Posts by Rosemary McDonald
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Capture: From the Road, in reply to Hilary Stace,
We asked about accessible accommodation at the
.....
So did we, gave up asking, and did up the Bus. At least we have an accessible bed and toilet/shower. Occasionally we stay in proper motor camps...and if they claim to be 'wheelchair friendly'...we will test their claim and give feedback (if they are intrested).
Some of the best hosts have made no claim to accessibility...but have a genuine desire to make all customers feel welcome.
Top of our list in this area would be Bluebridge ferries. Consistently, awsomely accommodating staff,
-
Capture: From the Road, in reply to Hilary Stace,
Re; inaccessible (or otherwise) tourist spots.
Giovanni has definately captured some of my particular South Island high spots...I'd love to add a few suggestions for his next trip...especially those taken out the window while the other half drives. If Peter could use a camera, he'd capture the view as one is emerging from the Homer Tunnel while driving to Milford Sound. Literally breathtaking..
However, I digress. Wheelchair access in New Zealand is appalling. DOC, of Moeraki Boulders, Punakaiki, Farewell Spit fame have made a little effort around visitor centres (so you can get inside and have a feed), but have fallen way short of actually providing access to the actual feature. We have been having a minor set to with DOC regarding its lack of accommodation for wheelchair users at their Camps.
We travel extensively in our self contained Bus. We are constantly bemused at the reaction from other campers when a wheelchair emerges from the arse end of our vehicle at a DOC camp. Kinda like....what are you doing here???? Seriously...wheelchair users enloying the Great Outdoors is an anomaly. -
Access: Funded Family Care from a…, in reply to Sacha,
Hah! Yes a bit.....BUT...the aged care sector is somewhat relying on the the WW2 generation and the Post WW2 boomers. Both groups will demand the Gummint take care of them 'because we have fought and we have paid our taxes'. And fair enough.
For the same reason ACC claimants demand fully funded high levels of home based care...they have the right because they have paid their levies.
The ACC argument collapses a little, well a lot really, when you take into consideration the fact the the claims via the Non Earners and Treatment Injury Accounts are entirely funded through the tax take...not levies.
Then you have home based care through the DHBs. Many of these people have acquired illnesses and impairments...most will have been taxpayers. Their Funded Family Care policy is MUCH more generous and flexible than the FFC for MOH;DSS.
And, my favourite point..what about Corrections? If MOH;DSS disabled are less entitled to the right to funded care because lots of them don't have jobs and there fore don't pay taxes and are therefore less worthy of state support...how come the Gummint, and society in general, seem quite happy to pay over $90,000 per year to keep a prisoner in jail? The positive contribution this group make to earn the expense for their care is ????
No, this was, in part, punishment for daring to demand equal rights.
MOH;DSS disabled are truly NZ's rejects.
-
Access: Funded Family Care from a…, in reply to Sacha,
Sacha, even if they extended FFC to spouses and partners....I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
Those family carers who were being paid through 'backdoor deals' enjoyed (and some still enjoy) $17 per hour and up to at least 56 hours per week.
FFC was NOT what the case was about....the UN Monitoring Committee and NACEW got it right.
-
Great article about an appalling piece of Ministry of Health work.
It required a particular level of malice to construct FFC.
If nothing else, as you say, you are better off financially, and you enjoy the dignity of paid work.
-
Access: Family Carers Case – Five Years On, in reply to Angela Hart,
Until they are properly addressed
Ah! But they were addressed in the Appeal Court for Spencer on 22nd October 2014.
The Ministry of Health hugely exaggerrated the numbers...like by a factor of at least ten.
It was tearjerkingly awesome to hear Farmer and Butler (the lawyers) state emphatically to the Bench that the numbers were clearly wrong, that the costings were wrong and that the justification for passing the 'thou shalt not ever be able to take this issue to court' clauses in the PHDAct amendment were based on the false premise that there were tens of thousands of us who were going to bankrupt the Government with our mercenary demands.
No, all complete and utter bullshit.
SO, what was under the blanked out sections of the Regulatory Impact Statement?
Read it here..(but don't print it....it will wreck your printer!)
-
Worth a visit to their facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/Rainbowsrespite (open access, no need to have fb account)
Very good background to the genesis of this project.
Although, I wonder if they understand there may be some sensitivity required.
