Author Topic: if correct = very sick sense of humour at the top  (Read 861 times)

Offworld

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 537
if correct = very sick sense of humour at the top
« on: February 07, 2017, 05:11:33 PM »
Quote
The Government has announced plans to spend £1.3 billion on improving economic growth in “middle-income” countries such as China, India and Mexico.
The Foreign Office has outlined a series of “policy objectives” for the funding in China with “suggested projects” including improving “care in the community for elderly people in China” and the “sustainability of the health system”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/07/british-taxpayers-money-spend-improving-social-care-elderly/

 :-(   not much surprises any more

JLR2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1528
Re: if correct = very sick sense of humour at the top
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2017, 08:56:31 AM »
I would not be surprised to hear May (the PM)  announcing similar funds being made available to aid the US's welfare system.

Offworld

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 537
Re: if correct = very sick sense of humour at the top
« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2017, 09:14:22 PM »
https://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2017/03/07/iapt-is-value-laden-non-prefigurative-non-dialogic-and-antidemocratic/

Article critical of the government's "behavioural economics" and other nudge unit sort of stuff
where illness and disability is concerned.
The sort of psychological warfare and assertion that makes cuts, privatisation and 'Unumisation' easier.

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4173
Re: if correct = very sick sense of humour at the top
« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2017, 11:51:38 PM »
As an aside, I've been increasinly irritated by the American term 'behavioural' medicine/health.  Every time I read 'behavioural' I want to scream.  But it ties in with this.  Mental illness has followed a progression.  It used to be a poorly understood defect of some sort, sometimes involving being looked after in the community the same as the 'village idiot', sometimes involving being tucked away out of sight somewhere, then genetic (v. popular amongst early to mid twentieth century eugenicists), alternating with distorted Freudian theories (couldn't contemplate his patient was a victim of child abuse, so she must love her father etc.), then at last we get through to the seventies and some sort of understanding of the complexities of life experiences, trauma etc.  Then we get the geneticists getting all excited again and now it's back to behaviour.

After all, if you're going to dismantle the welfare state, why would you care if people are in any emotional distress or pain?  All you care about is their behaviour.  The only extent to which their distress matters is the extent to which they or their insurers or (for the time being) the NHS will pay for drugs/hospital beds.

But what really, really hacks me off about so much of this is that this approach is counter-productive.  Tell people it's their fault if people hurt them, if they didn't cope with things, if they  had trouble thinking straight, and so on, then how do you give them a sense they can cope with the rigors of working life or mainstream society?

Aargh.
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

Offworld

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 537