Posts by Rosemary McDonald
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Emma...fucking awesome and very timely post....trust your health is stable. :-)
Peter and I were chatting to an Welsh fellow in the Far North a couple of weeks ago. He was on his way to some conference and was going to talk about workplace bullying and discrimination towards minorities...especially those with disabilities.
He spoke about ATOS and the work testing system...and the high rate of suicides among those living with disability and those struggling with illness.
He was idling under the illusion that all was rosy for this group of people here in Godzone.
He had no idea that Kiwis had NO legislated entitlement to health and disability care and support.
Because it was on the radio that day, he had heard that we have 'issues' with mental health services.
He had no idea that our government set aside over ten years of legal wrangling, making discrimination towards those with disabilities legal...and passed legislation denying those people any further access to the Human Rights Commission or the Courts.
He had NO idea that here in Godzone we have a two tier system for supporting those with long term impairments....ACC and MOH. The privileged and the scum.
He had no idea that OUR suicide rate is a world beater.
In the short amount of time available, I made a valiant attempt to enlighten him.
To be perfectly honest...I'm completely fucking over this.
-
There was a brilliant discussion on Natrad this morning between Kathryn Ryan and Graeme Moyle (whose brother was killed by a mental health patient) and Graham Roper, Mental health Advocate.
Listen here.
Peter and I listened closely, and we were both struck by the parallels between the shitty, shonky services provided to those struggling with mental illness and the similar levels of dysfunction in the disability support sector.
It would seem that family are expected to be responsible for their mentally ill loved ones, with the occasional input from 'primary care'. However...as in the disability sector...when help is needed from the 'experts'...the opinions of the family are often ignored....often with tragic consequences.
Families that I've spoken to have rung crisis teams and they've been told to ring police because they just can't cope. A lot of times, the police drop them off to the crisis teams and they are just sent home," he said.
"Time and time again, it's the family of the person involved that come begging for help. They're the expert in this, they live with the person who is going through the psychotic crisis, on a daily basis, 24 hours a day, they're living with it day in and day out - when they need help, they are desperate and they are going to these people and they are just being ignored or turned away."
Funding, theoretically ringfenced for mental health services, has been redirected by DHBs to other areas, leaving the mentally ill and their families with nowhere to turn for vital supports.
And the suicide rate rises.
Well, Himself and I have come to the conclusion that They (the Government, the Misery of Health) see those with disabilities, those suffering from mental illness as the undesirable classes.
The weak of wind, limb and mind.
We honestly believe that They have an Agenda.
Make life and living such an intolerable struggle that these people become so exhausted, so dispirited, that the oblivion of death is a welcome relief.
(And rush through legislation to facilitate assisted suicide.)
What They don't seem to understand is that it is no longer the case that mental illness and disability are conditions that 'other people' have to deal with...a relative rarity...and definitely not something that we discuss in polite company.
We are talking about these issues...and we need more discussion.
We need to collectively demand that central government stops pissing around with empty talk of increased budgets and 'Action Plans' that never get off the ground and actually do something.
-
Why I do it, I don't know...but I did a google peruse last night and found this.
T'would appear that Our Friends at the Miserly felt the time is right to remind all those people with disabilities who are utilising Hosted Schemes ( Individualised Funding, Enhanced IF and Enabling Good Lives) of the Rules.
"Restrictions on Access to Hosted Budgets"
Recommended reading for all those accessing these schemes...seriously.
(I don't believe it is coincidental that this document was released by the Ministry a week before the termination of the 'backdoor" family payment arrangements.)
-
Excellent program Russell, and brings up the iconic image of two top class rugby players spreadeagled on the pitch after clashing heads.
I failed to find the image on the google, but found this from one of the players.
My partner, sitting here in his wheelchair with his high spinal injury, was likened (in his walking and rugby playing days) to the other player in that particular incident.
You'd think that ACC would be strongly advocating better concussion management for younger players....imagine if the dementia in later life can be proven to have been caused by concussion...
-
Polity: Home-spun non-truths, in reply to Alfie,
An FPP mindset looks increasingly dated in an MMP world.
Exactly.
One of the Offspring (who does the Facebook thing) tells me that the intention of some of the younger set (who are not as politically detached as some might think) is to split their votes between Labour and the Greens....party vote to one and candidate vote to the other.
Anything to get this current mob out.
Labour refusing to willingly share the sandpit is NOT helping.
Whoever is advising Labour to persist in the 'we can do it by ourselves' attitude really seriously needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
Hint. Hint.
-
Polity: Home-spun non-truths, in reply to Angela Hart,
It’s past time that Labour got with the Greens and showed the public a collaboration which could govern capably and with integrity. Labour has no show alone.
