On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 16:25:26 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, 11 November 2016 13:05:02 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:33:43 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, 11 November 2016 11:02:58 UTC+13, Crash wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:42:25 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Sometimes governments and the agencies they fund have to make tough
choices
Here's one - was it the correct decision?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/86324315/hospital-cuts-off-96yearold-woman-leaving-her-to-fend-for-herself

While it is a tough choice for Trixie, the fact is that she will no
longer receive help she has been given by the taxpayer in the past if >> >> the decision by the DHB stands.

There is no mention of family and no mention of a move to assisted
living. The headline makes it clear the intent is to stir a political >> >> issue rather than find a solution that involves moving house. There
may well be very good reasons why Trixie should be assisted to remain >> >> where she is but the article mentions none of them - purely the
sentimental notion of 68 years in the same home.

And note the highly emotive language used by the "journalist". The home

Many letters advising such changes are received with no notice - it
may be an accurate assessment of her feelings - presumably the
assistance was regarded as appropriate at one time - we do not know
what changed, but it appears not to be that the assistance is no
longer needed. Crash is right that we are not given full information,
but that does not stop the ignorant from forming firm conclusions does
it?

Didn't stop you, that much is clear.

There are many people getting to the point of no longer being able to >> >> care for themselves or (like me and my wife) can see we may be in that >> >> situation in the not-too-distant future. You plan for this by moving >> >> to an assisted-living facility when you are ready but before you
absolutely need to (if possible). While some balk at the idea of a
retirement home, when you have got to 96 this option is clearly
appropriate.

Yep. The state is not there to provide butlers and housekeepers. This

What makes you think anyone was being a butler or hosekeeper? The
services being removed have been quite commonly provided - often to
workers who are paid only for time on the job, serving many people in
a single day, and only paid minimum wage. What we do not know is
whether the "poor old dear" as you condescendingly call her, does have
other options.

She has the same options if not more as any of the thousands of other

My wife's Aunt, who has never married, lived in her own home for over >> >> 50 years. Her move to a Sumerset village was 15 years ago when she
could see a near-future of dependence on others - with closest family >> >> all having passed away and therefore nearest relatives were nieces and >> >> nephews. She wrenched herself into the village with no family
assistance (an indication of her staunch self-sufficient ethos),
experienced a huge improvement in her quality-of-life and regretted
the move for no longer than a few days. She is 4 years younger than
Trixie.

There is good money in running retirement homes / villages, and in
many cases they are a good option; but they are also not always
available near family and friends, and are often too expensive. I do

If she has family near then she definitely doesn't need government funded

know that property prices are not as high in Levin as in other places,
and there are not always vacancies. I see that there is a Summerset
Village and a number of others including the Horowhenua Masonic
Village which has a good reputation - but we do not know if this lady
could afford a place. I hope she is getting assistance to make an
appeal, it is perhaps a shame that an assessment was not made and
discussions held with her before a decision was made; she may need
help in making a move.

So Trixie, on the basis of that article you are long overdue to move
somewhere where the help you need is available as part of the
environment you live in and can never be withdrawn. The day you move >> >> will be harrowing, but the environment you move to should help you to >> >> get through and you will probably live to regret you waited so long to >> >> make the move.

--
Crash McBash

Thanks Crash. A good summary of the human issues involved in what is
often a life-change that can be traumatic, is often not well planned,
and that is facing a greater proportion of our increasing population
of elderly single people. Budget pressures are real, but this
assistance will have been assessed as needed in the past. Often it is
a 'turf war" between social services and health boards - with
increased demand and reduced budgets the users of services can get
forgotten.

I hope it gets sorted for this ladies, but it is sad that publicity -
often shallow and seldom followed up - is the only way of hetting
commonsense decisions made.

I have no problem with this old girl whatsoever. If she can manipulate the >system, get free housekeeping and continue to live independently then
good on her. My issue is with the media coverage. Shallow, emotive and >much more interested in beating up a story than in simply reporting the

There has been no suggestion that the lady has manipulated the system
at all - if anything it is your response that is shallow - and telling
that you accept manipulation of a system that is paid for by taxpayer
money - I would prefer that money is not wasted, but used in
accordance with policy to meet real needs.

