Posts by Rosemary McDonald
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Access: Family Carers Case – Five Years On, in reply to Sacha,
"ACC can be pig headed too."
Yep, sure can Sacha....but at least ACC claimants can choose who provides their care, they are entitled to care AND if they are not happy with a decision they can take their complaints to Court.
Non ACC disabled have none of these rights.
In fact, MOH;DSS clients are 'entitled' to nothing.
The Family Carers Case (yes, I know, I keep on banging on about it) was a shot at gaining ONE POINT OF PARITY with ACC disabled. ONE POINT.
We nearly made it.
I wonder what Kurtis' mum would say if she was told that one of the plaintiffs in Atkinson had been the sole unpaid carer for her similarly affected son for 46 years?
That even on Funded Family Care, the highest number of hours the Ministry of Health will fund is 40 hours of care per week.Less than a quarter of the hours that ACC will be paying for this client.
One of the commenters said that 'more people should fight for their rights like this lady has'....I nearly pisssed myself laughing.
I was going to submit another post about this issue...but its clearly dead in the water. But I will say this....I quickly scanned Herald and Stuff for "family carers looking forward to being paid" stories from 2008 through to early 2013. Quickly came up with over two dozen links. I did not even start to list the telly programmes.And you know what?
For all of that media coverage...not one, NOT ONE story from a PAID family carer...either legitimately through ACC or through a backdoor deal under MOH;DSS. Not one of these PAID family carers stepped up (even annoymously) and said " I've been paid for years...why are these people having to fight???"
So what does this tell me?
That folk, even in the same disability 'community', don't give a tinker's about anyone else's situation. "I'm alright, Jack." Or, they tell themselves that they are somehow 'special'. Or, that another family carer in exactly the same circumstances is NOT getting paid because the care they are giving is not as good, not as worthy. (and yes, that has been said to me.)
There is no disability 'community'.
There are individuals(and small 'special interest groups') who are out for everything they can get for themselves, and to hell everyone else.
Sacha...I understand you were trying to make the point that all is not plain sailing for ACC clients....and I know that.
But, could non ACC disabled, MOH;DSS disabled and their family carers just once, just once, please, not have to be sidelined by a successful 'we took on ACC and won story'?
I know that Atkinson will become a footnote in NZ disability history, (bracketed with other issues as examples of the Government crapping on the rights of New Zealanders), but at least we tried.
-
Access: Family Carers Case – Five Years On, in reply to Sacha,
We were parked up in a campgound some years ago.(won't say where, but there was snow in the hills above the city) when a family of five drove in and took up residence in one of the units. Two of the kids were rambunctious toddlers, the older one sat in an undersized buggy...quietly. Dad was there, but not, if you know what I mean (eh, ladies?) Mum was lovely, but not well organised. There was a brand new fancy child restraint sitting by the car, and Mum was trying to figure out how to install it. Dad....having a beer.
So, being a busy body, I strolled over for a chat.
Turned out kid in undersized buggy was five and had cerebral palsy. Surgeons involved in rectifying this child's hip problems had, off their own bat, investigated the circumstances of his birth, filled out the necessary paperwork, spoken with the apropriate people, applied to ACC...and had the lad's CP atttributed to Treatment Injury and covered by ACC. The fancy child restraint (which I did fit for Mum, and adjusted all the straps so child was safe. supported and comfortable) was the first piece of equipment funded....and oh, what a step up from the old crappy bog standard child restraint they had been using.
What baffles me is why The CP Society have not surveyed their members, and done a comparison between supports provided by ACC and those provided by MOH;DSS. Similar to the recent comparison of Spinal Cord Impaired.
The difference in entitlements and support is HUGE.
-
I accidentally watched 15 seconds of telly just now.
Caught the Sky City ad.
Goodness me....who would have thought SkyCity was bordering on a charitable institution?
-
Hah! The Gospel according to Auntie Fran....
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11379425
and from the "what I learned in the holidays" file.....the meaning of the expression "butt snorkelling".
Thank heavens for the Young People.
-
Southerly: This Week in Parliament: 14…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Nah, that was Gerry taking a leaf out of Mike's book and doing the ring thing.
"Did the earf moof fer you too John...."
-
David...young fellow I presume?
Could you PLEASE advise readers visit the little girls room before we commence....
This is SO embarrassing..... -
Hard News: The Sky is the limit, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
What is unbeleivable is that Christchurch is still dealing with this four years later.
One would think that there would be a plan, a protocol, a system.
Family X is temporarily moving into Y address while property Z is being repaired.
Here is Customer Service Person C, who sole job it is to facilitate this temporary change of address with minimum further impact on Customer X.
This should be routine.
FFS.
-
Hard News: The Sky is the limit, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
I'm shocked!
I look to you, Ian, as the poet...the wordsmith...he who encapsulates with brevity and wit.
You need cheering up.
-
Access: Some aspects of New Zealand's…, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
This document indicates some of the thinking of Treasury and the Government.
Well worth a read.
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/longterm/fiscalposition/2013/pdfs/ltfs-13-bg-lcfs.pdf
-
Access: Some aspects of New Zealand's…, in reply to Sacha,
We already know more than enough about what would work better. Have done for years. Getting on with it requires coherent commitment and more leadership all round (
"Our activism should be for big changes, not individual pieces of equipment "
YES...we do Sacha....so why does the system demand that we usually end up having to battle (either individually, or collectively through a media campaign) for practically every piece of equipment, or hour of funded care, or home modification.....????
Simply....there is no " entitlement" to anything, unless your disability is ACC covered, and even then it would seem that some ACC claimants have an easier path than others.
The "big changes", that have already been fought for, resulting in the Convention and the Strategy and the Public Health and Disability Act ( the original, NOT the bastard mutation we have now), ACC, and any other sounds good feelgood pieces of work, have resulted in what?
Documents that promise supports, but stop short of actually giving us legal entitlements.
That is why we keep having to go into the trenches to fight yet another round.
Back on my particular soapbox....the Atkinson and Others versus the Ministry of Health case...this was a direct attempt to clarify in a legal arena the entitlement to funded care for those who had been assessed as needing X number of hours of care to meet at least their core needs. And yes, all three legal bodies agreed that that if Y could be paid for providing X hours of care then Z ( a family member) should be treated like Y. Thereby establishing an entitlement to funded care (providing the hoops have been jumped through) for A, the person with the disability who meets the eligiability requirements for funded supports.
The Government response to those decisions was to effectively disentitle A to funded supports if they have Zs. The new version of the Act states "generally families are responsible for their disabled family members." ( someone could check that wording...I am sans my laptop), but that IS the gist.
I firmly believe that the true ramifications of that vile and filthy piece of legislative work have yet to be felt.