Medical Card Scandal

I happened to have my first professional experience with a Form MC1 Form today or in English a Medical Card Application Form. As a tax head the following caught my eye that is outlined on the Form. You’ll have to bear with me if I get a bit technical for a little while but I’ll explain it all jargon free in a bit.

Who may apply? “Anyone who is ordinarily resident in Ireland can apply. Ordinarily Resident means that you have been living here for at least one year or intend to live here for at least one year”

Now that might sound fair enough, except that is not what ordinarily resident means. Ordinary Residence is defined by S820 of the Tax consolidation Act as

“For the purposes of this Act an individual shall be ordinarily resident in the State for a year of assessment if the Individual has been resident in the State for each of the 3 years of assessment preceding that year”

For the purpose of this article it is important to note that it takes three years to lose ordinary residence also- you have to be non resident for three years- this will become important.
Big difference. Since 1991 Millions if not Billions in the difference.

As the tax acts definition covers tax legislation and is to be confined to such I did a bit of research.

Medical card eligibility is covered by the Health Act 1970 as amended by the Health Act 1991.

It is the 1991 Act that introduced the concept of ordinary residence as a condition for a medical card. It is not definded but rather the Minister may issue guidelines

Guidelines on "Ordinarily resident in the State".
4.—The Act of 1970 is hereby amended by the insertion of the following section after section 47:
"47A. The Minister may issue guidelines to—
( a ) the chief executive officers of health boards, and
( b ) persons appointed or designated by him under section 47 (1),
to assist each of them in deciding whether or not a person is ordinarily resident in the State for the purposes of sections 45 and 46".

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/...tml#zza15y1991

In the HSE’s own guide to the Medical card application procedure it outlines what those guidelines issued were:

http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/Find_...guidelines.pdf

Following consultation between the Department of Health and the Health Areas, the Minister for
Health is, under Section 47A of the Health Act, 1970 (as amended by the Health (Amendment) Act, 1991) issuing the following guidelines on the interpretation of the criterion of ordinary residence.

The guidelines deal with the interpretation of ordinary residence under the following headings:
• nationals of non-EC countries;
• nationals of EC countries other than Ireland;
• Irish nationals who have been resident outside Ireland

References in the guidelines to “satisfying the Health Area” imply satisfying the Chief Executive
Officer or any officer to whom the function of determining eligibility for health services had been
delegated by the Chief Executive Officer. In all cases the Health Area is entitled to seek such
evidence as it may require in order to reach its decision.

1 Nationals of non-EC countries
1.1. An non-EC national should be regarded as “ordinarily resident” in Ireland if s/he satisfies the
Health Area that it is his/her intention to remain in Ireland for a minimum period of one year.
Examples of the evidence which may be sought in this context include

• proof of property purchase or rental, including evidence that the property in question is the
applicant’s principal residence;
• evidence of transfer of funds, bank accounts, pensions;
• Alien’s Registration Book (“Green Book”), residence permit as stamped on passport;
• work permits or visas, statements from employers etc;
• where necessary, the signing of the affidavit by the applicant

1.2. A non –EC national who is in Ireland as a student should be regarded as “ordinarily resident”
if s/he is attending a registered course of study of at least one academic year’s duration.
1.3. A dependant of a non-EC national must also satisfy that criterion of “ordinary residence” in
order to establish eligibility for health services here i.e. the fact that a non-EC national has
established his/her eligibility does not imply that non-resident dependants are also eligible.
1.4. A non-EC national may have established an entitlement to cover under EC regulations as a
result of residence or employment in an EC country. In such cases, the arrangements set out in
Paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2. apply.

2 Nationals of EC countries other than Ireland
2.1. Arrangements under EC regulations supercede the provisions of the Irish eligibility system is
respect of certain categories of nationals of other EC countries:
• social security pensioners of other EC countries who are not covered by an Irish social
welfare pension (as recipient of dependant), and who are not employed or self-employed
here, receive a Medical Card;
• persons resident here who are insured workers in the territory of another EC country receive
a Medical Card;

3 Irish Nationals who have been resident outside Ireland
3.1 Where an Irish national who returns to Ireland following residence in another EC country is
covered by any of the arrangements made under EC regulations, the same approach as that set out in Paragraph 2.1 should be taken.
3.2 Where and Irish national returns to Ireland and is not covered by any of the arrangements
made under EC regulations, s/he should be regarded as “ordinarily resident” here if s/he

