Hard News: What about that Welfare Working Group, then?
177 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
Danielle, in reply to
+1
-
Petra, in reply to
When he types this: "I mentioned previously I think the issue of bludging is trivial and thus not worth worrying about..." after bellyaching about 3 friends with 3 doctors, my bullshit detector went up. But I figured it was still worth answering him, just for any lurkers that may be more genuine. :)
But yeah, the word "disingenuous" popped into my head more than once reading his posts.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
On the subject of doctors’ opinions and their reliability, I remember in the mid-1990s there was a WINZ initiative to send all sickness beneficiaries to see a second, “designated”, doctor in order to get their benefits renewed. The numbers on the SB at that time were in the high tens-of-thousands (80,000? Something like that.) Imagine the cost for WINZ paying for that many extra doctors’ visits, plus their own administration costs, plus the stress to all those vulnerable sick people. And the net result was that SB numbers went down by about 300, which was probably a random fluctuation in any case. Result: project was abandoned as costly and pointless.
-
I mentioned the docs because I found it interesting and thought other people might too. I seem to have found an outlier, but never said it wasnt
I do believe the issue of bludging is trivial, and even if I hadn't before (which is not the case) the volume of facts presented in this thread would have forced me to accept it.What I was interested in is whether anyone had ideas on how to get rid of the (few) bad apples in a way which didn't screw over the vast majority. Removing them and leaving the genuine cases would be win win and I was interested to know if anyone had ideas on just how this could be done.
At the time of posting all I had heard was "its not a big problem so forget about it". Was curious to know if that was case closed, too hard, or whether someone out there could come up with something which would make everyone better off.
Im not sure it exists. I would say it would take a full time position to force someone like this into a full time position. So I certainly cannot think of anything, but then that's why I asked...
-
Andrew C, in reply to
But anyway, unless these guys are double dipping or dealing drugs or whathaveyou, they are actually setting themselves up for a very hard row to hoe later in life. They might not realise that now, but they will eventually. It’s all fun and games when you’re young…
There's annecdotal evidence/rumours/suspicion that ACC have a collection of "friendly" doctors, so the spectrum certainly exists. Not quite the same of course, ACC docs get a steady stream of income from ACC, but you get my point
-
Concern trolling indeed. There are 1700 people with this problem. The WWG and the large nasty&stupid section of the population want to put the boot into all to reflect their ignorant prejudices.
-
3410,
I propose putting these bludgers to work on Working Groups.
A couple of days a month at $1000 or so a pop? Don't tell me they wouldn't want a piece of that!
-
I can't think of any ideas what would be a) workable, b) not penalising the many to punish the few, and c) be cost effective. (See Sacha's post re medical second opinions and sickness beneficiaries).
Sorry, Andrew. If you come up with something let me know. The best solution lies with job creation and skills training. If that can be done now-ish, then we will be well ahead of the game when the recession corrects itself and we move back into a period of abundance. Assuming that the future is a predicable as past experience informs us, that is. *shrug*
-
tmi
-
andin, in reply to
The whole way you describe it is objectionable, but I'll put that to one side for the moment.
So "bad apples" and "get rid off" lovely.
Seeing as you seem to be acquainted with them and privy to their motivations and actions, you could always inform the proper authority.
Or they could get a job consulting for the WWG, which I think is an brilliant suggestion. -
I don’t even know what the point would be of removing those people from a benefit anyway. Imagine you could do it, miraculously, accurately, cheaply. Then what do you do with them? They don’t want a job; employers don’t want employees who don’t want jobs (I mean, you practically have to promise some of these people your first-born child to get a job at all, the number of hoops you have to jump through for some bullshit CSR position, please sir, please sir), so then what? It’s either put them back on the dole or send them off to sleep on the street. The former is obviously preferable for society *and* for them. So why are we worrying about this, again?
-
What I was interested in is whether anyone had ideas on how to get rid of the (few) bad apples in a way which didn't screw over the vast majority.
That's a bit like saying: okay, you've convinced me that not all Jews are profiteering loan sharks, but I was interested whether anyone had ideas on how to get rid of the few that are.
