Posts by Rosemary McDonald
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Metiria's Problem, in reply to julie may,
If Turei has a PR advisor I hope she’s fired them already.
Has someone raised the idea that perhaps Turei was tipped off that enemies were going to spill the beans about her 'past', and she chose/was advised to 'confess' and try and extract a bit of political mileage in the process?
Dark, dirty politics.
Personally, as much as I am able to 'like' any politician....Turei is one of the more personable and believable ones. I sincerely hope the wound is not too deep...she still presents as green...rather than the paler shade adopted by many of her party colleagues.
-
Access: The Family Carers case – here we…, in reply to Angela Hart,
It seems every statement the Ministry makes must be carefully scrutinised, the public can no longer be confident of the integrity or accuracy of the information the Ministry provides to the Courts.
Indeed.
So it was back in 2008 when Atkinson was heard at the HRRT. Economist Brian Easton assisted the OHRP by scrutinizing the data used by the Mystery of Health to demonstrate that paying resident family carers would bankrupt the country...I editorialize... but the Miserly and the Minister (Ryall) did brandish some very large and scary numbers based on the data.
The Mystery's guy, de Raad, used two tables...one from the 2006 Survey and one from the Misery's own records. There were significant discrepancies twixt the two, especially regarding the numbers of those with severe disabilities who were not (if the MOH numbers are correct) receiving any funded support because family were doing the work for nothing.
And as a consequence, allowing family carers to be paid (should the sky fall and the Atkinson Plaintiffs win) the cost to the government would be fiscally unsustainable.
And this is the excuse the bastards used to justify the Part 4 amendment to the PHDAct.
Easton's evidence to the HRRT is well worth a read. One observation he makes is that the Statistics New Zealand 2006 Disability Survey is based ...
on subjective self-categorisation, here there is a tendency to overstate needs relative to what an objective assessment might conclude. Such a conclusion is more consistent with common sense.
and further, and fortunately....
It is not necessary for this case to reconcile the tabulations for the purposes of this claim. Suppose the Ministry of Health is failing to identify large numbers who are entitled to its support services. That is clearly a matter of public policy concern, but it is not the focus of the claim which is about those who are in existing receipt of support.
VII. In the event that the Tribunal’s decision were to encourage others in need to apply for their support entitlements, then while this may be fiscally expensive, this reflects neither a change in the policy framework nor the Tribunal’s decision but a reduction in the failure of delivery coverage within the framework
Atkinson was specifically concerned with those with disabilities with high/very high support needs.
The people who without a competent person available on a daily basis to meet at least their core care needs and are totally reliant on an unpaid family carer need to be enrolled with their local NASC.
If there are thousands of disabled people with the absolute need for a very high level of care who are not at least enrolled with their local NASC and been through an assessment process to ascertain the level of support they require, this is as much an indictment of their unpaid family carer as it is of the 'system'.
Failure to acknowledge the level of dependency a loved one has, and their extreme vulnerability if as a carer one is suddenly unable to meet their care needs would be, in my humble opinion, bordering on irresponsible.
When Peter and I officially shacked up (for want of a better expression) in April 1999 we advised all relevant officials but made sure that contact with our NASC was maintained.
Just in case.
(And Peter and I would be the first to acknowledge that engaging with one's NASC can be difficult to the point of boiling frustration and near blinding rage. They are a necessary evil. They are the only portal through which one can access any disability support, so it seems they feel they can treat folks like shit.)
-
Hard News: With regard to place, in reply to Dave Waugh,
Never underestimate the power of “Teh stupids” to give it a try. ;-)
Not the first time this bridge had become a pathway for two wheelers. Way back, in the post war era, an old friend was horrified when neighbours informed her that Number Two Son, all of eight years old, had 'ridden the humps' on his bike whilst mum was at work.
(Simpler times back then, when kids were more able to free- range)
-
Coincidentally, as you were taking your photos Russell, I was driving our Bus through The Tunnel.
I have a more than slight tunnel and bridge phobia...so Peter, as The Navigator, tries to desensitize me by plotting journeys so they encompass as many of these structures as possible.
So, Friday we did the Waterveiw....and either I'm in recovery, or this is an especially well designed piece of infrastructure. The lanes were well wide enough and the tunnel well lit. The slight curve and incline thing was quite cool. I'm not overly convinced that we had a quicker journey from SH16 to the Southern MWay but it was a different and not altogether unpleasant experience.
One day we may find parking so we can spend a while checking out the wheelchair accessibility of the Topsides.