• is employed or self-employed here; or
• satisfies the Health Area that it is his/her intention to remain in Ireland for a minimum period
of one year.
56
3.3 Where an Irish national is working abroad on a short-term contract but satisfies the Health
Area that it is not his/her intention to take up residence outside of Ireland on an indefinite basis, the status of “ordinarily resident” and eligibility for Irish health services may be retained. The Health Area may take account of the nature and duration of the contract as well as evidence such as the examples in Paragraph 1.1 in arriving at its decision.
Health Area is satisfied that the person did not establish an entitlement to health services in any other country, the Health Area should (if Paragraph 3.2 does not apply) regard the person as “ordinarily resident” in Ireland if s/he requires treatment on returning to Ireland. This guideline is intended to ensure, in particular, that persons who emigrate do not lose their health services eligibility on residence grounds before they have been able to establish eligibility elsewhere. It would not apply where a person is covered by EC Regulations and, in particular, it would not entitle a person temporarily resident in another EC country to have the Health Area extend the Form E111 beyond the normal period.

4 Persons deemed not to be “ordinarily resident”
4.1. Where a person is deemed not to be “ordinarily resident” in Ireland, and where none of the
other provisions set out above apply, the Health Area may either
- apply the full economic charge for any services provided;
Or - provide urgent necessary treatment at a reduced charge or without charge
(as deemed appropriate by the board) where application of the full economic charge
would cause undue hardship.

5 “Urgent necessary treatment”
5.1. The references to the provision of urgent necessary treatment free of charge to temporary
visitors from another EC country (Paragraph 2.1) and to persons deemed not to be “ordinarily
resident” here (Paragraph 4.1) do not cover
• non-urgent or elective treatment which can reasonably be postponed until the person’s return
to his/her own country;
• any case in which a person travels to Ireland for the specific purpose of obtaining treatment.
Department of Health
7 July 1992

What the hell was the Department of Health thinking. And how has this thinking (if you could call it that) been allowed to exist for almost 20 years. By incorporating the meaning of ordinary residence as it is outline by the tax acts this country could have saved billions in Medical expenditure on people that have turned up in Ireland, paid for a mickey mouse English course and allowed to have free medical treatment and then up sticks and went home. The department had to issue guidelines to cover Irish nationals that may have spent a year abroad and suddenly would not be entitled to medical treatment. Incorporating the tax legislation definition would guarantee them treatment for up to three years. There is provision in the Guidelines for urgent necessary treatment for those that need it free of charge. Why are we opening the door for those that do not require urgent medical treatment free of charge just because they are resident for part of the year? One year. Free medical card. This sort of thinking is the reason that A&E is overcrowded and we are propping up medical treatment for those that in my opinion should not be entitled to it and wasting millions in taxpayers money for those that have made little or no contributions to the Tax system to subsidise their treatment. It is nothing short of a scandal.

NAMA -Underpants Gnomes in Action

Flicking through the recent developments on NAMA one is reminded of South Park's underpants gnomes experience. These little fellows invaded South Park to collect underpants to their underground lair in the all encompasing task of raising a profit. The only caveat was how to get there. NAMA is leading the way to these industrious little fuckers and damned if they don't wear suits instead of pointy hats.

Here's is the underpants gnome logic as illustrated: Step one: collect underpants, Step two: ? Step three: PROFIT. Nice..............

Here is the NAMA business plan: Step one collect pants loans, Step two: ? Step three: PROFIT. Nice....................

Now here are the recent development with the banks, the proven financial whores and tinkers. NAMA as referred to in my previous posts did not even bother to audit the loan files before suggesting their billion euro purchase scheme and then, shock horror, were "flabbergasted" at the state of the loan files. The same bank, Anglo, that 8 days before they went into financial meltdown had the gall to make a presentation to the department of finance that they were in the best shape of their financial lives misrepresented the loan book- wow, who would have thunk it.

The newest unreported development is that the banks liquidated the majority of their performing "good" loans before they were transported to NAMA. Hense NAMA is mopping up the junk. The crap that is so toxic that even the underpants gnomes want no part in it and here's the fun bit. NAMA is applying a discount based on the long term vitality of these loans. The logic of the discount is simply this, "Okay Mr. Bank, some good, some bad, so we'll take them off your hands at a discount for the useless ones, cash in the good ones and we'll work out even. Cheers". The result of the banks flaking on transferring the performing loans means that we are giving a discount, albeit a higher one than envisioned on the basis that there are performing loans which no longer exist, and as any third class mathamatician would tell you, you can multipy zero by any number of years and it still is zero.

