Category: Politik

Liberal Alliance: Vi vil have en revolution

Apropos.

Jfr. også Ekstra Bladet:

LA går benhårdt efter den vælgergruppe, som partiet er konstrueret til: Yngre mænd, som vil have en liberal revolution. Det er også dem, de møder med deres strategi for agitation: annoncerne, radioindslagene og webben.

– Disse mennesker gider ikke se på en rødlig variant af det blå eller en blålig variant af det røde, siger Hans Engell.

– Der er vælgere, som ønsker revolution med rødt, socialistisk mål. De stemmer på Enhedslisten. Og der er vælgere, som ønsker en revolution med blå, liberalistisk [sic!] mål. De har nu Liberal Alliance som mulighed.

Tak til Ole Sandberg for screenshots og spotning.

Hvorfor skal bankerne have milliarder gratis?

Så sker det igen. Spanien får nu 100 mia euro af danske, svenske, polske og tyske skatteydere. Pengene skal gå til deres banker der er gået helt ned pga. finanskrisen. De har alle satset store penge på at boligpriserne skulle stige og stige, og har nu tabt dem alle. Bankejerne og bankdirektørerne vil fortsat tjene milliarder, og fortsat kunne spekulere som de har lyst – mens resten af samfundet skal spinke og spare.
Den fornuftige løsning ville være at der med de 100 mia euro var et krav om et statsligt ejerskab på 49% af alle bankerne der har brug for assistance. En ejerdel man senere kan sælge og bruge pengene på velfærd og jobskabelse.
I øvrigt – kunne vi have gjort det samme i Danmark under finanskrisen da vi skulle understøtte bankerne – og have rigeligt med penge til velfærd og jobs i dag.

Det ser ud til vi insistere på at smadre velfærdsstaten for at have råd til bankdirektørernes løn og bankernes profit.

link til 100 mia ud i lokummet

Næstved Kommune og Amy-sagen

Adventures and Japes siger det, der skal siges:

The borough council decided to put her in a group home. [Børne- og kulturdirektør i Næstved Kommune]  Per B Christensen said the following:-

“Her problems are too much for a foster family to handle.

She needs to be placed with professionals who can distance themselves emotionally.”

Bear in mind, psychologists are saying that’s exactly what she doesn’t need in their professional opinion. (Because it is emotional neglect and it will scar her beyond repair.)

That Per B Christensen can say of an 11 year old child who has been traumatised by rejection and physical abuse that what she really needs is to be brought up by strangers who will never love her shows how inhuman Per B Christensen is. How dare Per B Christensen? How DARE he dress up saving money as meeting a vulnerable child’s needs? What sort of man is Per B Christensen? I don’t know if Per B Christensen has children or nieces/nephews but I sincerely doubt that if any of them were traumatised before their teens that he would recommend that they be institutionalised because their needs were too great.

The borough council have also banned Amy from seeing her sister and the foster parents she was thriving with. This is sheer vindictiveness.

Du kan følge Politikens dækning af sagen her.

Ulighed og de Radikale

Det kan ikke komeme som den helt store overraskelse at den nye regerings skatteudspil vil øge uligheden markant. Det samme var et kendetegn under SR-regeringen, hvor man skar i de sociale ydelser og lettede i topskatten. Det hele gentog sig under VK-regimet – og igen nu under SSFR. Man kan vist blot konkludere at uanset hvad vælgerne vil have, så har den politiske elite besluttet at den danske velfærdsstat skal afskaffes. Jo før jo bedre.

Man kan dog godt blive deprimeret når man fagforeningerne hopper med på galajen og støtter en skattereform der er mere ulige end de to som den tidligere regering lavede – tilsammen!
Apati er mit umiddelbare svar på venstrefløjens svigt – kan det virkelig være rigtigt at det reelle sociale alternativ i dansk politik er at stemme på Venstre og håbe de tager lidt længere tid om at afmontere velfærdsstaten?

link til Skamløshedens regering

Note til S og SF

Jo mere borgerlig politik I fører, jo flere stemmer taber I på gulvet. Hvis folk vil have borgerlig politik stemmer de på de borgerlige, og hvis de gerne vil have den politik, I gik til valg på, bliver de hjemme eller stemmer på Enhedslisten.

Vær nu jeres egne vælgere og den gamle solidaritet bekendt og drop al den økonomiske traditionstænkning, så skal stemmerne nok komme tilbage. Indtil da, nedsmeltning.