You're damn tooting about that.
Why, oh why cannot Labour see this?
Perhaps Labour should get out and about a tad more and speak with the plebs.
-
Access: Social media, disability…, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
After the Hill decision in 2001, when the policy was found to be discriminatory, IHC and the HFA were instructed (I’m told) to go and discriminate no more.
And (I appear to have bent the PA word limit for a single comment) it would appear that IHC did just that and allowed payments to family members on a scale that well exceeded the 272 'exceptions' that the HRRT (Atkinson) heard.
After the nefarious Part4 amendment to the PHDAct was passed in 2013 Catherine Delahunty organised a meeting at the Beehive. A woman quietly came over to Peter and I and told us po a list she had seen of over a thousand names of family members being paid by IHC to provide care for their children. There was a column for 'reason' ( I suppose for the exception being made), and in most cases the 'reason' was 'cultural'.
I know that many of the 'exceptions' to the original policy have persisted through the various hearings for Atkinson and Spencer....these resident family members have continued to be paid for providing disability supports (through IF or a Contracted Provider, but NOT through Funded Family Care).
It is my understanding that as of the 31st March 2016, all of these arrangements will be terminated.
This information was given to me by an acquaintance who has been paid as her husband's carer for over a decade.
-
Access: Social media, disability…, in reply to Hilary Stace,
Following and untangling and explaining the complex world of disability and care.
Time, perhaps, to go back to first principals?
[13] In addition the Ministry relied on other matters to support the policy not to fund employment of family members, including:
[a] Funding the employment of spouses, parents and resident family members would create perverse incentives to refuse to provide care or to under-acknowledge the care they are able to provide lest they forego an opportunity to be employed. It was pleaded that this may have serious cost implications for government;
[b] That funding the employment of spouses, parents and resident family members is inconsistent with the current model of individual assessment aimed at government meeting a gap in natural supports. The Ministry argued that revision of the current model may be necessary;
[c] The policy promotes equality of outcomes for disabled people;
[d] The policy encourages the independence of diabled people;
[e] The policy supports the development of family relationships in the same way as they develop for non-diabled people;
[f] The policy avoids professionalising or commercialising family relationships;
[g] The policy avoids the risk that families become financially reliant on the money and thereby discourage disabled family members from leaving;
[h] The policy ensures that the Ministry keeps control of the services it funds and that publicly funded services meet quality standards and can be monitored;
[i] The policy avoids unsustainable care burdens and distress and social isolation of family members undertaking extensive care; and
[j] The policy is fiscally sustainable.Each argument of course unpicked and sent packing by the OHRP lawyers and ultimately the HRRT in their decision.
Time, also, perhaps to remember the case that preceded "Atkinson", which maybe, since Spencer is focused on residential care, is more relevant.
"The Hill Case"
[65] The first time the policy to exclude the payment of family members was questioned at Ministry level, related to the findings in the “Hill case” (Hill v IHC NZ (Inc) [2001] 6 HRNZ 449). The Hill decision by the then Complaints Review Tribunal (CRT) in 2001 involved the parents of a man with physical and intellectual disabilities who applied to the IHC New Zealand Incorporated (“IHC”) to be caregivers for their son. The IHC informed the Hills that they could not be employed as their son’s caregivers because they were family members; his parents contended that in disallowing their application the IHC was in breach of the prohibition against family status discrimination in the Human Rights Act.
[66] The IHC argued that they were carrying out a policy of the (then) HFA that disallowed payment to family members. The CRT found that in fact there was no explicit or implicit policy on behalf of government to do so and found that the policy was at the discretion of the IHC and was discriminatory.
I have not been able to find a copy of the Hill decision from the then Complaints Review Tribunal (hint, hint, anyone?) but it is my understanding that the issue was about Contract Board arrangements favoured by IHC. Contract Board was described by the HRRT (Atkinson) as ...
Contract Board: This is a service where an individual moves in with another family when the person no longer wants to, or is not able to continue living with their own family but still wish to have the sort of supports that the family environment can provide. The service is primarily for people with intellectual disability.
After the Hill decision in 2001, when the policy was found to be discriminatory, IHC and the HFA were instructed (I'm told) to go and discriminate no more.
-
Russell Tully, born and raised in Ashburton, returned there to die.
-
Polity: Poll Soup, in reply to Marc C,
It is time Labour and Greens get cracking on getting that missing million a bit interested in what they do and wish to do when back in government. This navel-gazing and ongoing negative self analysis will hardly get us anywhere. A clear direction and inspiring, honest policy is the start, so internal arguing or confusion are the worst that can happen
Thank you Marc C.
Regards,
One of the million.