• Personal NHS budgets considered. Proposals are now being developed to involve patients with chronic/wasting diseases to obtain "control" over treatment decision making following after pilot projects now in place for the elderly and disabled to "control" their social care decisions.

• Seems to be a way to limit expenditure. Having experienced tenant management which was predicated on the same principle of "control" over expenditures, I believe that this process allows for budget reductions while shifting responsibility and accountability away from government. Serious abuses of power have been the result from tenant management to the detriment of tenants and residents. What are the implications for NHS health care? In my experience the NHS health care and tenant management abuses are related and intertwined.

• Government is in touch - Smith. A Health Minister says the government is out of touch with the basic realities of the working family. The politically motivated Home Secretary pounces on national television to make a verbal counterclaim that the government is in touch. No evidence or facts here just a battle of words and beliefs bandied about at the highest level like know nothing adolescents.

• With what is the government in touch? The government is truly out of touch if it cannot use surveillance technology 24/7 for almost a decade and get it right. The problem is that the government is deliberately out of touch supporting voters instead of standards thereby pandering to the criminals and antisocial types. Way to go Home Secretary.

1. Personal NHS budgets considered. While rolling out choice for hospital care, this Labour government is considering budget "control" for patients who have chronic/wasting diseases. Is this the best way to carry out health care, or is there a hidden agenda under the surface which will emerge after all the buzzwords like "freedom" and "choice" are used to gain acceptance?

BBC News Sunday, 30 March 2008 03:44 UK

Personal NHS budgets considered

The government believes that patient choice improves quality

Patients with acute conditions like multiple sclerosis and diabetes could get control of their own NHS budgets to buy treatment, the government has said.

The Department of Health confirmed it was considering the plan, aimed at long-term sufferers in England.

A DoH statement insisted patients would not be given cash, and that no money would leave the NHS under the scheme.

Health Secretary Alan Johnson said: "We want choice for everyone within a world-class NHS."

'Driver of quality'

The government is already piloting schemes across the country to allow elderly and disabled people to control the way care budgets are spent.

Personal NHS budgets considered

2. Seems to be a way to limit expenditure. Any attempt by this Labour government to shift accountability and responsibility for decisions is a cause for alarm. There is now a proposal to shift chronic disease treatment decisions to the patient. I believe that the reality of this policy proposal is to limit costs for chronic disease treatment and shift accountability for such limiting decisions to the patient.

As can be seen in the above BBC News article, this Labour government is already running pilot schemes for "elderly and disabled people to control the way care budgets are spent." This raising big questions with me as regards to how these decisions are actually being made and what are the budget amounts? My direct experience with tenant management in Kensington & Chelsea during the past 12 years where such budget "control" was passed along to tenant management with inadequate budgets has led to unfortunate consequences.

Worst of all is the shifting of responsibility and accountability from the competent, educated, trained and experienced professional to those who have none of these and haven't a clue about what to do. Tenant management in Kensington & Chelsea is a prime example of this occurring resulting in the criminal taking over along with an abuse of power that beggar's believe with abuse from surveillance technology carried out on an indefinite basis against me for raising issues pertaining to serious problems, criminal and antisocial behaviour. I comment on this further in my Email to BBC News 24 about this matter a copy of which is provided below.

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

Subject: Personal Health Budgets: "seems to be a way to limit expenditure," said your presenter (Maxine Mawhinney?) in so many words. That's exactly it.
Date: Sunday 30 March 2008 11:40
From: Gary D Chance
To: news24@bbc.co.uk

Reeta Chakrabarti then made the statement which the government uses to "con" everyone into acceptance: it will provide choice to patients with chronic diseases.

If the budget is limited and capped, that choice will be meaningless. The money will not be available, and the decision to limit treatment to the less expensive and perhaps less effective treatments will be shifted to the patient thus obliterating the foundation of the NHS.

The government is trying to reduce expenditures on the long term, expensive chronic diseases by sugar coating the means to cut funding.

It will also stop dissent because individuals will not have the impact of a collective voice when a similar cut occurs at the institutional level.

I believe that the administration costs of individual budgets and care especially in light of "choice" will be prohibitively high further adding to the mistake. Resources will shift further from patient care to administration.