I have just listened to the news at 2pm and the DHB has confirmed that
this is a policy change that may affect 1000 people (their estimate),
and that is is due to demand exceeding the budget now available.

This policy change will have been advised to the Minister under
National's strongly enforced "no surprises" policy, but as is becoming
well known there is a preference to make no public announcement of
reductions in services - they know that some of the time the
reductions wil not become widely known.

Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net dot nz> wrote: >>Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 00:31:09 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:19:41 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:33:43 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:

On Friday, 11 November 2016 11:02:58 UTC+13, Crash wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:42:25 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:

Sometimes governments and the agencies they fund have to make tough >>>>>>>>> >choices
Here's one - was it the correct decision?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/86324315/hospital-cuts-off-96yearold-woman-leaving-her-to-fend-for-herself

While it is a tough choice for Trixie, the fact is that she will no >>>>>>>>> longer receive help she has been given by the taxpayer in the past if >>>>>>>>> the decision by the DHB stands.

There is no mention of family and no mention of a move to assisted >>>>>>>>> living. The headline makes it clear the intent is to stir a political
issue rather than find a solution that involves moving house. There >>>>>>>>> may well be very good reasons why Trixie should be assisted to remain >>>>>>>>> where she is but the article mentions none of them - purely the >>>>>>>>> sentimental notion of 68 years in the same home.

And note the highly emotive language used by the "journalist". The home >>>>>>>>help
was "ripped" from her. What a crock of shit.

Many letters advising such changes are received with no notice - it >>>>>

I do not believe that, it is absurd to state such a thing when I know for >>>>>>a
fact that changes like this are made following a review of the needs of >>>>>>the
person by the DHB or other responsible body, that review is always in >>>>>>person.
How do I know this? I know someone who does those reviews and she is >>>>>>incensed
at this obvious beat up with less than the full facts and an intention to >>>>>>mislead. Like much of our journalism tiday this is just crap.
What the lady's needs are I don't know but she does have options that I am
aware of.

Yes she is entitled to appeal - that was in the article. She is also >>>>>entitled to do nothing, or to make private arrangements, or to move as >>>>>has been suggested. What other options are you aware of, Tony?

You said, and I quote "Many letters advising such changes are received with >>>>no
notice"
And I said "I do not believe that, it is absurd to state such a thing" >>>>Your answer to that is? Instead of changing the subject!!!!

Why is it absurd to say that letters are received without prior >>>consultation?

I have already told you, I jknow someone who does that work for that actual >>DHB, ACC and other prividers and she aalways sees the patient,
<rubbish snipped>

may be an accurate assessment of her feelings - presumably the >>>>>>>assistance was regarded as appropriate at one time - we do not know >>>>>>>what changed, but it appears not to be that the assistance is no >>>>>>>longer needed. Crash is right that we are not given full information, >>>>>>>but that does not stop the ignorant from forming firm conclusions does >>>>>>>it?

There are many people getting to the point of no longer being able to >>>>>>>>> care for themselves or (like me and my wife) can see we may be in that
situation in the not-too-distant future. You plan for this by moving >>>>>>>>> to an assisted-living facility when you are ready but before you >>>>>>>>> absolutely need to (if possible). While some balk at the idea of a >>>>>>>>> retirement home, when you have got to 96 this option is clearly >>>>>>>>> appropriate.

Yep. The state is not there to provide butlers and housekeepers. This >>>>>>>>poor
old dear has other options.

What makes you think anyone was being a butler or housekeeper? The >>>>>>>services being removed have been quite commonly provided - often to >>>>>>>workers who are paid only for time on the job, serving many people in >>>>>>>a single day, and only paid minimum wage. What we do not know is >>>>>>>whether the "poor old dear" as you condescendingly call her, does have >>>>>>>other options.

Yes we do, she can appeal and there is no mention of whether she has or >>>>>>not.
I feel for her but I know as much as you do about the case which is five >>>>>>eigths
of stuff all.

I obviously was not referring to the right of appeal which was very >>>>>clear in the article. We do not know if she can afford to employ >>>>>someone else, or to sell and move.

