Search

Martin Ågerup wrote that his post about beef in Copenhagen nursing homes had led to media attention, and that Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen had criticized that the elderly were denied the meat they wanted. According to him, Mayor Sisse Marie Welling (SF) and the Radical Left's Jakob Skyggebjerg believed that the municipality's food strategy had been misunderstood and that the kitchens decided for themselves. They explained that denied birthday wishes for beef were due to misunderstandings, he wrote. Ågerup referred to municipal documents which, according to him, showed that the kitchens were guided by the food strategy's guidelines. The elderly should have a maximum of 80 grams of beef, veal, and lamb per week, he wrote: in the warm meal, no more than once a week, averaging 75 grams, and as cold cuts, one slice every other week. He also wrote that the municipality had a consulting agreement worth 7.8 million kroner per year, among other things, to help the kitchens meet climate goals, and that a draft of the upcoming strategy suggested closer follow-up on the guidelines. According to Ågerup, it was not surprising that kitchen staff reported that residents' birthday wishes for beef were rejected in several places due to considerations for the CO₂ balance. He wrote that the examples were on page 34 of a report the municipality itself had commissioned, and criticized Skyggebjerg for demanding documentation from the Taxpayers. Ågerup believed it was shirking political responsibility to blame the staff. He wrote that Welling and Skyggebjerg assured that the elderly's nutrition and wishes weighed heavier than climate considerations. However, on August 20, according to him, SF, the Red-Green Alliance, and the Radicals voted against recommending that the elderly sector be exempted from the upcoming strategy. The proposal was put forward by the Conservatives, the Liberal Alliance, the Danish People's Party, and the Social Democrats. At the same meeting, the administration suggested, according to Ågerup, that the committee's consultation response should state that the elderly's nutritional needs, individual wishes, and freedom of choice always took precedence over climate, ecology, and food waste. He wrote that SF, the Red-Green Alliance, and the Radicals removed both the phrasing about individual wishes and freedom of choice and the text stating that the elderly's needs always took precedence over the strategy's other goals. Ågerup questioned why the guarantee had been removed if the elderly's wishes came first, and urged the red majority either to stand by the consequences of the strategy or exempt elderly care from it. He wrote that the Taxpayers recommended an exemption. The nursing home was the elderly's home, he emphasized, and the residents paid rent as well as 145 kroner a day for food, over 4,400 kroner a month. Therefore, he believed they should decide what was on their plate. #ældrepleje #madpolitik #oksekød (translated)

Martin Ågerup wrote that an analysis commissioned by the City of Copenhagen described how kitchen staff at several nursing homes rejected residents' requests for beef on their birthdays due to the municipality's CO₂ accounts. He used the story of the 95-year-old Niels as an example but emphasized that the person was fictional. According to Ågerup, the municipality's guidelines allowed for a maximum of 80 grams of beef, veal, and lamb per week, including deli meats for lunch. He quoted a resident's statement about a significant longing for decent meat. In April, the Conservative Party, Liberal Alliance, Social Democrats, Venstre, and Danish People’s Party proposed exempting nursing homes from the municipality's food strategy. The Socialist Folk Party, Red–Green Alliance, and the Radical Left rejected the proposal in the Health and Care Committee on August 20, Ågerup wrote. He expected the five parties to be in the minority when the new strategy would be adopted in the City Council at the beginning of 2027. Ågerup argued that politicians should not decide how much meat the elderly should eat, and wrote that nursing home residents should be able to choose their birthday food. He highlighted that, according to him, residents had paid taxes for most of their lives, paid rent for their care homes, and 4,414 kroner per month for food. He concluded with a call for less paternalism and more hamburgers, as well as an invitation to join the Taxpayers Association. https://t.co/5SLqHWljnU #plejehjem #fødselsdag #madpolitik (translated)

Lars Andersen wrote that he had spent over a year in closed prison after sharing a couple of CPR numbers and offering a reward for the Minister of Justice's health journal. He sarcastically added that it apparently was much worse than murder. https://t.co/1szirRnAhF #retssystem #fængsel #justits (translated)

Diane Dybdal wrote that the healthcare sector's care for immigrants and their descendants would collapse without Danish nurses to help the 7 percent immigrant nurses care for the 16.8 percent immigrants. https://t.co/8339bhg6NY #Sundhedssektor #Sygeplejersker #Indvandring (translated)