So what's the alternative. Well it's quite simply. Screw the premium, transfer the loans at their current net book value. NAMA will be lucky if they files don't catch fire on the way over. If there is any return, yipee for the taxpayer. Remember him, the dude that bailed Anglo out to the tune of 20 odd billion and rising. And while we are at it, why don't we just nationalise the bloody banks while we are at it. Every foreign bank has pulled out of the Irish market when they realised that the Irish government was propping up it's pet banks when they failed. The stock is worthless, AIB and BOI could be merged and the fact that they both have a premises in practically every provincial town leaves a lot of surplus premises that could conceivable be sold off. You don't need a firesale that would deflate the price, heck convert the buildings to apartments and stick social housing in there. Ah social housing. Remember that old trick. Times were that you needed to include 20% social housing in every new development but hey we don't want to be living next to poor people, those nurses and teachers and minions that earn less than 55K per year do we, so what did our lovely government do- allowed developers to literally buy their way out of these provisions by making financial contributions to the local authorities. What a wonderful way to avoid social responsibilities and have a convenient financial stream for bribes to be explained away, but that wouldn't happen now would it...........................

Israel Scuttles International Sympathy

Okay, lets start with the facts. On Monday the Israeli military used commandos to storm a floatilla in International waters that was carrying aid and supplies to the Gaza strip. The aid would seem to have consisted of 10,000 tonnes of concrete, glass and other building supplies that were destined to help rebuild Gaza after the numerous Israeli offensives into the strip that had reduced large parts of it to rubble. A lot of this rubble was caused by Israels use of cluster bombs and white phosphorous weaponry on an enclosed civilian population. The other half was caused by the sheer poverty that exists in the strip as any transfers of funds into the strip are illegal and Gazans cannot cross the borders for work.

The floatilla was surrounded by Israeli navy ships and was boarded from the sea and from the air. What happened next is of contention. The Israeli military claims it was fired on first and returned fire and yet MK Hanin Zouabi (Balad) a member of the Israeli parliament claims the protesters were unarmed. In any case, when the smoke had cleared nine of the activists were dead and another twenty five injured for the loss of, no Israeli dead and five lightly wounded. 

The UN went into closed session with four of the permanent security council members wanting to order international sanctions and the US opposed. 

The scramble by both sides to drum up the propoganda machine has started early. Israel claims that it's soilders were only armed with paint ball guns and pistols. 

Here is a quick you tube video that would paint that to be a lie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR2GQQBGTlY

According to this first hand report they were being hit by grenades, tear gas and live ammunition in International waters and completely illegally. Israel was operating outside it's jurisdiction. 

There is no avoiding the heavy bullshit that has come down in the last 24 hours. I have read some interesting logic and arguments that seek to paint the innocent civilians killed as some sort of trouble making rebel rousing terrorists, but in short, for me personally there is no way for Israel to justify the murder, and it is murder of unarmed civilians in international waters. Of course Israel has been murdering civilians for quite some time and it's excuse has been that there is no way to identify Hamas from the civilian territory in which it operates. In it's defense Hamas is pretty adept at murdering Israeli civilians too. However it is quite one thing to employ that flawed logic as some sort of justification to drop high tech weapons banned under international laws to be used on civilians and quite another to storm an unarmed ship carrying innoculous cargo and murder multi ethnic hippies. Israel has isolated a people, bombed them, burned them, murdered them and when an international group tries to bring some aid in it receives the same treatment. Well, it's clear the world doesn't give a perverbial about the Gazans lives, it has shown that in the past the question is does Israel's disregard for ours be allowed fly too and here's the thing, do we value our own lives more than theirs and what kind of hypocrites does it make us if we do.........

Lies, lies and damn statistics.

The minimum wage has become a division point in Ireland's current economic crisis. A statutory beating stick say employers and a threshold of poverty say it's supporters below which we dare not risk a race to the bottom.

The governments move this week to allow an “inability to pay” provision to be extended to employers in the agriculture, retail, catering and hotel and retail sectors which are currently under Registered Employment Agreements (REAs) is sure to place this issue under the scrutiny of public opinion. A Registered Employment Agreement is where representative groups of employers in certain industries have sat down with Unions and agreed a minimum threshold for that Industry. The respective employers are then bound by this agreement and cannot pay below it. In every case the REA thresholds are above the minimum wage and constitute an increased minimum wage.

Having a quick look at the facts: the current minimum wage is €8.65. If employers are unable to pay this amount due to financial difficulties they can apply to the Labour court to pay below this amount in certain circumstances. The court will examine the employer's finances and will in certain cases grant an exemption from the minimum wage for up to 12 months. This weeks move by the government has extended this procedure to employers that were previously paying a rate higher than the minimum wage because of REA's. Effectively then it allows employers in financial difficulty to pare back salaries to the statutory minimum of €8.65. The logic from the governments perspective is simple. If an employer cannot afford to pay €9.25 an hour and has to leave staff go then perhaps jobs will be saved or created by allowing this reduction to take place where employers are under pressure. Previously there was no mechanism for employers to pay below the REA agreements and persons would presumably lose their jobs.