NB: Folketingsmedlem Christian Juhl er inde på noget lignende: S og SFs politiske selvmord.

Tanke om rugbrødsreformen

Regeringens plan om at lade overførselsindkomsterne regulere efter inflationen og ikke efter reallønnen i samfundet vækker harme hos mange socialt bevidste, fordi det vil udhule værdien af disse. Konsekvensen er, at arbejdsløse og pensionister kommer til at sakke endnu mere bagud i forhold til resten af samfundet.

Men. Virkeligheden er, at Danmark ud fra et økologisk og globalt synspunkt forbruger alt for meget, har for stort CO2-udslip og gør et langt større indhug i de globale energi- og råstof-ressourcer, end befolkningen på fem millioner berettiger os til. Hvis Danmark ønsker at følge en økologisk og klimamæssigt bæredygtig udvikling de næste 10-15 år – og det ville ærligt talt være en rigtig god idé – vil reallønnen komme til at falde, mens priserne stiger uændret. Og så vil overførselsindkomsterne, hvis den nye regulering fastholdes, faktisk vokse hurtigere end den almindelige løn.

Klima-aftrykket og ressourcernes fundamentale endelighed tilsiger faktisk, at Danmark kommer til at skære ned på forbrug, realløn, levestandard, velstand – kald det, hvad I vil. Den globale udvikling kan meget let komme til ganske ufrivilligt at pålægge os en sådan “forbrugsjustering”. Tricket bliver efter min mening og fra et humanistisk perspektiv at gøre det, så alle sikres og ingen bliver fattige. Dette er ikke, hvad jeg mistænker regeringen for at være ude på, men betydningen af den aktuelle skattereform blegner måske alligevel ved sammenligningen.

Eller også gør den ikke. Brug gerne kommentarfeltet til at fortælle, hvad (om noget) der er galt med ovenstående betragtninger.

Meget dårlig behandling og diagnosticering af kræft i Danmark

Dette er konklusionen i en videnskabelig artikel i British Journal of Cancer: Alt for mange danskere dør af kræft, og det diagnosticeres senere end i andre lande. Ville væsentlige offentlige figurer  som Jakob Ejersbo og Tøger Seidenfaden have levet længere, hvis det ikke havde været for Danmarks forældede sundhedsvæsen, der gør alt for lidt ud af diagnosticering og tidlig behandling? Det er der i hvert fald meget, der tyder på:

Background:

Denmark has poorer 5-year survival rates than many other Western European countries, and cancer patients tend to have more advanced stages at diagnosis than those in other Scandinavian countries. Part of this may be due to delay in diagnosis. The aim of this paper is to give an overview of the initiatives currently underway to reduce delays. […]

The findings from the EUROCARE studies suggest that Denmark, like the United Kingdom, has poorer 5-year survival rates across a range of cancer types than other Western European countries (Sant et al, 2001; Karim-Kos et al, 2008; Berrino et al, 2009; Verdecchia et al, 2009). Mortality rates from cancer are also high in Denmark (International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2007). These findings led to a major public debate and a sense of disappointment regarding Danish efforts to control cancer. As a result, a National Cancer Steering Group was established in 1998, chaired by the National Board of Health with representation from all relevant specialties. National Cancer Plans were developed by this steering group in 2000 and 2005, which analysed the possible problems and made recommendations in relation to prevention, diagnosis and treatment.

Cancer incidence in Denmark is relatively high, reflecting lifestyle factors, for example, a relatively high prevalence of smoking (44% of the population in 1987, and 34% in 2000 were daily smokers) (Ekholm et al, 2006). As a result, initiatives were launched to reduce smoking, increase exercise, promote healthier diets and reduce excessive exposure to ultraviolet light. A cervical screening programme had been running for several decades. Following the Cancer Plan in 2005, a national breast cancer screening programme was established. In 2008, a decision was made to set up a colorectal cancer screening programme, but this has not yet been implemented. To improve treatment, necessary but politically difficult decisions had to be taken to concentrate cancer-related surgical procedures in fewer hospital centres (Gøtrik and Hansen, 2001).

Another problem to be tackled was that Danish cancer patients seemed to have more advanced stages at diagnosis than those in other Scandinavian countries (Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries, 2007; Berrino et al, 2009). This may have been due to bottlenecks at different stages of the clinical pathway with long waits from first symptom to start of treatment. The second Danish National Cancer Plan addressed these issues, recommending pre-planned, well-structured clinical pathways without unnecessary waiting times for investigations and procedures.

