That seems to have become the way that many health care institutions in Great Britain are dealing with their old folks. And this is the universal health care model that the Democrats wish to follow in the United States?

A health minister made the shameful admission that elderly people are effectively being starved in care homes and hospitals.

Ivan Lewis said some are given just a single scoop of mash as a meal.

Other bedridden pensioners are 'tortured' with trays of food placed just out of their reach.

The minister's words are a stunning acknowledgement of how the care system still lets down the frail and elderly after nearly ten years of Labour rule.

They follow years of campaigning by charities and the Daily Mail to expose appalling deficiencies in the care of the over-65s.

Mr Lewis will launch an official campaign this week to improve the quality of food offered to thousands of vulnerable old people.

But his belated move drew a lukewarm response from campaigners. Help the Aged said: 'This is an issue we have been lobbying over for a long time and something the Government has known about for years. I hope it gets the proper attention and investment now.'

A spokesman for the charity Independent Age said: 'The Government has now finally realised, after years of campaigning, that it has a problem. Now it has to ensure its plans and initiatives are carried forward.'

See what happens when government subsidies remove the need to provide adequate care? Adequate care stops.

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

I cannot agree more with this column written by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili -- and indeed believe that he does not go far enough in his support for a change of policy.

TWO weeks ago, President Bush called for a long-term plan to increase the size of the armed forces. As our leaders consider various options for carrying out Mr. Bush’s vision, one issue likely to generate fierce debate is “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the policy that bars openly gay service members from the military. Indeed, leaders in the new Congress are planning to re-introduce a bill to repeal the policy next year.

As was the case in 1993 — the last time the American people thoroughly debated the question of whether openly gay men and lesbians should serve in the military — the issue will give rise to passionate feelings on both sides. The debate must be conducted with sensitivity, but it must also consider the evidence that has emerged over the last 14 years.

We know that there are homosexuals int he military -- they are fighting and dying in Iraq. There are others who would gladly serve in our nation's military, if only they did not have to deny their sexuality. And ultimately, there is no legitimate reason for barring homosexuals from service.

But I think Shalikashvili does fall a little bit short.

But if America is ready for a military policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation, the timing of the change should be carefully considered. As the 110th Congress opens for business, some of its most urgent priorities, like developing a more effective strategy in Iraq, share widespread support that spans political affiliations. Addressing such issues could help heal the divisions that cleave our country. Fighting early in this Congress to lift the ban on openly gay service members is not likely to add to that healing, and it risks alienating people whose support is needed to get this country on the right track.

By taking a measured, prudent approach to change, political and military leaders can focus on solving the nationÂ’s most pressing problems while remaining genuinely open to the eventual and inevitable lifting of the ban. When that day comes, gay men and lesbians will no longer have to conceal who they are, and the military will no longer need to sacrifice those whose service it cannot afford to lose.

Frankly, I believe that the American public and members of the armed forces would be less troubled by this change than the general suggests. Our society is more accepting of homosexual persons than it was 14 years ago, even though there is a line drawn at marriage. What is needed is an initiative as bold as that of Harry Truman when he desegregated the -- because now, like then, it is the right thing to do.

Posted by: Greg at 05:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 3 kb.