As to the minimum wage itself this is before the Labour Court for review and the Minister has promised not to move on it until they have presented their report on it. For those that are curious it's been there since November 2008.

Before entering the debate on the minimum wage and various Chicken Lickens start rolling out of their pens and come exclaiming that the skies are falling down I thought I'd try to examine objectively the facts and figures that are being bandied around on both sides. There are two basic economic trenches to examine here. The price of goods and the facts about unemployment rates in Kerry.

According to the live register there were 7,930 persons out of work in Kerry in January 2008. Of this 1,380 were under 25 and 6,550 were over 25.

By December 2008 this figure had risen to 12,364 persons unemployed. Of this 2,285 were under 25 and 10,079 over 25.

In the most recent figures available for December 2009 the jump of unemployed in Kerry was to 15,923. Of those 2,880 were under 25 and those over 25 was 13,043. The under 25 figure peak in August 2009 at 3,310. The reduction to December was presumably due to emigration. For the over 25s the peak is December 2009. In short in 24 months the numbers out of work in Kerry has almost doubled. Whilst people can debate the causes of the increased unemployment the trend is alarming.

Of consideration also is the recently released Consumer Price Index released by the Central Statistics Office in December 2009. The figure that has been picked up in the National Media and its discussions is the overall price fall of 5.0% in the year to December 2009. Drilling down into the figures themselves makes interesting reading however. Mortgage interest repayments decreased on average by 40.0% in 2009. As a result while prices on average fell by 4.5% in 2009 the consumer price index excluding mortgage interest decreased by only 1.2%

The following recorded decreases in price in 2009:

Food and non alcoholic beverages purchased in supermarkets, small shops and petrol stations were down 3.5%.

Clothing and footwear which includes not just retail but laundry, dry cleaning shoe repair and dress alterations were down 11.7%.

Housing, Water, Electricity, Gas and other fuels were down 22%. This includes rents (down 14% with private rents falling in excess of 17.4%) mortgage interest repayments (down 40%) waste collection and disposal charges, goods and services in relation to dwellings and domestic energy products. (while the price of electricity and gas rose marginally the cost of home heating oil fell by 32.4% in 2009)

Transport which includes the purchase of new and second hand vehicles, spare parts, car maintenance, public transport and services such as parking, car washes, toll charges, driving tests, licences and car hire was down 4%.

Household furnishings and equipment was down 3.1%. This includes furniture, carpets, textiles and soft furnishings. Household electrical appliances and other household items.

Recreation and Culture was down 0.3%. This includes all services connected with recreation and culture and includes music and DVDs, games and toys, sports and recreational goods, gardening items, sports and cultural activites, newspapers, package holidays and other items connected with recreation and leisure.

Restaurants and Hotels actually recorded no change in the entire year 2009 but prices were down 0.4% in December 2009 in isolation. This includes meals in restaurants and hotels, fast good takeaways, cafes, canteens, alcohol on licenced premises and accomodation services.

Conversely the following recorded increases in prices in 2009:

Alcohol products and tobacco were up 6.3% on alcohol purchased in off licences and supermarkets but excludes alcohol in licenced premises which are under Restaurants and Hotels. Changes in tax have to be borne in mind.

Health costs were up 3.5%. This includes medical products, appliances and equipment, hospital charges and outpatient services supplied by doctors, dentists, opticians and practitioners of alternative medicine.

Education was up 6.4%. This included primary, secondary and third level and other training such as night courses and play schools and examination fees. A factor in this is the increase in student registration fees at third level.

Communications was up marginally by 0.5% which included post and telecommunications.

Miscellaneous Goods and Services were up by 7.6%. This remaining category covers a wide range of items including hairdressing and other grooming, goods for hygiene, hair and body care, personal items such as jewellery, handbags and wallets, childcare and other social protection services, insurance and financial services and other services including funerals, weddings, legal and professional services.

Now it's all well and good to examine prices in isolation but one has to bear in mind the realities of the situation. Just because prices have increased or decreased speaks nothing of volume or turnover. While detractors may point to the cost of a haircut going up the average hairdresser may point to the number of customers walking in the door. There is no central register for that. The closest thing we have is the level of tax take and employment figures which is reflective of the economic activity as a whole and the tax take has taken a nose dive in every sector. Income tax and VAT takes have evaporated over the last 24 months and the government is borrowing billions to keep the country afloat. So too as we have seen unemployment in Kerry has almost doubled in the last 24 months.