Yes but not acknowledged, indeed tacitly denied, in your post!

Not tacitly denied - but I note that you do not explain what "other >>>options" you were referring to . . .

Yes I have, an appeal, can you not read?

My wife's Aunt, who has never married, lived in her own home for over >>>>>>>>> 50 years. Her move to a Sumerset village was 15 years ago when she >>>>>>>>> could see a near-future of dependence on others - with closest family >>>>>>>>> all having passed away and therefore nearest relatives were nieces and
nephews. She wrenched herself into the village with no family >>>>>>>>> assistance (an indication of her staunch self-sufficient ethos), >>>>>>>>> experienced a huge improvement in her quality-of-life and regretted >>>>>>>>> the move for no longer than a few days. She is 4 years younger than >>>>>>>>> Trixie.

There is good money in running retirement homes / villages, and in >>>>>>Wrong again. There is good money in running "some" homes, there are others

that
struggle to break even and some that are run by trusts and make no profit >>>>>>at
all.

No it is not wrong - the biggest companies in the industry are making >>>>>good money. Saying that there is money to be made in any industry does >>>>>not say that all participants will make money. And yes some are >>>>>"non-profit" - I referred to one of those being the Horowhenua Masonic >>>>>Village, which ploughs any "profits" back into better services and >>>>>development. My statement is correct, there is money to be made, and >>>>>many participants are making good money. Think back to the finance >>>>>companies - many made good money until most went bust - leaving the >>>>>losses to customers rather than the directors and in most cases the >>>>>shareholders.

You did not allow for the fact that not all of these organisations make >>>>money;
an error by omission (not the first!).

Now you are being an idiot - yes you can pretend that a Trust does not >>>make a profit - in fact I suspect its accounts will show a profit -
teh difference from other successful retirement providers is that
there are no dividends - all profit is retained. I did not say that
all providers make a profit - that is your fiction - but there is
money to be made in the industry, even if some are going broke!. Being >>>pedantic does not change the reality of a largely succesful and
growing industry. I know of a dairy farm in the Wairarapa that went
broke - that does not mean that the dairy industry has not been
largely profitable over the last few years.

How silly, your words implied that all make good money and you did not qualify
that. As usual a losede statement that you are fond of.

Correction - A "loaded" or closed statement - a technique used by politicians, >some journalists and some idiots.

many cases they are a good option; but they are also not always >>>>>>>available near family and friends, and are often too expensive. I do >>>>>>>know that property prices are not as high in Levin as in other places, >>>>>>>and there are not always vacancies. I see that there is a Summerset >>>>>>>Village and a number of others including the Horowhenua Masonic >>>>>>>Village which has a good reputation - but we do not know if this lady >>>>>>>could afford a place. I hope she is getting assistance to make an >>>>>>>appeal, it is perhaps a shame that an assessment was not made and >>>>>>You don't know that an assessment was not made!!!!!

It has been clarified by the DHB that this was a policy decision based >>>>>on the type of service being provided. We do know that an assessment >>>>>was initially made to determine that the service was needed, it is

But you said "it is perhaps a shame that an assessment was not made", what >>>>is
your problem? Is it stupidty or is it something temporary?

An assessment would have been made prior to previous assistance being >>>given - do you dispute that? We don;t know how long ago the assistance >>>started, but we do know that it finished recently, and there was no >>>evidence of a re-assessment at that time. Do you have other evidence.
or are you being Pooh-like obtuse? The DHB says that the removal of
the service was a policy decision, affecting up to 1000 people,
implying that service removal was not because they had decided it was
no loinger needed; but that they could not afford it within their
current budget.

Wrong - see above an assessment in person is made before any change. Otherwise
it is impossible to make a proper decision.
<snipped idiocy>
Tony

Tony

JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, 11 November 2016 14:09:36 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 16:25:26 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, 11 November 2016 13:05:02 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:33:43 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>> >> wrote:

On Friday, 11 November 2016 11:02:58 UTC+13, Crash wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:42:25 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>> >> >> wrote:

Sometimes governments and the agencies they fund have to make tough >>> >> >> >choices
Here's one - was it the correct decision?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/86324315/hospital-cuts-off-96yearold-woman-leaving-her-to-fend-for-herself

While it is a tough choice for Trixie, the fact is that she will no >>> >> >> longer receive help she has been given by the taxpayer in the past if >>> >> >> the decision by the DHB stands.

