Health Minster and us.

onebigvoice

Sorry, the last post was sent before it was completed.

 Giovan at Scope:
My point was that the Social Care Act has already been tweaked before and nothing had been done except what they as a government wanted to do or give.
STATEMENT:  "Who this could affect"  anyone who NEEDED SOCIAL SUPPORT to mix with other people face to face at any time, FROM 6TH OF APRIL 2016.
  "SOCIAL SUPPORT" MEANS would need to be from a trained or experienced (PERSON) in assessing people in social situations.  Help with mixing and may need social prompting, reminding, and encouraging or explaining the situation.  (note the word person was omitted. Is this because they want AI to do this?)
  Words even at this stage have been inserted into the text, since a meeting held on Monday 10th of October 2022 from 1.45 pm - 4.30 pm.  " Plan for a decent social care system - building support."  by the Commissioner on Social Security (Final Program)
The Social Care Act has specific CARE GUIDENCE which detailed instructions on implementing the requirements in Part 1 of the Care Act (2014) and offers guidance.
  Some Key Points:
 1. OVERVIEW.
 2. ELIGIBILITY AND ENTITLEMENTS.
 3. CARERS.
 4. PROMOTING WELLBEING.
 5. MARKET SHAPING AND COMMISSIONING
 6. MANAGING PROVIDER FAILURE.
  I have only put these bullet points here but have quoted the full act of 2014 and the changes again to the wording in the paragraphs that needed to be changed for clarity of the act, in another post in more detail and must be read fully to understand why this act was looked at again and the errors that are still occurring.
  I cannot understand how the NHS is being treated, the way they are as holders of the MAIN CONTRACT, and that as holders are supposed to give support to people at source by assessments completed BY THE NHS. UNDER THAT ACT, why does this Commission or the Medical Board allow the strike action to continue, not only to protect and support the NHS but to allow them to do what they are being paid to do which is looking after us but to stop the government from underfunding sections even under this Act, now looked at again and going back to the 6th of April 2016, AND STILL DO NOTHING.   
  So, when looking at the assessment system, that the government has designed with the help of ATOS and the Medical Board, the system of LiMA was designed, (Logic Integrated Medical Access.)  This system was designed to get everyone who assesses people to ask the same questions about their daily routine and how it is impacted by ill health, treatment pending through Medical assessments and their probable outcome, scans, and tests to try to highlight or eliminate the probable cause, and also to give a treatment plan where either treatment is given by medication which is monitored or Physiotherapy to help strengthen and build up muscles that have become weak or wasted due to illness.
  When looking at Bullet point 6, this is also discussed (IN GREAT DETAIL) but what is not resolved is, in looking back to the 6th of April 2016, why choose this date, why send out letters to whom they already believe that this has already affected?  Because in looking at the assessment system they have found, whether looking at Tribunal Results, or looking at the number of people who have requested a Mandatory Reconsideration or a Freedom of Information where files were not used, or not shown in the assessment process, the report written by the assessors were suspect.
  It should not need 5 or 20 people or 100 or 1000 to say there is a problem that we need to look at.  If people request a Tribunal or go through the Complaints procedure to get their claim looked at again, this should flag up an issue at that stage.  Repeated, reported problems should be investigated to see if the problems lie with the form and its wording when requesting information, or, under Candour (covering third-party Contractors) hired by the DWP for their expertise is being adhered to.
  If the information that is supposed to be included within the report and is stipulated in the charter is missing.  It is not the claimant that should have to supply what they have already supplied but the Decision Maker to revisit and make sure that before s/he issues the report they were present in the initial report from them, and explain why the decision was made.    
  We all know the assessment process has 10 BASIC BULLET POINTS that MUST BE IN EVERY REPORT.  So why are most of these points not adhered to?
  I believe that assessors (DWP) were under the impression that they were there to look at the medical information supplied and write a fully justified report about the claimant on the LAWS OF probability of outcome.

  These Charters and Acts have been around since the conception of the NHS, and the NHS, year after year, has looked at improvements to how we assess people for treatment and care that they can and in some cases should provide.  This could be as simple as what is required for an operation that would not require an overnight stay, to emergency treatment from accidents to operations that not only require immediate treatment, to a stay in hospital to recuperate, or in intensive care and the treatments that have to be arranged before during and after the treatment took place.

  My final thought:  Is our assessment system provided by the government doing all of this under the NHS, as this is what the National Insurance is paying towards, or has this now become a costing and probability exercise?  Where the probability of survival is now the first issue, not the Hippocratic Oath to save lives or prologue life without pain when ill is taking a back seat, and has become a money-making exercise for some.  

onebigvoice

Here in Cardiff we now have a 20 MPH limit.  Is it going well?
  Not sure really, as we still have some boy racers that believe the law does not apply to them.
  My point being is how accurate is accurate since the enforcement of the limit seems to be gathering speed,  (PUN INTENDED)  So look at this and tell me what we shouls do?

Vehicle speedometers, whether digital or analog, calculate speed based on the rotation of the wheels or drivetrain. Accuracy can be affected by differences in tyre tread depth, wheel sizes, and even tyre pressures.

By law, vehicle speedometers must not under-read nor show more than 110% of your actual speed plus 6.25mph, so they are designed to always over-read by a margin in order to never under-read. This means at a true 70mph your vehicle could be indicating 83.25mph and still be within the vehicle regulations.

Satellite navigation uses GPS to locate your position and can also provide your speed by constantly calculating how long it takes you to cover the distance travelled. Although not necessarily 100% accurate, GPS-calculated speed will usually be more accurate than the vehicle speedometer.

Professional speed testing equipment also uses GPS to provide highly accurate data, but this is done by measuring the Doppler shift in signals from a number of satellites.  

  Do most drive off Sat Nav's?  No Not really, so what happens if you are speeding?You pay up, or do you?

Your thoughts.