In short the issue of the minimum wage is a complex one, both moral and economic. To take a distorted average price figure and use it as justification to slash social welfare, which has happened, and minimum wage is far too simplistic an approach and does not reflect the realities of the situation. To lean on employers who have seen huge drops in turnover to pay a minimum wage they cannot afford leads to redundancies. The question therefore becomes, does reducing the burden of minimum wage and social welfare in conjunction with the governments plan of reducing the public sector paybill lead to controlled deflation? Only time will tell but there are no easy answers to this recession. Only hard questions. If they are not answered soon we may soon see another “stabilisation of the live register” as Ireland youngest and brightest proliferation abroad turn the trickle into a flood that washes away the immediate future of the country.

NAMA- The Greatest Scandal in the History of the State.

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/nama-...es-103385.html

NAMA team still haven’t seen €77bn loan files
By Mary Regan Political Reporter
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2009

THE Government has still not seen the records or books of up to €77 billion worth of development loans that it will soon take over from the country’s banks.


Just weeks before the National Assets Management Agency (NAMA) is passed into law, the Department of Finance has admitted that its plans are based on "aggregate data which has been provided by the institutions".

The department has not been able to "verify the integrity of the data" because "the NAMA team has not had direct access to individual transaction records and loan files".

The statement was made in the draft NAMA Business Plan published last night, which said that €15bn of loans taken over by the state will not be paid back by property developers.

The document said at least 20% of the loan sums owed to NAMA will default.

"Of the €77bn nominal value of loans acquired, €62bn will be repaid by borrowers and loan defaults or debt restructuring will occur on €15bn," it stated, adding these were "conservative and prudent assumptions".

Finance Minister Brian Lenihan told the Dáil the figures in the report "are liable to be adjusted further as the detailed analysis and due diligence is carried out".

The plan projected that by the time the NAMA plan is completed by 2020 and loans with interest are repaid, it will have made a profit of €4.8bn.

However, Fine Gael’s finance spokesman Richard Bruton said "the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny and the Loch Ness Monster are all more credible propositions" than the figures that have been given in the business plan.

He said: "There is no analysis and no depth of information on how the rather extraordinary assumptions were arrived at."

The NAMA Bill last night survived its first vote in the Dáil.

The bill was approved by 77 to 73 on a second stage vote.

The business plan is expected to be passed into law by early November and the top 10 to 15 loans – which are worth a total of €16bn – will be transferred by the end of the year.

This means that "Christmas will come early for the top developers and bankers", according to Labour’s finance spokes-woman Joan Burton.

But Mr Lenihan said: "NAMA is not designed to be and will not be permitted to operate in practice as a bail-out mechanism for developers who have operated irresponsibly".

The Government hopes to have dealt with the top 32 loans – worth €24bn – by January, and the top 100 – worth €38bn – by February.

This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Thursday, October 15, 2009

Okay boys and girls, lets put this in perspective. I want to buy a horse from a traveller at a fair. Instead of going to said fair and having a look at the horse I decide to give the traveller a ring on the phone. What's the horse like I ask, "Ah, sure she's great boss, worth a grand at least". "Okay, I reply, I'll give you 1,200 for the horse as I'm sure in the long term I'll get a great return out of her, heck I may even run her at the grand national if she's as good as you say"

Can anyone see the problem with this scenario. The government has priced the loan books of the banks and made on offer AND THEY DIDN"T EVEN AUDIT THE FECKING FILES, not even audit them but they still haven't even looked at them. What in the name of good god is going on. We are about to saddle our children with debt they cannot even fathom. We are about to pilfer their communion money, smash open their piggy banks and hand it in ernest to the bankers who drove this property bubble into the skies and then into the gound. The opposition only got their hands on this info last night in the Dail and are demanding rightly an unbiased audit of the loan books. Will it happen- God knows, but if it doesn't you may find that we are crystalising a level of debt that has no hope of return. And what are we getting for this investment? A stern warning from Brian Lenihan that the banks have a national duty to get the money rolling out to small businesses again but no concessions, no guarantees and no incentives. Why would they bother. Heck the banks can shut up shop and demand blood samples for a loan from now on if they want.

I am beyond shocked. I am beyond angry. They is no word in the English language that encapsulates the level of stupidity this government is showing. The closest analogy I can draw is a drunk wandering into a casino and betting his everything he owns or will ever own on the roulette wheel on zero and hoping blindly and frantically that the ball will somehow magically land there.

Ask the bookies for odds on that one.

The Shhhhhhhhhhh Word.

