Posts by Marc C
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: SIBs: The reality of…, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
Oh indeed, Rosemary, I am just sensing extreme paranoia, I am fearing a relapse into a serious anxiety disorder now, I will swiftly see my GP, and ask to be referred straight to Workwise, to get the treatment I need.
"Work will set you free", was a popular slogan in the 1930s and 1940s in parts of Europe, I heard, perhaps there is some truth to it. Keep busy, keep them occupied, keep them fend for themselves, and they will get no time to get silly ideas, ask unwanted questions and cause too much trouble.
-
Speaker: SIBs: The reality of…, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
Jobs of choice, yeah right, get out the next bottle of Tui (I do not really call it beer by the way, it is too yukky).
Is there any job going as Prime Minister, as of late?
Oh, I may just settle for a job as CEO of MSD, perhaps on trial basis, I have lots of experience and ideas, but how are my chances there, Miss Tolley?
If that is no option, maybe Principal Disability Advisor, or at least some kind of advisor?
Silence!
Oh, there are packers and pickers wanted to work for Progressive Enterprises, night shift, 12 hours on for four days, two days off, ahem, well, if there is nothing else, I may just have to settle for it, as an assessment has now found me "fit for work", I hear.
Thank you all, Prof. Aylward, Dr Bratt, Dr Beaumont, Miss Bennett, Miss Tolley and Mr English, we get it.
-
Oh, Dr Bratt forgot to delete this one from the web, which still shows up:
http://www.gpcme.co.nz/pdf/BO%2012%20830am%20David%20Bratt%20Benefit%20were%20a%20Drug%20V2.pdfSome info our activist friends in the UK still make available, which the "experts" have not managed to shut down yet:
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2013/08/28/unums-unaccepatable-influence-in-the-formulation-of-uk-dwp-atos-disability-assessment-regime-letter-to-president-of-the-faculty-of-occupational-medicine-royal-college-of-physicians/Why has New Zealand's opposition not made more of all this scandalous stuff that we got pushed down our throats over recent years? Or are they too scared to upset vested interest holding stakeholder parties?
-
Speaker: SIBs: The reality of…, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
Oh yes, the Wise Group and Workwise again, I remember, Helen Lockett, their Senior Policy Advisor, was invited to and was a member of the so-called Health and Disability Panel that Paula Bennett did years ago select and appoint to "advise" government on welfare reforms affecting those with health and disability.
There were a few on that panel with vested interests, and surprise, surprise, Workwise is already one of those service providers that got contracts to provide Sole Parent Employment Services and Mental Health Employment Services.
Another senior member of that panel was Dr David Beaumont, formerly working for ATOS in the UK, then at times assessor or consultant for ACC, also running his Pathways to Work business in Otago. Now, pure coincidence again, he is president of the AFOEM, running the professional medical professional organisation and their faculty. Also pure co-incidence, I am sure, he was the one who invited Prof. Mansel Aylward (check his background re his role in the UK welfare reforms, also having worked as Director to the once so called Unum Provident Centre for Psychosocial and Disability Research, since then renamed twice) to "advise" them at the AFOEM on the "health benefits of work". He later turned up here, to do his tours around New Zealand, promoting the same to GPs and others, and he even worked with MSD's Principal Health Advisor on strategies and delivered "presentations", apparently none of which has been covered in any reports by MSD, as recent OIA info from them kind of stated.
How bizarre, how bizarre, senior advisors to Bennett, the Health and Disability Panel and Dr David Bratt, all not recorded by any reports by MSD, strange that:
https://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2015/11/27/msds-selective-and-poor-responses-to-new-oia-requests-on-benefits-advisors-reports-mental-health-and-sole-parent-employment-services/And I notice when trying Google now, the internet has been "cleansed" and "purged" from controversial info that was once found on these "experts", I wonder why, is it because Dr Bratt got some lectures on "change management" form Prof. Aylward during his one to two month "study visit" in the UK and Europe in May to April 2014?