Having said that...this is what is said about everyone's favourite former Minister of Health....
." But how would he know that?? He's just the dickhead running the show and earning a big, fat, tax-payer funded salary for doing so!! GRRRRRR!!! "
Really worth a read.
-
Kimberly Centre gest a new lease on life.....
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/65109228/Couple-plan-respite-centre-for-children
-
Access: Family Carers Case – Five Years On, in reply to Hilary Stace,
One reason for optimism.
More incontinence.
Labour, in 2005, did as Pontious Pilate and handed this over to the 'people' via the Human Rights Review Tribunal.
Question to any Labour Party person out there...Annette? Ruth?
How would Labour have responded on the 8th January 2010 had they been in power?
Bluntly. ACC was always Labour's favourite. Worker's Compensation and all that.
Ruth Dyson told Peter and I when we went to visit her in her office in 2013 " it was only a policy, not law. " So, we said, "why the HRRT and all that...why not just instruct the Ministry to drop the 'policy'? She had no answer to that, other than to say that Peter surely qualified for Individualised Funding (he does) so he can pay who he likes..".but the rule .." we said, "it was only a policy, not the law".
You can see how this discussion would go round and round and round and round.
Where was I?
Oh, yes, IF. The IF specification specifically states no spouses, partners and other family members can be the carer of your choice under IF.
So why, in late 2013, at a Outreach Clinic meeting the Auckland Spinal Unit organised for crips in the provinces, did a Spinal Unit employee ask the same question?
Bear in mind the media coverage of this case, Bear in mind the media coverage of the amendment to the PHDAct on 17th May that year. Bear in mind that at one stage about 35-40% of patients in both Spinal Units were non ACC.
This therapist asked Peter, "Don't you qualify for IF?" "Yes", said Peter. "You can pay your spouse or partner under IF." she said.
"No", said Peter (showing MUCH more patience than yous truly) "you can't pay any family member, I asked Manawanui." (the IF administrators)
So, ladies and gentlemen. If an publicly funded rehab unit who discharges people back into the community who have high care needs believes that it is routine for IF clients to pay their partners and spouses....how come Peter did not do this?
Answer. Because such an arrangement would have demanded some level of deceit, and neither he nor myself were prepared to enter into one of these routine "backdoor deals."
That is why we backed the 'family carers" case 100%....so no one would have to enter into these "arrangements"...and live in fear of discovery or prosecution.
All through the well publicised hearings, and the denoument on the 17th May 2013, those people enjoying the financial benefits of keeping the funding for their care in the family NEVER SAID A WORD. They just kept on getting paid.
Even when the shitty piece of legislation went through...they were still getting paid...and had a year's grace to make alternative arrangements.
When the year's grace passed? Bumped off were they?
Hah!...More belly busting laughter....yes siree they were...for a week or two...until their 'arrangement' was restored through a different Contracted Provider.. most of whom are now IF Hosts.
So those of us with verifiable and legitimate complaints about this issue( ie, we were not in the original Atkinson plaintiffs, but the outcome directly affected us)....get nothing in the way of any resolution, compensation, nothing. We could have made a backdoor deal, but chose instead to rely on the Human Rights Review Tribunal and the Courts to clarify the issue. Establish our rights.
Those who were willing to do a deal, got paid, and are probably still getting paid.
I am repeating here what the lawyer from the Human Rights Commision said in the Appeal Court in Wellington in October last year at the Attorney General v Margaret Spencer hearing.
Also, of interest, before I go...there were some complaints and claims made to the Human Rights Commission from 2008 onwards, as we heard about Atkinson.
Those original 50 odd complaints were whittled down to 20 odd over the years.
( We have been through this process, and know the questions asked by the HRC and the OHRP.)
As at the 22nd October 2014, that number had been reduced to two of us left standing.
So...where are the other 30, 000 unpaid family carers that were going to crawl out of the woodwork and demand not only to be paid...but backpay as well?
The 'liability' the government claimed forced them to rush through the PHDAct amendment?
Enough.
Seriously, this whole sorry fucking issue has been so twisted with lies and deceit from all parties that the original intent has been lost.
Forever.
-
Access: Family Carers Case – Five Years On, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
All better now, thanks to a very cleverly orchestrated media campaign.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/65103314/lastminute-reprieve-for-family-facing-homelessness