There is a word that, historically, is not discussed in the media. Its stigma is an ancient one. You can curse to your hearts content after the watershed but you'll never get this past the censors. The word is suicide. I heard reported on the radio on newstalk when I was driving today that there are more deaths in Ireland from suicide than fatalities on the road. That shocked me. Ireland, with it's gum ball rally roads that were sneezed onto an undulating landscape. A country where our politicians say a few drinks are grand and “ah, sure nothing wrong with it with getting into the car to drive home.” A country where you can fail your driving test with no driving experience, be certified dangerous on the road and then get in your car and drive home? This faraway land has more people killing themselves that the perverse concrete lottery scythes down? Wow.

I had to dig out some statistics. Here's a study done by Paul Corcoran and Ellen Arensman. Kudos. Yoink. 

http://www.nosp.ie/mortality_statistics.pdf

The Results showed that the number of suicides in Ireland doubled between 1987 and 1998. They appear to level off between 1998 and 2003 and per the Irish Association of Suicidology (yes, they exist) they seem to have stayed at this plateau. Their stats are here:

http://www.ias.ie/stats.htm

The statistics scared the shit out of me. For example there is a column for 5-14 year olds. As a father that column really scares me. 

Suicide is one of those weird things that we as mortal beings have to get our perverbial heads around. Whether we like to admit it or not we've all flirted with the idea. Don't believe me? Have a discussion over the water cooler with your mates on how they would like to die. Everyone has an opinion. Some are drowners, some are going to “in my sleep”, others, like myself, are the massive coronary heart attack thank you very much. We cannot go on burying our heads in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist. It's a human condition but suicide carries with it an enormous stigma. They cheated. 

The thing about suicide is there is no point trying to rationalise it. It's not rational. It's generally impulsive and its finality is probably not grasped by those that undertake it. It's perceived effects are the full myriad or human emotions. We see copycat suicides presumably by those that seek attention. Suicides that seek to hurt others but mostly suicide is undertaken by those that want a way out. The ultimate Zanax to make the pain go away. Fuck this, I'm outta here. But the thing is, when you're dead you're not coming back and all the supposed hurt and attention you were seeking to escape it's no longer yours. It's passed onto those that are left picking up the pieces and trying, and sometimes failing to emotionally glue them together again. 

When I started this article I thought I was in the red zone. The high risk 20-30 male, and all the intangible pressures that supposedly go with it but digging out the stats I'm only marginally at risk than the little old lady down the street. This affects all of us and shiney coloured pie charts don't dimish the real pain of said little old ladys kids when Mommy tops off after popping off to Bingo.

Suicide exists. It's been here for as long as humans developed self awareness. Putting our fingers in our ears won't make it go away. A culture of don't ask, don't tell is no longer acceptable. It needs to be addressed. It needs to be taken out of the veil of secrecy and mysticism. We need to talk about death and not glorify it. I mean, this is the week Republicans are celebrating the suicide of ten political prisoners who starved themselves to death. Is this the image we want to impart on vulnerable people of suicide? When we do not have public debate on the issues we do not have a balanced and educated view to form an opinion on. The study above was remarkable for two things that seem to have been lost on the authors. I'll quote

“Either-way decriminalization would be presumed to lead to an increase in suicide whereas the reported number of suicide deaths that occurred in 1993 was actually 10% lower than in 1992 a rare decrease”

What the authors didn't seem to appreciate is that the decriminisation of suicide brought it into the remit of public debate. People talked openly about it. The families of suicide victims spoke openly of the stigma and pain and suffering and whole hearted trauma of it all and 10% listened and thought better and then instead of learning from the experience we all went back to pretending again. 

The second point the authors missed, and this is obvious, is their own bigotry. Decriminisation would be presumed to lead to an increase? Are you mental? Oh, yipee I can kill myself and not go to jail. What? Do you think someone about to commit suicide gives a fiddlers fuck about the legal consequences of death. Sure, sue me. There is an inherent misunderstanding right there of the very nature of suicide and this from the authors of a study on same. It makes me wonder. 