How will it be administered? By computer system? Who will be doing the administrative work? Look at the government's track record with respect to administration in all of its aspects. What happened at the Home Office? What is happening at Terminal 5? This kind of failure is an endemic disease in the UK.

The government comes up with ideas like this to cut expenditures by stealth under the gloss of "individual choice" then imposes it without regard to how it will work thereby shifting responsibility and accountability for the decisions to limit.

The government does not have to do the work and demands that the NHS management do the impossible followed by everyone complaining about the failures in the NHS. Middle management gets caught in the middle.

Individual budgets will also facilitate the kind of abuse which is being carried out against me and limit responsibility and accountability.

Individual budgets can be determined by people other than the patient in instances of dementia or falsely claimed dementia and mental illness.

When the NHS rolls out into the community using surveillance technology for remote diagnosis, control and surreptitious medication outside a hospital environment over many years as has occurred to me for a decade, that cost can be buried under individual care for trumped up chronic illnesses that are manufactured without the patient having any input or "choice" whatsoever into what is being done.

Also, surveillance technology abuse can create chronic illnesses, and individual budgets then relate to the abused person only further denying responsibility and accounting. Look for an increase in surveillance technology abuse with a high participation of the NHS in such abuse along with its personal injuries being managed under limited, personal budgets. Nice one that.

This government reflects the essence of deceit incarnate and cannot be trusted. Whatever happened to the concept of economies of scale the NHS was meant to provide that individual budgets destroy?

Now, you can see why Gordon Brown was a failure as Chancellor.

Naturally, this could be a back door entry to an individual insurance scheme administered by the NHS which would operate with lowered budget limits currently unheard of that would deprive patients of care especially free for all at the point of entry.

This could also be euthanasia by the back door which I am experiencing directly as well through the abuse from the [lethal use of] surveillance technology which is also a means to attack negative criticism and dissent as is happening at this moment while I write.

Why is it that we do not see straightforward patient care delivered by the NHS consistent with its current structure? Do individual budgets mean that patients can choose GPs at random and go directly to hospital consultants bypassing GPs? Will GPs be eliminated or significantly reduced? Is the government trying to take away the money it gave to GPs?

This government is actually destroying the NHS as it is currently structured.

Look what happened with tenant management in Kensington & Chelsea:

I want to point out the reality of tenant management in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. Tenant management was formed in 1995 for the Lancaster West Estate (EMB) and then borough wide in 1996 [Tenant Management Organisation (TMO)]. It became a tool for under management, suppression of dissent and escaping Council responsibility and accountability.

Tenant management was a means whereby budgets could be limited under the guise that the tenants then had to make the difficult choice of selecting which essential projects had to be done weighing scarce resources against such decisions as roof repairs, waste disposal facilities or boiler replacement. All of these could not be done, and the "tenants" had to make the choices.

A responsible government management would have had to do all of them as top priority issues of safety and health. Tenant management shifted responsibility away from the Council and compromised safety and health.

If you think about it, this is much like the decision to target inflation (a "budgetary constraint") for the Bank of England then falsely claiming that the Bank of England is "independent" and free to meet that target.

What really happened with respect to tenant management at the Lancaster West Estate was the construction of 38 business units at a cost of over £1 million taking several years to accomplish including draining time and attention away from residential management priorities. The tenants and residents safety and health were put at risk.

Instead of addressing waste disposal or the delayed boiler replacement after the roof repair (which turned out to be like Terminal 5), those in power opted for their own corrupt self interest and built the 38 business units in the Lancaster West Estate disregarding the 900 residential units' needs that comprise 9% of the 10,000 social housing units in Kensington & Chelsea.

Meanwhile, the central heating system failed with it being left on throughout the summer with extreme damaging effects in the heat waves of early August 2003 and June of 2005 while the 38 business units were being constructed during these years and my correspondence ignored until I contacted BBC London in June 2005.

I was subjected to surveillance technology abuse throughout all of this. Surveillance technology was not used to identify the problems so that they could be solved. Surveillance technology was used to destroy the documentation and reporting of these problems.