There is no mention of family and no mention of a move to assisted >>> >> >> living. The headline makes it clear the intent is to stir a political
issue rather than find a solution that involves moving house. There >>> >> >> may well be very good reasons why Trixie should be assisted to remain >>> >> >> where she is but the article mentions none of them - purely the
sentimental notion of 68 years in the same home.

And note the highly emotive language used by the "journalist". The home >>> >> >help was "ripped" from her. What a crock of shit.

Many letters advising such changes are received with no notice - it
may be an accurate assessment of her feelings - presumably the
assistance was regarded as appropriate at one time - we do not know
what changed, but it appears not to be that the assistance is no
longer needed. Crash is right that we are not given full information, >>> >> but that does not stop the ignorant from forming firm conclusions does >>> >> it?

Didn't stop you, that much is clear.

There are many people getting to the point of no longer being able to >>> >> >> care for themselves or (like me and my wife) can see we may be in that
situation in the not-too-distant future. You plan for this by moving >>> >> >> to an assisted-living facility when you are ready but before you
absolutely need to (if possible). While some balk at the idea of a >>> >> >> retirement home, when you have got to 96 this option is clearly
appropriate.

Yep. The state is not there to provide butlers and housekeepers. This >>> >> >poor old dear has other options.

What makes you think anyone was being a butler or hosekeeper? The
services being removed have been quite commonly provided - often to
workers who are paid only for time on the job, serving many people in >>> >> a single day, and only paid minimum wage. What we do not know is
whether the "poor old dear" as you condescendingly call her, does have >>> >> other options.

She has the same options if not more as any of the thousands of other
elderly assistance-needy people in NZ. At 96 she appears to be unable to live
independantly so she can move into assisted care. The government doesn't need
to provide her with a housekeeper.

My wife's Aunt, who has never married, lived in her own home for over >>> >> >> 50 years. Her move to a Sumerset village was 15 years ago when she >>> >> >> could see a near-future of dependence on others - with closest family >>> >> >> all having passed away and therefore nearest relatives were nieces and
nephews. She wrenched herself into the village with no family
assistance (an indication of her staunch self-sufficient ethos),
experienced a huge improvement in her quality-of-life and regretted >>> >> >> the move for no longer than a few days. She is 4 years younger than >>> >> >> Trixie.

There is good money in running retirement homes / villages, and in
many cases they are a good option; but they are also not always
available near family and friends, and are often too expensive. I do

If she has family near then she definitely doesn't need government funded >>> >housekeeping.

know that property prices are not as high in Levin as in other places, >>> >> and there are not always vacancies. I see that there is a Summerset
Village and a number of others including the Horowhenua Masonic
Village which has a good reputation - but we do not know if this lady >>> >> could afford a place. I hope she is getting assistance to make an
appeal, it is perhaps a shame that an assessment was not made and
discussions held with her before a decision was made; she may need
help in making a move.

So Trixie, on the basis of that article you are long overdue to move >>> >> >> somewhere where the help you need is available as part of the
environment you live in and can never be withdrawn. The day you move >>> >> >> will be harrowing, but the environment you move to should help you to >>> >> >> get through and you will probably live to regret you waited so long to
make the move.

--
Crash McBash

Thanks Crash. A good summary of the human issues involved in what is
often a life-change that can be traumatic, is often not well planned, >>> >> and that is facing a greater proportion of our increasing population
of elderly single people. Budget pressures are real, but this
assistance will have been assessed as needed in the past. Often it is >>> >> a 'turf war" between social services and health boards - with
increased demand and reduced budgets the users of services can get
forgotten.

I hope it gets sorted for this ladies, but it is sad that publicity - >>> >> often shallow and seldom followed up - is the only way of hetting
commonsense decisions made.

I have no problem with this old girl whatsoever. If she can manipulate the >>> >system, get free housekeeping and continue to live independently then
good on her. My issue is with the media coverage. Shallow, emotive and
much more interested in beating up a story than in simply reporting the >>> >facts.

