Posts by Angela Hart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Access: Disability as a wicked policy problem, in reply to Sacha,
I agree that a single Ministry for Disability makes sense.
My concern when it comes to top ups based on need is that on the Ministry of Health side of things there is no needs assessment capability at the moment. Unless that capability exists within ACC, and that expertise was built on, we run the risk that the Ministry of Health, which is the logical agency to understand and have that capability, would be given that responsibility.
The reality is that the Ministry's contracted agencies, the NASCs (Needs Assessment and Service Co-ordination Agencies) do not assess need. They look at unmet need, but even that is not assessed in terms of, for instance, support hours required to meet the need. Rather they go back to the office after an assessment interview, enter data into Socrates and are told what supports they can offer, which generally bear little relationship to the unmet need and rarely enable it to be met.
The Ministry appears quite happy with the way the NASCs operate, even though most of them do not generate any numbers to show how big or small people's needs are. This is scandalous because these are NEEDS ASSESSMENT agencies, but that is what we have to live with.
Any new system would have to discard the old ways of working and the old attitudes, along with all the people who could not/would not adapt positively to the changes. A brave new world- I hope I live to see it!I personally don't think that the Ministry of Health should have any jurisdiction over disability supports because it can't help but operate from a medical model and see people as needing fixing. People who can't be fixed are a nuisance and they take resources away from the more deserving people who can be fixed.
-
topped up by need
I'm not entirely sure I have correctly understood what you are saying but it seems to me that you are rolling functions presently covered by MoH, ACC and MEd, into one all powerful agency.
This is dangerous territory.
There is no real needs assessment under MoH (it is unmet need that is looked at but not genuinely assessed, rather than actual need). I don't have experience with ACC, you may know whether they assess need or not and how.
Under MoH areas like house modification such as ramps are not funded in a reasonable way. For instance only one ramp will be funded, only one way in or out of the home. The Fire Brigade recommends at least two. How safe does your average wheelchair user feel in case of fire?
Similarly equipment under MoH, you only qualify for a wheelchair, for instance, if you are in full time work or study (and need one for mobility) or you cannot get around your home, even if it's by crawling.
There are many many ways to reduce costs and most of them are being applied to the detriment of the people with the needs. What's to prevent the same approach with your idea of needs topping up?I guess what I'm trying to say, badly, is that any approach can be set up to fail if the applied principle is cost reduction rather than doing the right thing by people. And having a needs based top up, while it sounds great, would only work if it was done honestly and fairly. This doesn't happen now, why would that change?
-
Access: Disability as a wicked policy problem, in reply to Sacha,
Mr Finlayson says the rights of people with disabilities other than total blindness are impaired as they are not entitled to the same additional support, or automatic entitlement to the SLP, as those with total blindness.
I wonder if the HRC sees it that way? Might be worth putting in a complaint, though I suppose the defence would be that the existing social welfare legislation overrides NZBORA.
-
OMG, he doesn't mention a proposed fix, too much to expect he'd suggest putting all adult impaired who cannot work on the same footing as the vision impaired currently are. Much more likely that special provision for Vi will go. Election year next year, do try it, please.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to John Farrell,
So we shouldn't be altogether surprised if our very own wealthy PM is mentioned somewhere in these leaked documents?
-
Todays news mentions the case Rosemary linked to.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/300425/no-charges-over-auckland-care-home-deathCare instructions were not followed and resulted in a death. But no charges will be laid, presumably because legal advice to the Police indicates that a conviction would be unlikely.
The problem is that we don’t have clear consequences for failure to follow care plans. The care worker and the institution were both found to have breached the person’s rights, but the punishment for this is unclear, if in fact there is one. I’d have thought the circumstances fitted manslaughter, but it’s rare for anyone to face any legal consequence. Disability discrimination? -
Polity: The Taxpayers' Union rides again!, in reply to Steve Barnes,
Exactly my point.
I guess there may be a substantial number of voters who want to leave everything to their elected representatives, but I’m not one of them. I want and expect to be included in early stage public discussions on major policy options. Experience has shown that many and varied viewpoints can point out potential problems and strengthen a policy or an engineering solution prior to implementation, saving cost and enhancing the chances of success. It is, in my humble opinion, stupid not to consult/discuss widely.
-
Polity: The Taxpayers' Union rides again!, in reply to Stephen Judd,
Later, National can propose its own, with a different name
if the good ideas were taken up and set up properly, I wouldn't have an issue with that. But National punishes poor people for being poor, so a National party version of a UBI is likely to do exactly that, and destroy all of the potential for a better community that a UBI offers.
-
Polity: The Taxpayers' Union rides again!, in reply to Matthew Hooton,
Matthew, the UBI is at the "what if "stage, there is nothing firm to consider or cost yet. Are you suggesting that political parties should not allow public discussion of significant policy possibilities?
-
Jim Rose looks at UBI in narrow economic terms, selecting social aspects like the possibility people might do less paid work and ignoring most of the other social and health ramifications. He talks about American solo mothers finding jobs because benefits were cut, without considering how long they retained them or how their children were cared for while they were working.
Isn’t it about time this sort of reporting was obsolete? It is without value (even if the claims are accurate) because it doesn’t take a wide enough view of the potential impact. Even a lay person can see that if a UBI was set at a reasonable level, there would be good consequences for mental health, general health, family violence, and likely for crime and imprisonment also. These areas cost huge amounts of money, and there would be monetary savings as well as direct benefits to human beings. I’m so fed up of the way people’s actual lives are ignored to focus on money.