Waste disposal facilities remain inadequate. Lately, it has come to light that there was vote rigging in the election of directors to the TMO. Tenant management had nothing to do with managing the properties on behalf of the tenants and residents. It was a means by which those who obtained power began abusing that power. I have a great deal to describe about this in specific terms with evidence.

This is what will happen with the so-called NHS individual budgets and why this government seeks to alter the NHS structure to escape responsibility and accountability while leaving the decision making process to the patient, an illusionary process at best, where no resources are provided.

This will result in those with chronic diseases being forced to choose between death and death. Which death by budget constrained medication will you choose?

What was that about the French health system?

3. Government is in touch - Smith. The government is in touch. No, it's not in touch. Like arguing about the existence of God in Ingmar Bergman's Wild Strawberries. The government is only in touch with its power and how to abuse it, and you plebes can just lump it. We know how to deal with your kind says the Home Secretary. We've got surveillance technology waiting for you. This is the reality of her message. You spout the party line or else.

BBC News24 Sunday, 30 March 2008 11:40 UK

Government is in touch - Smith

The home secretary said it was important to listen to the people Jacqui Smith

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has dismissed claims by a fellow minister that the government is out of touch.

Health Minister Ivan Lewis said that, after 11 years in power, Labour was often "silent on the daily realities".

Ms Smith told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show that she disagreed, though it was "fundamentally important that we listen to the British people".

She also defended the extension to 42 days of the length of time for which terror suspects can be held.

Government is in touch - Smith

4. With what is the government in touch?. What this government has actually done is to take the vigilante mob to a higher plane with the most sophisticated technology ever known at their disposal for a decade. It's not a question of not listening, but the government only hears what it wants to hear ignoring the truth. Listening to the mob and bully gang will not generate truth. When the government carries out unlawful activities surreptitiously, it has to deny what it is doing, but many people know otherwise.

All the Home Secretary replies here to a critical comment from a Health Minister trying to maintain the image that the government is in touch when it is the Home Office that is most out of touch and deliberately so. Anyone who uses totally invasive surveillance technology for a decade and doesn't know what is happening is out of touch. Anyone who uses totally invasive surveillance technology for a decade and keeps it going indefinitely is not performing a legitimate function. Anyone who uses surveillance technology for a decade in a most abusive manner is trying to create a reality that does not exist.

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

Subject: "Government is in touch - Smith" With a decade of totally invasive surveillance technology abuse carried out against me, she should know. The question is with what is the government in touch?
Date: Sunday 30 March 2008 14:25
From: Gary D Chance
To: news24@bbc.co.uk

This is a magnificent statement from the Home Secretary when one considers that this government has been intricately involved in the totally invasive surveillance technology used against me 24/7 for almost a decade.

The real question concerns exactly what does this government consider being in touch means?

In my direct experience for a decade this government has supported and sustained the criminal in the community by providing these antisocial personalities with the use of surveillance technology to carry out extensive antisocial and criminal behaviour particularly with respect to hiding their crimes and stopping the person who would report them.

Jacqui Smith says that the government needs to listen. That is a joke. I've been communicating the facts and truth to the government by every means possible for the better part of a decade, and no one but no has listened. I have a very long laundry list of such communication attempts including in person that were disregarded completely.

Not only have I been disregarded, but I have been and continue to be subject to attacks to discredit what I report. The problem is not in failing to listen but in failing to stop obvious and well known behaviour that is clearly outside the law and unacceptable by any standard in a civilised, democratic society.

The abuse by surveillance technology 24/7 for almost a decade carried out on a declared "indefinite" basis makes a mockery of all that this government and especially the Home Secretary and Secretary for Justice are supposed to represent and maintain. It destroys the foundation of law enforcement and the legal justice system which is made completely irrelevant by such abuse from surveillance technology.

This government is most definitely out of touch because it cannot get a grasp on reality in the community despite the extensive use of totally invasive surveillance technology for all these years. This government wants to believe what it has created for itself in order to support image management and is all too eager to accept whatever will help that process while disregarding the reality which actually exists in the community.

Antisocial behaviour and crime have become the standards in this community in my direct experience for more than a decade because the criminal has come to dominate and control the environment by abusing surveillance technology.