The residents of Kærshovedgård and other departure centers should not have free dental care. That is my clear stance. After a call from Berlingske, where the journalist questioned me for over 30 minutes in every conceivable way, I feel we should lay the facts on the table. I had a clear impression that a political narrative had been set up in advance, into which my answers were to be forced: that my stance was to be portrayed as both inhumane and heartless. But the matter is actually quite simple. The residents of, among other places, Kærshovedgård should leave Denmark. They should not be here. Either because they are rejected asylum seekers or because they have been convicted of serious crimes and expelled from Denmark. Most of them repeatedly. They can roam freely in society. I do not believe they should have free dental care. I believe they should go home. And in light of the fact that since 2016 we have spent over 4.7 million kroner on dental treatment for residents, it is reasonable to examine how that money is used. I must simply refer to reading the Aliens Act § 42 a, section 2. Here, the key word is: "necessary." According to the law, it is indeed expenses for necessary health services that are covered. Dental treatment may be included, but that does not mean that every conceivable service at the dentist is necessary. Therefore, I have asked the minister whether public funds have been used for unnecessary expenses such as anesthesia. For one treatment, anesthesia may be unnecessary, while for another, it may be painful or irresponsible to forego it. So this is not about whether the residents may or may not receive anesthesia. It is simply about whether the Aliens Act § 42 a, section 2, is actually being complied with. Thus, it is entirely legitimate to investigate whether public funds have been used for something that was not necessary, including whether anesthesia is routinely offered to patients without reservation and without regard to the rules. Fundamentally, this is NOT about whether residents in departure centers may receive anesthesia. It is also NOT about whether anyone may go to the dentist. The question is who should pay the bill. It is absurd that Danes are paying dental bills for people who are to go home. It should not be controversial to think so. After all, there is no one preventing voluntary organizations or others from raising funds for dental treatment for the residents if they cannot pay themselves. For example, the Red Cross offers swimming pool trips to the residents of Kærshovedgård. Perhaps dental assistance could be something one chooses to prioritize instead. #Udlændingepolitik #Sundhedspolitik #Tandlægehjælp (translated)

Jeg har egentlig for længst besluttet ikke at svare på Poyas perfide personangreb eller hans skriverier om en region, han intet ved om eller har nogen som helst erfaring med at dække – men selvmålet er simpelthen for stort til ikke at pointere det håbløst absurde i, at han velvilligt og utrætteligt de sidste par år har gentaget udokumenterede påstande fra Hamas. Det er f.eks. helt okay at videreformidle historier og tabstal fra Hamas’ “sundhedsministerium”, som ikke skelner mellem kombattanter og civile (Hamas er en valid kilde, må man forstå -modsat IDF der jævnligt publicerer dokumentation for deres påstande). Altså Hamas, som selv offentliggør nekrologer over barnesoldater, der alle ryger i statistikken over dræbte i Gaza – men som civile, selvfølgelig. For et par år tilbage ville jeg være røget i flæsket på Poya over hans ekstremt provokerende og nedladende angreb – både på min person og mit professionelle virke. Over, at han vitterligt ingen respekt har for den erfaring, jeg har som journalist, eller de historier, jeg har dækket og stadig dækker for store internationale medier. At jeg ofte sætter livet på spil for at viderebringe de historier til jer derhjemme. Han deklarerede hånligt på et tidspunkt, at den værste krigsskade, jeg havde pådraget mig, var en solforbrænding i Tel Aviv. Et opslag, som folketingsmedlemmer fra Enhedslisten og Radikale Venstre rask væk likede i deres iver efter at nedgøre mig. Men i dag vælger jeg at holde igen med den tirade af modangreb, jeg ellers mener 100% på sin plads – specielt når det kommer til Poyas faglige kunnen eller mangel på samme. For den slags angreb har skadet mig langt mere, end de har gavnet mig har jeg lært med tiden. Derfor ligger jeg heller ikke længere i åbne slagsmål på sociale medier, hvilket nogle af jer måske har noteret. Jeg vælger derfor i stedet at skrive, at jeg oprigtigt har ondt af Poya. Virkelig. Det må ikke være sjovt at blive så indigneret over, at en dansk journalist viderebringer information fra en part i en krig, alt imens man lystigt viderebringer information fra en af verdens mest ondskabsfulde terrorgrupper. Jeg har sagt det før, Poya - jeg har absolut ingen interesse i at hverken skrive eller diskutere med dig. Det er langt under mit niveau. Jeg håber derfor du vil kanalisere din vrede en anden vej. Det ville klæde dig. #Journalistik #Mellemøsten #Ytringsfrihed

Heunicke blev sundhedsminister i 2019. I 2020 kom corona. Blev miljøminister i 2022. Kort efter blev fjordene erklæret stendøde. Blev undervisningsminister i 2026. Kort efter bliver eleverne erklæret historisk dårlige. En god og ærlig mand. Men tydeligvis hadet af guderne. #politik #Danmark #samfund

NEEEEJ! Nu bliver det endnu dummere😩😭 @moderaterne_dk og @Enhedslisten vil nu ikke sænke moms på fastfood og snacks. Kun på fødevarer DE synes er *gode* for folket. Det bliver altså differentieret moms på differentierede fødevarer baseret på differentieret politisk sundhedssynsning. 🤦🏼‍♀️💸💸 #politik #moms #økonomi