And because I'm an unqualified half-wit who obviously doesn't know what he's talking about I'll reproduce the myths of suicide from the IAS webpage. Take care out there.

http://www.ias.ie/myths.htm

Myths About Suicide

Those who talk about suicide are the least likely to attempt it - NOT TRUE. About 80% of those who take their own lives will have talked about it to some significant other in the few months before hand. If someone is going to complete suicide they are going to do it and there is nothing you can do about it – NOT TRUE. The majority of those who take their own lives are ambivalent about doing so until the end. Most people who complete suicide do not want to die they just want to end their pain.  You can get a good idea how serious someone is about a suicide attempt by looking at the method used – NOT TRUE. Most people have little awareness of the lethality of what they are doing. The seriousness of the attempt is not necessarily related to the seriousness of the intent. If someone has a history of making cries for help then they won't do it for real - NOT TRUE. The group of people at highest risk for suicide is those who have attempted it in the previous year. Only the clinically depressed make serious suicide attempts - NOT TRUE People are also at risk suffering from other forms of psychiatric illness and emotional distress. Those with personality disorders attempt suicide to manipulate others - a commonly held belief. Many a patient is alienated and an ideal opportunity for therapeutic intervention missed because of the reception they receive in some emergency departments. If someone is going to commit suicide they will not tell anyone of their intentions and prepare well in advance - NOT TRUE. Many suicides are completed on impulse. Talking about suicide encourages it - NOT TRUE. Raising the issue of suicide with those who are depressed or distressed may open the door to therapeutic intervention. Suicide can be a blessed relief no just for the individual but those surrounding him or her - NOT TRUE. Bereavement by suicide is a very heavy cross to bear; those bereaved by suicide have special needs and need support. Bereavement by suicide is itself a risk factor for suicide.

Soccer Dictatorships- a New reign of Terror

Soccer Dictatorships- a new reign of terror?

We all remember staying up till 3 am with school the next day, hollow eyed addicts to a premiership manager game. “Just one more game”, we would cry, playing God in the transfer market and assembling a team that won the champions league final for some reckless underdog in a matter of 6 electronic seasons. For me it was Championship Manager 97 and I went all the way with Peterborough, dragging them from the pit of near extinction to Champions League glory.

This was all well and good in the electronic version with one omnipotent being but suddenly the premiership has turned into a playground for the rich and mysterious. Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man city have all fallen under the financial axe and been resurrected as playthings for characters as diverse as the owners of Monty Burns nuclear softball league. Arsenal plough a lonely furrow as the only one of the big 4 not under the iron thumb of a rich owner, but for how long? Salary caps and a fantastic manager and scouting network have helped them maintain their position but what happens when the genius of Arsene Wenger has moved on. This trend led to Portsmouth to issue the nonsensical press statement over the weekend that the club was “not for sale”, but they would talk to prospectors looking to mine it, “at the right price”. It doesn’t take an oxymoron to know that the directors have raised the white flag and are waiting for the Allies to come and rescue them.

Rather than go into the characters of the new owners and their tastes and favourite colours, their other playthings and their motives which has been examined in every tabloid in England since this whole football experiment started I’d like to see where this rabbit hole goes and you’ll bear with me while Alice tumbles.

The ridiculous spending in the premiership means that a Scottish goalkeeper- albeit a good one commands a £12 million fee a newly promoted side, of course this is Gordon in Sunderland. The following season they attempt buy over a third of Tottenham’s starting line up. Where did the cash come from? Were hotdogs suddenly £50 in the North? Why weren’t Newcastle made aware of this unique inflation? The answer we learn is that Niall Quinn and his silent consortium have a “sugar daddy” in the background dispensing sweets like a UK version of Paz who is coughing up this money no questions asked. Naturally these owners are looking to improve the standing of the clubs, to earn riches at the biggest sweetshop of the lot- The Champions League. Make no mistake Benetiz’s head was on the block if Liverpool and Kuyt hadn’t smashed in the winner with extra time ticking perilously and Reina getting ready to saddle up Silver to perform another Lone ranger miracle for the pool. 

But what happens when you have a premiership of 5, 10, 15 obscenely wealthy owners wriggling like eels in the Jacuzzi and all dropping pennies in the slot machine. What happens when the effects of all this money is cancelled out? Suddenly the soccer superstars have an option. Robinho goes to Man City, how much would you have gotten in Boylesports on that one last season? Or will they start outbidding each other for the worlds top talent ala Ronaldo and the £300,000 a week rumours with the agents and players delirious and rich and assured of a death by gout.

Will money eventually cease to matter and we go back to coaching and other methods to get ahead? 

There are a number of theories on this. Firstly, common sense will dictate that whoever has the most money can afford the top players and managers. However, the echelon of both these professions is a narrow pyramid. Once you have committed to a top manager you have committed to his vision at a club, which means his players which may not always be mutually exclusive. As Chelsea learned with the Shevchenko you cannot just start buying up players because you used have their poster on your palace as a child, you have to have a well balanced team. The Glaziers subscribed to this idea early and let Alex run his show. A double over Chelsea in the league and Champions league final has shown this to be a pragmatic and sensible decision. You cannot just “buy success” unless what you buy is the tool mason of a manager to do it. It’s like the old adage, money doesn’t buy you happiness, but it helps. It is no surprise that Mourinho’s departure took the title success with him. Hughes is a top manager for the premiership, but not yet world class and it’ll be interesting to see what develops of Man City and who he brings in January. I’d expect to see some quality defenders for a start.