There is an entire group of people that is being unfairly and dishonestly demonised here for political gain. It is not a new thing in history. It is appalling. It needs to be roundly condemned and vehemently resisted. By saying 'okay, but how do we go after the buldgers' you're doing the exact opposite, and buying into the narrative. For isn't it like saying "this group of people, these victims of how society works - shouldn't they really be perfect?" No group of people is. Catching benefit bludgers is no different from catching tax cheaters or dishonest accountants or scamming bankers, all of whom cost society. But no policy is made regarding those other groups starting from the assumption that they are in fact all fraudsters, which is what the WWG is proposing we do with welfare recipients.
-
All good points Danielle. That's what I was thinking when I figured its a full time job to keep people who dont want to work in a full time job...
-
vangam, in reply to
...The best solution lies with job creation and skills training...
This is what Rebstock & Co. should've been studying in the first place, not welfare reform!
-
There is an entire group of people that is being unfairly and dishonestly demonised here for political gain. It is not a new thing in history. It is appalling. It needs to be roundly condemned and vehemently resisted. By saying ‘okay, but how do we go after the bludgers’ you’re doing the exact opposite, and buying into the narrative. For isn’t it like saying “this group of people, these victims of how society works – shouldn’t they really be perfect?” No group of people is. Catching benefit bludgers is no different from catching tax cheaters or dishonest accountants or scamming bankers, all of whom cost society. But no policy is made regarding those other groups starting from the assumption that they are in fact all fraudsters, which is what the WWG is proposing we do with welfare recipients.
+1
-
There is an entire group of people that is being unfairly and dishonestly demonised here for political gain. It is not a new thing in history. It is appalling. It needs to be roundly condemned and vehemently resisted. By saying ‘okay, but how do we go after the buldgers’ you’re doing the exact opposite, and buying into the narrative. For isn’t it like saying “this group of people, these victims of how society works – shouldn’t they really be perfect?” No group of people is. Catching benefit bludgers is no different from catching tax cheaters or dishonest accountants or scamming bankers, all of whom cost society. But no policy is made regarding those other groups starting from the assumption that they are in fact all fraudsters, which is what the WWG is proposing we do with welfare recipients.
the short version being - there isn't a way to do it that doesnt fuck it up for everyone else.
Which is what I thought too.
-
Danielle, in reply to
the short version being – there isn’t a way to do it that doesnt fuck it up for everyone else
No, the short version is that by even thinking of it in these terms, the terrorists win.
-
Has anyone read the Listener's cover story about "welfare handouts"? Looks like WWG chair Paula Rebstock gets free reign courtesy of Joanne Black to spout their shared ideology. There goes the Listener again, speaking truth to power.
I'd read it but I refuse to buy that publication anymore.
-
Isn't it possible that Andrew's friend is actually a National MP putting on a funny voice?
-
Petra, in reply to
A part of me hopes so, st ephen. Because if he is, then I sincerely hope that we have been heard, and that it leads to a Road to Damacus moment a la Bernard Hickey.
-
Andrew:There seem to be several people appearing on blogs who seem to be sort of sympathetic but have you thought of just shifting your thinking towards....... Mmmm?
As a matter of history years ago I knew a bloke in his 50s who had many kids in his family. He was drawing the child support (Allowance) and this was significant money. He was a capable mechanic. But when employment was found for him he would soon sabotage his own work and get fired. My argument to the local irate residents was that he was one of a very small minority so ignore him. He was known as Shorty Benefit. It was better to have him out of the workforce. Meanwhile lets help the 99% who do deserve help. -
Meanwhile lets help the 99% who do deserve help.
…and who want to work. I spent a bit of time on the dole, at my great age, when I just couldn’t find any work. Applied for jobs I was qualified for, but never even got an interview. It was soul destroying. Numbing. And the amount I got from Winz was so pathetic, it didn’t go anywhere near what a reasonable person needs in order to live. It was probably the most demeaning, humiliating time I’ve ever had in my (previously) productive working life.
If someone doesn’t want to work, and is content to live on the pittance Winz gives them, good luck to them! Just leave the poor buggers who can’t find jobs, or have kids at home, or are ill, alone.
-
Oooh, reading back, I must apologise to Lilith, who is the source of information regarding doctors and WINZ, not Sacha. I beg your pardon, Lilith! Too much hurry makes sloppy!
-
Petra, in reply to
Yes, vangam. Job creation and skills training is the national conversation and action we should be having, not petty endless beneficiary bashing, which gets us nowhere at all.
Also, Damascus, not Damacus. Damacus is, as we all know, merely a nose flute played by libertarians on their way to libations and lying lover lies. Tch!
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Oh, no worries, Petra, the info's the part that matters ;-)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.