Oh, the "feathery" things....they are (rather nasty) spikes to prevent ijits from climbing up and over the bridge....I think.
-
I guess anyone who is interested has already perused the latest system transformation plan....
-
Access: A short disability history of…, in reply to Hilary Stace,
But disability was unwelcome and immigration acts banned ‘cripples, idiots, lunatics, infirm, blind, deaf and dumb’.
Anyone like to bet on when Aotearoa will welcome those perceived as less than perfect?
Thank you Hilary, again.
(You are writing a book, no?)
-
OMG!!!
Pigs can fly!!!
A wee while back I made what I thought would be a futile OIA request to the Misery of Health for more information about the 272 MOH:DSS clients who had resident family members as their paid carers as told to the Human Rights Review Tribunal in 2008 during the Atkinson hearing.
These are now being referred to as "non compliant service arrangements".
Anyway...if anyone is interested....the file is attached.
Will discuss further later on....now we are temporarily back in the Waikato with 24/7 wifi!
-
Access: The Family Carers case – here we…, in reply to Hilary Stace,
It is also such a waste of resources. There has to be a better way.
There was a stab at facilitation/mediation a couple of weeks ago....the discussion inside the room is supposed to be confidential so I'll refrain from blabbing. Suffice to say, both parties were encouraged to find a mid point, a meeting of minds, 'because it could take a while to get to court, and there's no guarantee of success.'
Peter's cheery departing comment to the room was ..."Oh well, see you all in two years!"
Hilary...the expense of all of this, the cost to the taxpayer for both sides of the issue, really causes me deep anger.
On the other hand....and have no doubt about it...Peter and I and the other plaintiffs all see this as an opportunity to expose, yet again, the total balls up the Ministry of Health has made of supporting disabled New Zealanders. All of us have had nightmarish engagements with the system...they're supposed to be supporting us not making our lives more difficult.
And speaking of the total balls up that is the Ministry of Health....did y'all catch these interviews on Natrad the other day?
-
Access: The Family Carers case – here we…, in reply to Kevin McCready,
Applied to Minister?
No…the Human Rights Review Tribunal shortly after the Atkinson decision was released in January 2010. The Miserly claimed it needed the decision suspended until a year after the appeals process had been through in order to get the disability support system organised to cope with removing the discriminatory policy.
Hmmm…someone, and god knows why no one didn’t, should have reminded the Miserly and the Tribunal that at least 272 resident family members were being paid to provide disability supports…so they really didn’t need a new system. What would have needed looking into was the NASC assessment and allocation system with its emphasis on ‘natural supports’ and only funding ‘unmet’ needs. Yet again….many, many disabled people living with family had already an allocation of ‘hours’…all they needed to do was to allow them now to pay whoever they damn well chose.
If you have time Kevin…read that HRRT decision for Atkinson….still the very best description of the situation (and arguably, chaos) of home based care for disabled people with very high support needs under the Ministry of Health.
Such a pity that the Tribunal didn’t follow up on that good work and kick the Suspension Order into touch where it belonged.
Oh, and Aunty Ruth Dyson?
Oh dear....should have, could have...so why the hell didn't she?We did ask her just that...a few months before the 2013 amendment to the Public Health and Disability Act. "It was only a policy, not the law,"she said, although to be fair, that was after we told her that the policy was being so routinely circumvented that we felt silly having refused to do a 'backdoor deal' ourselves.
I have this little fantasy...Annette King and Ruth Dyson locked in a room until they tell the truth about why the hell Labour didn't sort this shit when they had the opportunity.
Grrr....
-
Access: The Family Carers case – here we…, in reply to Katharine Moody,
Thanks Katherine...do you really think that there will be (hopefully sympathetic) interest out there in telly land for yet another one of these cases? Peter and I don't watch telly at all...so we're out of touch with that media. Any suggestions gratefully received...some of the other plaintiffs are dead keen on going to the mainstream media but caution is being advised as it could come back and bite in the bum.
Having said that...some of us have been kept circling the airport since 2008, and if the others have been quizzed by the OHRP as thoroughly as Peter and I have been at various times over the years then our accounts should hold up to scrutiny.
The enemy is always keen to find discrepancies and dirt to dish...anything to spin the narrative their way.
Peter and I honestly believe there will one day be a Public Inquiry into this and other disability issues...especially where the Misery of Health has had involvement.
Over the next few months I intend (as internet access allows) to share for discussion a few of the more significant aspects that will be thrown into the ring for debate.