Regardless of the manager, if you have far superior players you will win 98 times out of a hundred (the 2% is what makes sport great). The rolling out of the reserves as started by Ferguson has devalued the Carling/FA cup sure but Arsenal’s reserves nearly went the whole way. Try telling them that their victories were lessened against teams in the old fourth divisions that would knife their grannies for TV appearance money that may be the difference between their next buy, hopeful promotion or the abyss of relegation. 

Secondly the players are finite. There are not enough Ronaldo’s or Lampards to fill ten teams. This makes the scramble all the more interesting. I do expect to see bidding wars but there are other considerations. This is not fantasy football where players come willingly and not all players are mercenaries. Some players are attracted to clubs because they love them. For cultural reasons Barcelona and Real Madrid are dreams of many the Latin American or Portuguese and Spanish youngster. So too AC and Inter, Juventus and Roma stick in the heart for the Italians. No amount of money could prise these happy players away from their spiritual football homes and what’s the difference between £100,000 and £200,000 to the young who think that these days will last forever and the money will never dry up. Sure they might start getting old and will sell their reputation and name to an English club but will they sell their passion and hearts. How many Anelka’s do you want in your team? If they are not inspired how can they inspire in their football? When it just becomes another job for money, albeit monopoly money will they still pass go? Deco could fit in this category but I think Scolari had a lot to do with his move, though I’m sure the money helped.

If you build it, most will come, but not all and I haven’t even mentioned the weather!

The third consideration is the money itself. These investors did not start buying up these teams to catch a seat with a decent view or a nice spot to have a cocktail party. These clubs are businesses. For successful astute businessmen every venture is a business decision. Sure they can pawn it off as an emotional purchase to the fans who are mired in the mystery of their own club like a man who loves his wife and doesn’t care when she’s let herself go. There may not be enough carcasses for all the vultures though television money ensures that they will circle the carcasses long enough to find out. If money starts to negate money will the super rich look for other more equitable interests? Funnily enough with a recession looming a football club is an astute buy. People will always look to sport in times of economic strife, remember the 80’s? Also the sheer wealth of some of the new owners ensures they could afford if the clubs become money oubliette but not perhaps for Sunderland’s sugar daddy or Hicks and Gillete who must surely be walking the streets of New York in fishnets trying to whore Liverpool at this stage with all their cash tied up in now defunct US investments.

The last consideration is the equivalent of football socialism. The commoners revolt. Like the old Russians who overthrew the Czar before their decedents became one and bought Chelsea, and the French revolution no-one in England has modelled their club on the continental version of fans as the owners. Liverpool’s supporters are now trying desperately to emulate the model but the amount of cash they need to raise to overthrow Napoleon and the rest of the pigs in the farmhouse is absolutely obscene and far beyond the realm of the common farm animal, who generally has no pockets. The Barcelona and Real Madrid supporters got in before the boom and it might take a bust in Liverpool before they can stride through the wreckage but somehow I think the vultures will get their first. The European clubs liked to brag that this model was represented at each of the last ten Champions League finals. Well that argument is dead now with Chelsea and Manchester United contesting last years final

Where they may win the debate is that the fans aren’t going to pull the plug. What happens when Abramovich decides to walk away. Financial melt down and receivership is what. Sort of like what David O Leary did at Leeds, only 100 million or so times worse.

So where to from here? Thankfully nobody knows. Chelsea’s balance sheet shows that the seed capital needed to push a club into the realm of champions is immense pushing the club into the red but this itself will not guarantee success. Will this act as a deterrent to further takeovers? It doesn’t seem to matter. The hoard of Russian Mafioso on the stands of the Champions League final in Chelsea shirts means that Russia has adopted a new club. The revenue Chelsea generated in selling football shirts in eastern Europe with a quintessential eastern European celebrity, Shevchenko on the back of them probably made up financially for his football flop in the premiership. Not since Beckham fanatics in the Far East licking his toilet bowls have we seen a model for flogging merchandise so effectively. Real Madrid became the richest club in the world when they bought footballs most over-rated player almost overnight from shirt sales in the Orient. How long before an Indian or Chinese tycoon decides those markets are ripe to start buying football kits of their newly nationalised premiership team?  

We have entered a new golden age. Football has always been about tycoons and money, maybe it’s gone back to its roots.