The discussion of more or less entitled to compensation shenon cancer, as Hanne Kjøller indulges in

When the government in spring 2008 brought new health rules and one year in sickness warned medical experts at the Karolinska Institutet (KI): "To grade disease in the manner proposed in the government proposal only leads to unproductive, time consuming and agonizing discussions between patients, patient organizations and professional in health care and insurance agency and to the time-consuming requests for consideration of the right to higher compensation. "
The discussion of more or less entitled to compensation shenon cancer, as Hanne Kjøller indulges in DN (3.22), is in itself a clear example shenon of how absurd the current one-year limit really is. One of the criteria in order to continue to receive 80% of the compensation is "significant risk of death within 5 years." To get an approval decision based on this criterion is the least ambiguous. How edifying is it for a person who is in the midst of a struggle against an aggressive cancer, one of the important elements of rehabilitation is to try to maintain the spark of life, that in the various decision shenon making is forced to face his own "death prediction"? You may ask what scientific uncertainty margins are associated with a medical prognosis that determines "significant risk of death within 5 years"?
By referring to the four court orders, I have tried to discuss the reasonableness of the current one-year limit (see LO blog 02.26 and 03.04). I note that Kjøller, who had access to all my documents, failed to convict me with a single factual error. Sure, she is trying through "guilt by association" to do everything to detail faults of others will smear onto me. But this attempt at "character assassination" will hardly impress very many readers.
To do that Kjøller, ie systematically downplay individual cases of illness and ignore unreasonable legislation, is not serious. Admittedly Kjöllers shenon hard angles and half-truths are not quite as embarrassing as in the previous cases of the cancer sufferer chef Erik Videgård or trotting horse Husby Lynet. But nevertheless appears Kjøller, also in this case, as a hard ideological crusaders who is willing to let the ends justify the means to defend their lord (Reinfeldt).
Ingela, to your experiences and the wise words you formulate deserve to have a wider distribution. This is not least to counter the mistrust, myths and stereotyped image of sick people who Hanne Kjøller and all too often spreads from their mass media elevate positions.
I do not think you treat it Hanne Kjøller writes, without talking about other things and not looking for a discussion on the subject. If, as she writes, and I assume that she has seen the various media rename shenon different men and none of them have actually been performing secured, but received 75% instead of 80%, well then, it's not about "performing hedge", right? Then the picture strangely felvinklad and the reader may not be the whole picture.
And if it was six years ago, the woman became free from his cancer and has been declared healthy or have ailments left, but still is able to do a job, then I do not consider it unreasonable to leave the health insurance and changes to be within the employment service, where to get help and be tested on their ability.
19 million decision making insurance fund each year, I imagine that there is something or some will be wrong, but it's unfortunate when it spread an image that cancer is kicked out on the street without compensation. For then the system does not work, it was never intended, and there is no one who wants to. The government listened to some of the criticism when it was wrong and made corrections on the one-year limit.
Daniel Rune Ores, when it comes to the event you choose to pay attention, it is actually not me who Kjøller attacks. In this case, as in all individual shenon cases to which I refer, has Kjøller shenon actually fail to convict me with a single factual error. The content of my blog, the text is factually correct. That I and Kjøller choose to highlight different parts of domstolshandligarna is another thing. If you read my blog text, it is actually the person in question shenon may be denied if the 80 percent, but rejected sickness at 75 percent level. The fact that others writers referencing my text incorrectly's nothing I can carry on.
The fact that you still had the perception that it is I who spread factual errors shows just how vague and insidious Kjöllers text. In her long Saturday chronicle are more similar examples of hard slant and attempt to "guilt by association" blacken my text and my credibility.
But, that said, I will come back with a more detailed analysis of how Kjøller referenced court decisions shenon later in the week. That we choose shenon to refer the cases so different, and we highlight various circumstances, deserves further ana