Nursing care reform, part 1: 15 years care money a “success story”?

Originally a milestone on the “exploitation” of the patient to the Social crime

Excerpt:

• The initiators of the care allowance, which reached a milestone, were pulled over the table. Promises have been broken, an exemplary System was not developed further, but trimmed back.
• The statutory mandate and the Intent of the legislature to secure the necessary care at home, has acted contrary to 15 years meticulously.
• Billions have been misappropriated, an outrageous Social crime, is drawn for the never someone's responsibility.
• The victims remain on the track. The “exploitation” of the patient must be legally put a stop to this.

NR-Abg Dr. Franz-Joseph Huainigg, ÖVP speaker for people with disabilities, presented in the three weeks leading up to the no-choice on 28.09.2008, at its Homepage ^[1] 21 positions, demands and requests to the disability policy.

Here in Katja's and my discussion in Blog posts FJH21 Forum ^[2]:

Link to all my posts: katja.at/day/fjh21 ^[3]

Post DsH_ad_FJH21_14_1 (2008.09.14-23:06):

Item 8: care of the money in cash! ^[4] ... [Part 1] (original text see below)

Complete agreement with the introduction of the care allowance to be considered 15 years ago as a milestone. Unfortunately, the initiators of the care allowance, which pulled this with a monstrous moral courage of the then political leaders abrangen, on the table.

A milestone should normally be followed by further milestones. Unfortunately, the only stumbling blocks, and (re)blow holes lined up but then the way we've fallen far behind this first milestone and the second milestone seems to be far out of reach!

According to my previous research and experience, I think the 15-year-old “success story” of the care allowance – which is just celebrated ^[5] the greatest Social crime in the last decades. A disinformation campaign and a large-scale network of dependency structures allowed the syndicate to the support of conscientious objectors as long as their mischief. The proof of this, I'll stay (for now) is still guilty. The evidence I have enough discovered.

Undisputed, would be cost-effective workup of the fatal failures of the last decades for the long-term care, the risk is seems always as a Private Concerned, a lot of money. A long-term care Fund by some of the privatizations (as proposed) is not.

All budgetary considerations will always be thought of only in “pots” and not the detour returns through higher employment and increased purchasing power, the “economic aspects ^[6]“ that the company be considered cultural progress and human rights and humanity win through equal access to the assistance and care of needy in society.

Much more important than the question how much does it cost to a more equitable system of assistance, is the need of the resources efficiently and to not waste in inhumane separation systems with their bloated devices. In the Swedish System, the abolition of homes and the right to "Personal assistant", I see as a model for successful increase in efficiency and a human rights compliant System of the future, developed by Concerned and it also calls for the UN disability Convention (article 19), unambiguously for ALL people with disabilities (regardless of age) in the world.

Of course, a must, self-determination, respect, help system have the character of a “money power”. The dividing line between money and non - performance is, however, obsolete when the Affected individual responsibility and autonomy will not be denied. We want to need people with the aid of, and their legitimate needs at the centre of all efforts to make or be Dependent on support, for their own purposes abuse? “In-kind” in a paternalistic welfare system is always the temptation for them to exploit for profit and market share in the booming care market. Protection and strengthening of one's own Status as a benefactor for social recognition and political profiling, labour market cosmetics or for state budget consolidation at the expense of the weakest and most dependent minority. Ultimately, it's all about Power, according to the Motto “who pays,”!

Although the “Personal assistant” (without the verinstitut functionalization and monopolization) is the most efficient Form of aid, with the best economic and humanitarian implications, of the costs of this model, due to its absolute decentralization and the avoidance of any unnecessary overhead, little attractiveness for all those freeloaders, the “mitnaschen”.

The “recovery” of the patient must be legally put a stop to this. A suspension of construction for new homes is a necessary step that is not understood in Austria, unfortunately. The first step must be the legal anchoring of a need for a ceiling and, in particular, individual need-based aid system, which is carried out from whole-of-society responsibility in solidarity.

Contrary to the original idea of a (in the case of informal service provision) and needs money, be promoted in the result after the clearcutting on the money, again stationary home structures and community life approved forms almost only in foreign defining the Form.

The with the care of money desired paradigm shift in disability policy away from the “welfare mentality”, to have an equal part that was worked in the last 15 years by the legislature, to the Supreme court decisions. The a – so far even by the constitutional Court of ignoring the paper tiger, such as the prohibition of Discrimination in the Federal Constitution (article 7), and a toothless equality act nothing contrary to hold.

Further to the contributions DsH_ad_FJH21_14_2 ^[7], DsH_ad_FJH21_14_3 ^[8] and DsH_ad_FJH21_14_4 ^[9]

Gerhard Lichtenauer, Austrian citizens ' initiative “the Home home” (www.daheim-statt-heim.katja.at ^[10]), and Katja's Blog (www.katja.at ^[11])

Original text to FJH21_14 -source: http://www.franzhuainigg.at/cgi-bin/fjh21.cgi?_14 ^[4] (14.09.2008)

CARE OF MONEY IN CASH!

What is the care brings money to the Affected? Self-determination and choice! The Austrian care allowance system is a milestone of Austrian social policy. Affected get the money in Hand and can decide who will look after them, when, where, how. Therefore, the care should remain money as money performance received no benefits in kind can be converted, as it is requested from the SPÖ. This would result in strong relationships of dependence.
On 1. In July of 1993, 15 years ago, so have to be taken into the care of money-the law in force. Currently, there are around 400,000 care allowance Recipients. In view of the demographic development, we urgently need a further development of the system, in order to secure this for the future. Sense this is a care, in my view, the Fund, as Vice-Chancellor Molterer is proposing. But you will read more tomorrow! Before the elections, on 28. September should be decided on an increase of care allowance: cash benefits are increased on a sliding scale. The care of money of levels one and two will be increased by four percent, that of the steps three to five to five percent, and that levels six and seven to six percent. In addition, people with dementia persons is taken into account in the classification of a hardship allowance. Severely disabled children and young people up to the age of seven will be awarded an additional lump sum value of 50 hours, up to 15. Age 75 Hours. Also, an increase in the funding for the 24-hour care at home, as well as the General elimination of the asset limits in this area were agreed. In order important demands of the ÖVP can be implemented!

AND WHAT DO YOU MEAN?

Again and again, the care allowance, the allegation of abuse. This is entitled?

What further developments, it needs the care of money system? It is in view of the demographic development in its current Form continues to be financially viable?

Can and in-kind services to Supplement the care allowance system?

Translated by Yandex.Translate and Global Translator