There has been no suggestion that the lady has manipulated the system
at all - if anything it is your response that is shallow - and telling
that you accept manipulation of a system that is paid for by taxpayer
money - I would prefer that money is not wasted, but used in
accordance with policy to meet real needs.

I have just listened to the news at 2pm and the DHB has confirmed that
this is a policy change that may affect 1000 people (their estimate),
and that is is due to demand exceeding the budget now available.

This policy change will have been advised to the Minister under
National's strongly enforced "no surprises" policy, but as is becoming
well known there is a preference to make no public announcement of
reductions in services - they know that some of the time the
reductions wil not become widely known.

And as it turns out this wpoman has a son. And he's more interested in moaning
than going and helping hs mum with some homework:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/86346327/son-appalled-after-his-96yearold-mother-is-cut-off-by-hospital

Just another lazy dipshit who thinks the government and taxpayer should be >>doing his duty for him.

As you and I and all reasonable people expected, there is more to this than a >stupid and incompetent bit of journalism.
And an appeal has been lodged, as it should be.

My wife and I have supported our parents when needed, we simply do not expect >others to do it.
Tony

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 00:31:09 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:19:41 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:33:43 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:

On Friday, 11 November 2016 11:02:58 UTC+13, Crash wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:42:25 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:

Sometimes governments and the agencies they fund have to make tough >>>>>>>> >choices
Here's one - was it the correct decision?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/86324315/hospital-cuts-off-96yearold-woman-leaving-her-to-fend-for-herself

While it is a tough choice for Trixie, the fact is that she will no >>>>>>>> longer receive help she has been given by the taxpayer in the past if >>>>>>>> the decision by the DHB stands.

There is no mention of family and no mention of a move to assisted >>>>>>>> living. The headline makes it clear the intent is to stir a political >>>>>>>> issue rather than find a solution that involves moving house. There >>>>>>>> may well be very good reasons why Trixie should be assisted to remain >>>>>>>> where she is but the article mentions none of them - purely the >>>>>>>> sentimental notion of 68 years in the same home.

And note the highly emotive language used by the "journalist". The home >>>>>>>help
was "ripped" from her. What a crock of shit.

Many letters advising such changes are received with no notice - it

I do not believe that, it is absurd to state such a thing when I know for a
fact that changes like this are made following a review of the needs of the
person by the DHB or other responsible body, that review is always in >>>>>person.
How do I know this? I know someone who does those reviews and she is >>>>>incensed
at this obvious beat up with less than the full facts and an intention to >>>>>mislead. Like much of our journalism tiday this is just crap.
What the lady's needs are I don't know but she does have options that I am >>>>>aware of.

Yes she is entitled to appeal - that was in the article. She is also >>>>entitled to do nothing, or to make private arrangements, or to move as >>>>has been suggested. What other options are you aware of, Tony?

You said, and I quote "Many letters advising such changes are received with >>>no
notice"
And I said "I do not believe that, it is absurd to state such a thing" >>>Your answer to that is? Instead of changing the subject!!!!

Why is it absurd to say that letters are received without prior >>consultation?

I have already told you, I jknow someone who does that work for that actual >DHB, ACC and other prividers and she aalways sees the patient,
<rubbish snipped>

may be an accurate assessment of her feelings - presumably the >>>>>>assistance was regarded as appropriate at one time - we do not know >>>>>>what changed, but it appears not to be that the assistance is no >>>>>>longer needed. Crash is right that we are not given full information, >>>>>>but that does not stop the ignorant from forming firm conclusions does >>>>>>it?

There are many people getting to the point of no longer being able to >>>>>>>> care for themselves or (like me and my wife) can see we may be in that >>>>>>>> situation in the not-too-distant future. You plan for this by moving >>>>>>>> to an assisted-living facility when you are ready but before you >>>>>>>> absolutely need to (if possible). While some balk at the idea of a >>>>>>>> retirement home, when you have got to 96 this option is clearly >>>>>>>> appropriate.

Yep. The state is not there to provide butlers and housekeepers. This >>>>>>>poor
old dear has other options.