This paper provides:

  • an overview of the Danish healthcare system to help understand where delays may occur;
  • a brief summary of what is known about different phases of delay for cancer patients and
  • an outline of the actions currently being undertaken to reduce delays.

Det er da altid noget, at “in future, fast-track diagnosis and treatment will be provided for suspected cancers and access to general diagnostic investigations will be improved”, men for nogen er det nok lidt sent. Det er muligt, at vi danskere er vant til at tænke på det danske sundhedsvæsen som “et af verdens bedste”, men på nogle måder er det altså skandaløst dårligt og bagud. Det kan kun gå for langsomt med at få det rettet op.

Link: Delay in diagnosis: the experience in Denmark

Stephen King: Tax Me, for F@%&’s Sake!

Forfatteren Stephen King, som du måske har hørt om (hvis du ikke har læst nogen af hans bøger har du med sikkerhed set en film, der er baseret på én), har et indlæg i The Daily Beast, hvor han brokker sig over, at folk som ham ikke skal betale meget mere i skat.

Det er værd at læse, ikke mindst i lys af tidens hyldest også af en bestemt, afdød dansk rigmand :

Most rich folks paying 28 percent taxes do not give out another 28 percent of their income to charity. Most rich folks like to keep their dough. They don’t strip their bank accounts and investment portfolios. They keep them and then pass them on to their children, their children’s children. And what they do give away is—like the monies my wife and I donate—totally at their own discretion. That’s the rich-guy philosophy in a nutshell: don’t tell us how to use our money; we’ll tell you.

The Koch brothers are right-wing creepazoids, but they’re giving right-wing creepazoids. Here’s an example: 68 million fine American dollars to Deerfield Academy. Which is great for Deerfield Academy. But it won’t do squat for cleaning up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, where food fish are now showing up with black lesions. It won’t pay for stronger regulations to keep BP (or some other bunch of dipshit oil drillers) from doing it again. It won’t repair the levees surrounding New Orleans. It won’t improve education in Mississippi or Alabama. But what the hell—them li’l crackers ain’t never going to go to Deerfield Academy anyway. Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke.

Here’s another crock of fresh bullshit delivered by the right wing of the Republican Party (which has become, so far as I can see, the only wing of the Republican Party): the richer rich people get, the more jobs they create. Really? I have a total payroll of about 60 people, most of them working for the two radio stations I own in Bangor, Maine. If I hit the movie jackpot—as I have, from time to time—and own a piece of a film that grosses $200 million, what am I going to do with it? Buy another radio station? I don’t think so, since I’m losing my shirt on the ones I own already. But suppose I did, and hired on an additional dozen folks. Good for them. Whoopee-ding for the rest of the economy.

At the risk of repeating myself, here’s what rich folks do when they get richer: they invest. A lot of those investments are overseas, thanks to the anti-American business policies of the last four administrations. Don’t think so? Check the tag on that T-shirt or gimme cap you’re wearing. If it says MADE IN AMERICA, I’ll … well, I won’t say I’ll eat your shorts, because some of that stuff is made here, but not much of it. And what does get made here doesn’t get made by America’s small cadre of pluted bloatocrats; it’s made, for the most part, in barely-gittin’-by factories in the Deep South, where the only unions people believe in are those solemnized at the altar of the local church (as long as they’re from different sexes, that is).

I guess some of this mad right-wing love comes from the idea that in America, anyone can become a Rich Guy if he just works hard and saves his pennies. Mitt Romney has said, in effect, “I’m rich and I don’t apologize for it.” Nobody wants you to, Mitt. What some of us want—those who aren’t blinded by a lot of bullshit persiflage thrown up to mask the idea that rich folks want to keep their damn money—is for you to acknowledge that you couldn’t have made it in America without America. That you were fortunate enough to be born in a country where upward mobility is possible (a subject upon which Barack Obama can speak with the authority of experience), but where the channels making such upward mobility possible are being increasingly clogged. That it’s not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. Not fair? It’s un-fucking-American is what it is. I don’t want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you’re on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to “cut a check and shut up,” in Governor Christie’s words, but to pay—in the same proportion. That’s called stepping up and not whining about it. That’s called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn’t cost their beloved rich folks any money.

Læs det hele!