mental state makes it very difficult to manage.
Health clinicians do not keep people in restrictive environments without very good cause. Every effort is made to keep people in the community setting where possible. That's the default position.
-
Access: Fighting seclusion with…, in reply to Joe Wylie,
The DHB spends a million dollars a year on Ashley Peacock's care. The issue is risk not resources.
I'm only talking about acute mental health which I'm familiar with.
-
Access: Fighting seclusion with…, in reply to Sacha,
I was just referring only to acute mental health settings where restraint and seclusion minimisation has been policy in NZ for quite a while. In these settings they can only be used as a last resort and for short periods. Very rare complex cases such as Ashley Peacock will be far more challenging.
I'm not sure that within acute mental health NZ's seclusion and restraint statistics are out of line with other countries. Exact comparisons are difficult. There's certain structural differences that can make comparisons problematic.