What makes you think anyone was being a butler or housekeeper? The >>>>>>services being removed have been quite commonly provided - often to >>>>>>workers who are paid only for time on the job, serving many people in >>>>>>a single day, and only paid minimum wage. What we do not know is >>>>>>whether the "poor old dear" as you condescendingly call her, does have >>>>>>other options.

Yes we do, she can appeal and there is no mention of whether she has or not.
I feel for her but I know as much as you do about the case which is five >>>>>eigths
of stuff all.

I obviously was not referring to the right of appeal which was very >>>>clear in the article. We do not know if she can afford to employ >>>>someone else, or to sell and move.

Yes but not acknowledged, indeed tacitly denied, in your post!

Not tacitly denied - but I note that you do not explain what "other >>options" you were referring to . . .

Yes I have, an appeal, can you not read?

My wife's Aunt, who has never married, lived in her own home for over >>>>>>>> 50 years. Her move to a Sumerset village was 15 years ago when she >>>>>>>> could see a near-future of dependence on others - with closest family >>>>>>>> all having passed away and therefore nearest relatives were nieces and >>>>>>>> nephews. She wrenched herself into the village with no family >>>>>>>> assistance (an indication of her staunch self-sufficient ethos), >>>>>>>> experienced a huge improvement in her quality-of-life and regretted >>>>>>>> the move for no longer than a few days. She is 4 years younger than >>>>>>>> Trixie.

There is good money in running retirement homes / villages, and in >>>>>Wrong again. There is good money in running "some" homes, there are others >>>>>that

struggle to break even and some that are run by trusts and make no profit >>>>>at
all.

No it is not wrong - the biggest companies in the industry are making >>>>good money. Saying that there is money to be made in any industry does >>>>not say that all participants will make money. And yes some are >>>>"non-profit" - I referred to one of those being the Horowhenua Masonic >>>>Village, which ploughs any "profits" back into better services and >>>>development. My statement is correct, there is money to be made, and >>>>many participants are making good money. Think back to the finance >>>>companies - many made good money until most went bust - leaving the >>>>losses to customers rather than the directors and in most cases the >>>>shareholders.

You did not allow for the fact that not all of these organisations make >>>money;
an error by omission (not the first!).

Now you are being an idiot - yes you can pretend that a Trust does not
make a profit - in fact I suspect its accounts will show a profit -
teh difference from other successful retirement providers is that
there are no dividends - all profit is retained. I did not say that
all providers make a profit - that is your fiction - but there is
money to be made in the industry, even if some are going broke!. Being >>pedantic does not change the reality of a largely succesful and
growing industry. I know of a dairy farm in the Wairarapa that went
broke - that does not mean that the dairy industry has not been
largely profitable over the last few years.

How silly, your words implied that all make good money and you did not qualify >that. As usual a losede statement that you are fond of.

many cases they are a good option; but they are also not always >>>>>>available near family and friends, and are often too expensive. I do >>>>>>know that property prices are not as high in Levin as in other places, >>>>>>and there are not always vacancies. I see that there is a Summerset >>>>>>Village and a number of others including the Horowhenua Masonic >>>>>>Village which has a good reputation - but we do not know if this lady >>>>>>could afford a place. I hope she is getting assistance to make an >>>>>>appeal, it is perhaps a shame that an assessment was not made and >>>>>You don't know that an assessment was not made!!!!!

It has been clarified by the DHB that this was a policy decision based >>>>on the type of service being provided. We do know that an assessment >>>>was initially made to determine that the service was needed, it is

But you said "it is perhaps a shame that an assessment was not made", what is
your problem? Is it stupidty or is it something temporary?

An assessment would have been made prior to previous assistance being
given - do you dispute that? We don;t know how long ago the assistance >>started, but we do know that it finished recently, and there was no >>evidence of a re-assessment at that time. Do you have other evidence.
or are you being Pooh-like obtuse? The DHB says that the removal of
the service was a policy decision, affecting up to 1000 people,
implying that service removal was not because they had decided it was
no loinger needed; but that they could not afford it within their
current budget.

Wrong - see above an assessment in person is made before any change. Otherwise >it is impossible to make a proper decision.
<snipped idiocy>
Tony