DEBATE. When the chronically ill who have become utförsäkrade of health Insurance in the pure existential despair wondering why, and then assume the director-general, Maria Hemström-Hemmingsson role as an educator.
Her task? To commend the Agency's administrators for their amazing work and to refer the utförsäkrades existential despair to their ignorance of administrative law.
Hemmingsson, were interviewed in the Echo of the P1 on 1 december regarding the country's ongoing social security system. Hemmingsson took over after Begler kicked off social security Strandhäll.
Criticism of the health care system was so great that it is now the need for a new leadership, a more communicative focus on collaboration, dialogue, and that the sick people have not ended up between the cracks. It sounded as if the sick man would gain a clearer voice.
In the interview, Hemmingson the first question, if I now have any change with her as the new director-general. No, she replies then, and continues. The law is clear and samhällsmålet with 9.0 days sick per person remains as before. The aim is to increase health.
She says proudly that they managed to increase the number of omställningsmöten from 100 to 500 in a month. But when the interviewer presses on, acknowledging the director-general that they have not yet seen any results of this. The idea, however, is good, she says, to get the employment service to catch up the people who may no longer be left in the health insurance system.
Hemmingsson switch on the pedagogy. So here is the health insurance buildup, " she says, despite the fact that the interviewer didn't asked about this very banal accounts.
”the regulatory Framework that says who should get the sickness benefit is very clear. If you can work, you must do it. It is work that fund the welfare system. It is the basic social contract. And it is the employment to support you back to work. Those who then cannot get a job, caught up by our other security systems”.
The lone-lands, therefore, in the social services, while those with a partner will be banished to live on his salary.
She gives, for all chronically sick, degrading educational example of the interplay between disease and ability to work through their ”break the leg”, ”barber” and ”surgeon”-stories. In conclusion, the that ”all can work even if the thumb gone, the only thing they can't work with is the job that requires a thumb”.
But now is not the thumb but the entire people who have gone by! In the group I'm talking about, there are 10 000's of with solid medical certificates relating to serious and disabling psychological and physical comorbidities.
People who have either worked all their lives or been sick in many years – before they are suddenly insured out in the years 2016 to 2018.
She pretends that the criticism against the social Insurance depends on the insured lacks knowledge of the national health insurance scheme
But Hemmingsson concern never this group. And ”the social Insurance agency has not become more restrictive,” she says.
Despite the fact that she is there just to answer the criticism about their new restrictiveness, to devote herself to completely praise the administrators at the social Insurance office for their regular assessments.
She, and I quote: ”Never seen so many amazing, compassionate, competent and committed myndighetsförvaltare so great rättspatos”.
She is to pretend that the criticism against the social Insurance depends on the insured a lack of knowledge about health insurance. Yes, I write pretend, I simply can't believe that she really would believe anything so preposterous.
Therefore, the society must, she says, set it up and really explain to these people what health insurance really is for.
such A pedagogy is of course a stab against all those who are at home sick with no money. The one who is too ill to work are entitled to sickness benefit, this is the central law.
Insurance actively been engaged in the past few years is to play with and build on both the disease and arbetsbegreppet – without having an open public debate on this.
The sick are together with the Doctors and Arbetsförmedlarna confused in the face of the new view of disease and work ability. Hemmingsson acknowledges that it has been ”difficult to cooperate with these other actors”, because they have so different approach.
Criticism has never been about knowledge, the law or the terms and conditions. The one who is too sick to work has the right to receive sickness benefits. So simple is the law. Criticism is darker and much more serious. Utförsäkringarna has destroyed many sick people's lives, at the same time as the massanställda the officers claimed to do ”a fantastic job”.
These facts cannot be understood otherwise than that the authority slipped into a ”united states försäkringsbolagspatos”. They assure that healthy citizens can take a week sick once a year, but to the ones that cost money, the long-term, must be thrown out because they are too expensive.
they do by distorting the law, interpret the basic concepts such as illness and work, and actively seeking support for the rejection. They back up their denials with the help of högbetalda konsultläkare whose task is to find typos in the usual doctors ' medical certificate.
Through a variety of extensive bureaucratic processes that kommuniceringsbrev, re-examinations, appeal ensures that the individual claims handler's responsibilities and the sick forces are wiped out in the process.
10 000's of sick people trying to express their despair and criticism. From the authority which has taken from them their basic economic security, in a period of severe illness, they may hear that their despair due to ignorance.
What is now required is a transparent review of the various steps that have been taken within the social Insurance in recent years. It requires a fundamental, political explanation for why these steps were taken and how these steps led to the chronically ill in Sweden are no longer covered by health insurance.
do not Underestimate the sick intelligence. To continue to pedagogical to refer to the law, they will ill not accept.
the Law is, Hemmingsson says, clear. It is the concepts within this team they have changed. Tell us why.
Susanne Brandheim , phd in Social Work.
Join in the debate and comment on the article
– like Aftonbladet Debate on Facebook.