Posts by Rosemary McDonald
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Kia kaha, Helen Kelly, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
She is my New Zealander of the year!
And mine.
I tried to find a way of getting her on the list of "Women of Influence..."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/women-of-influence/72481802/Women-of-Influence-2015-The-finalists
...but she did not seem to fit any of the categories.
The woman is in a class of her own.
(Dunne is being so constipated over this...has he been taking too many codeine based analgesics?)
-
Access: Treatment for itching and shyness, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
SCI Strategy Situation Analysis Paper 27 Feb 2013 (FINAL).pdf
It would certainly be in keeping with all the other bitter stories I’ve heard about ACC lately.
You may or may not have seen the document above…
Pages 81 onwards has an in depth analysis of the differences between ACC and MOH for supports etc for those with SCI.
I began counting the number of times “limit"and “limited” were used on the MOH side of the chart…..
This joint ACC/MOH project led to the inevitable Action Plan…http://www.health.govt.nz/publication/new-zealand-spinal-cord-impairment-action-plan-2014-2019
which makes no mention of the disparities.
There has been at least one large consumer meeting for ACC spinal impaired facilitated by TASC…but none for those not covered by ACC.
http://www.tasc.org.nz/pdf/TASC-Newsletter-Apr-May-Jun-2015-.pdf
My partner has made numerous attempts to try to get some traction with both TASC and the NZ Spinal Trust but to no avail.
He has given up. Refuses to pay subs….but still gets the TASC newsletter….almost like they are rubbing it in.
-
Hard News: Kia kaha, Helen Kelly, in reply to Russell Brown,
the best hope for change is making the issue politically awkward for Key.
Sunk, then.
Key is immune from shame, embarrassment, censure, criticism, accountability, etc.
-
Legal Beagle: New Zealand's most racist law, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
The outcome would not be that other people would suddenly start to be eligible to be paid to care for family, it would be that the Taituas’ arrangement would be stopped and they’d be left as miserable as everyone else.
During the 'negotiations' with MOH and before 'Atkinson' went to the HRRT (and subsequently the High Court and Appeal Court) the conversation you describe in your first paragraph did happen.
BUT...the outcome was completely different.
Those 'arrangements' were allowed to continue, and continue to the present day.
(The Appeal Court for 'Spencer' was told this)
(Although I understand that they will finally be terminated at the end of March this year)
So...the couples like the Taituas are not as miserable as those of us who were not allowed such an arrangement or were not willing to compromise ourselves by entering into a 'backdoor' deal.
My point about the Tiatuas is that theirs is the only publicised arrangement. I have seen no other public record of any other couple being allowed to have such a deal.
I personally know of other couples who have enjoyed the same facility...but none will go public.My partner and I spend much of our time in rather isolated parts of the country. In conversations with local Maori we have frequently been told that Maori providers (like obviously Pasifica providers) routinely facilitate such arrangements. Openly.
It is well known and accepted that Maori and Pacifica providers are allowed to set their own rules.
I don’t think I’d call that a win.
Me neither...but as someone personally affected by this discrimination I would be more inclined towards sympathy for those who have enjoyed this facility and lost it if they had showed just a tiny little bit of solidarity with the Atkinson plaintiffs and those of us denied justice after the PHDAct(2). Not one single public expression of support...even anonymously...from these people. Not one.
In Rosemary Dreamland there is a real sense of community and solidarity and a solid culture that all are equal. There is public outrage when disparity and discrimination are exposed, and no one accepts what others' have been denied.
-
An interesting release from 2000....a 'show your thinking' piece from Annette King...very interesting in retrospect.
-
Access: Treatment for itching and shyness, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
all the other bitter stories I’ve heard about ACC lately.
....and we have Dame Paula Rebstock to thank for that.
accident disability would be downgraded to the same level of support currently offered for non-accident disability.
Can ACC actually do that without significant changes to the Legislation?
I know that many folk have been denied cover...(and this is a separate issue...but one that needs much more attention) but have entitlements for those accepted for cover been significantly degraded?
I have heard of a few instances of those with SCI under ACC have been denied full entitlements but have successfully appealed....because the legislation supports them.
The Miserly of Health makes it quite clear that there are no entitlements....and the Law would appear to support that.
My immediate solution to partially fund a degree of parity for those not covered by ACC would be to radically prune the number of PLODS with their snouts in the disability funding trough.
-
Access: Treatment for itching and shyness, in reply to Angela Hart,
It doesn’t help that there is no ring-fenced budget for disability or that MOH reporting rolls disability/aged care and health supports together. I don’t think you can find out what is actually spent on disability support and I don’t think that’s accidental.
Somewhere, in the depths of the fetid pit that constitutes my hard drive, is a document from some years back that does just that....breaks down the spending on disability supports....from how much on the DIAS and NASCs through to EMS and HCSS.
The most recent document I can find is this wee tome...http://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-nz/51SCHE_EVI_00DBSCH_EST_63035_1_A436246/62fe0cca96986bfbd86db0e1dc0486ac55a3642eAbout 173 pages worth....make a cuppa and enjoy!
-
Access: Treatment for itching and shyness, in reply to Sacha,
Or we could use the (inevitable) national conversation about euthanasia to leverage the issue of proper supports onto the table.
Exactly.
Now...???
A list?
1. totally align ACC and MOH disability supports. The work has already been done comparing these for SCI....went largely under the radar. (this is kind of my bailiwick, so I have resources). Would not be hard to do similar for other impairments.
-
Access: Treatment for itching and shyness, in reply to Angela Hart,
down a dark path
.....the path to 'voluntary' doctor assisted suicide and euthanasia.
...because we all know that not having a fine functioning brain and a healthy able body are grounds for the blessed relief of the merciful needle. Unbearable suffering of the less than perfect.
I am tempted to make this my no.1 issue....there must be a push back against ANY serious discussion on euthanasia until the right to supports for those with disabilities is enshrined in law.
Until no person who requires support is ever made to feel like a burden on their family or wider community.
Kinda like the entitled, deserving ACC clients. You don't often hear them being called bludgers....even if they are technically responsible for their injury.
Yet non ACC disabled....totally different.
Maybe its time to do a post or two about the differences and disparities...and the resulting attitudes from the wider community as a result...?
-
Access: Treatment for itching and shyness, in reply to Hilary Stace,
Perhaps its his way of trying to fit in with the 'in' crowd.
Stirring up hate against minorities is a well proven method of boosting one's own popularity...especially if the masses you want to attract are also insecure....but are not quite sure of the source of their insecurities.
Both him and his cetacean offsider did an awesome job of rabble rousing against Sam Kuha....I won't link, in the interests of decency....but I missed at the time the support Sam got from Auriole Ruka from CCS Disability Action.
Rare indeed for a government funded agency to publicly advocate.