-
Speaker: SIBs: The reality of…, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
Thanks for posting this link to the Insight program on RNZ, which I also listened to. It worries me a bit, how RNZ as public state broadcaster always try to put it right for both sides of interest holding parties, which at times does seem to give the government too much credit for “trying something new”.
I know of no social impact bond scheme that has been tried with the intention of getting those with mental health issues into employment. They used trials or schemes for other purposes in the UK, the Netherlands and so, I hear, but not with such a highly vulnerable group of people.
This is what really scares me.
As most providers that offer social services of whatever kind tend to be totally or largely dependent on government funding, I notice again, how they do in significant numbers seem to be prepared to give “social bonds” a go, to try them out.
What difference should such trials or longer term schemes make though, when we have no changes in the rest of the socio economic environment? When employers, like so many other people, still are very biased against disabled, especially with mental health issues, and reluctant to employ or work with them, which necessitates understanding them and allowing work environments where they can function, then we will not get anywhere, no matter what approaches the government wants to take.
We have many jobs, particularly for those that are low skilled, where people are now expected to work regular ten or twelve hour shifts, under pressure to perform and deliver certain output results, we have a significant degree of part time, casual and precarious work, and employers only hire people when they need things done, and earn a good profit, this does not provide the environment, that is in my view, for many with mental health conditions to function well and to last in a job.
And when paid work in the open employment market is supposed to be solution, the pressure will be there, as benefits will not be paid for those working over 15 or more hours, apart from perhaps the accommodation and disability allowances.
This puts people that are healthy under pressure, how is this going to work for mental health suffering people? Some may manage, and some only have temporary mental health issues, others though have repeated spells or periods of such, or permanent conditions, with resulting disabilities.
I am much concerned that this has now been brought further after much more work behind the scenes, the program The Nation on TV3 this weekend also had a “sales man” of some kind sell us the pros of this “social impact bonds” idea, with figures that I found unconvincing. He used very high potential social cost figures to show how much could be saved using such bonds, but most people in risk groups may not end up in prison or occur that high costs.
In my view we may perhaps rather look at improving existing services, or try other ways to address the issues we have, this social impact stuff is just more ideologically driven policy coming from the policy labs of certain right leaning think tanks overseas, from which Bill English and others like to pick their “recipes”.
Those that may "invest" in "social bonds" will WANT a RETURN, that is a financial gain, and that very motive has led to what we have in our society now, much instability, little job security, a higher level of precarious work, and a growing wealth and income gap, leaving many to compete and struggle especially at the lower socio economic end of society. So if this will be allowed, those that sign up as providers, they will feel pressure to perform, to get those placements and to get people into jobs and make them stay there, no matter what, as all else will incur costs minimising their potential gains.
Prepare for much cutting of corners, and we know who will pay the price for that.
-
From the post above:
"It also tried to quell unease by giving certain home purchasers government grants to help buy homes. Not surprisingly, this had no helpful impact on house prices, as the extra money served to fuel demand rather than limit it."Hear no evil, see no evil, hear no crisis, see no crisis, that is the motto of the Key led National - ACT - UF government.
And we now have an increasing number of people use funds from their Kiwi Saver accounts, to pay a deposit for a new home. Slowly and gradually that saving scheme, which was designed and introduced to encourage saving for your retirement, is becoming a home saver scheme, which leaves many short again in money they may save for their later years in life.
As for the rest, Rob is right, the government has done little else than window dressing exercises when it comes to the housing (affordability) crisis in Auckland. Also it is to a fair degree a wealth shift crisis, as investors make up well over 40 percent of buyers, that is people who already own one or more homes extending their property investment portfolios. Home ownership rates are dipping, while those that already have assets in the form of homes get richer and extend their asset base.
We will have a small class of home owners and an ever increasing number of renters, meaning more Kiwis being tenants in their own land.
That is unless this madness is stopped, and capping immigration should also be part of measures to address all this demand, with which construction cannot keep up, as we do not even have enough builders and other tradespeople that are needed to catch up with demand.
Laissez faire irresponsibility is what we have, criminal irresponsibility by this government. Time for Labour to get their acts together, and to manage to come across more convincingly, so people may see a true alternative to vote for. Presenting themselves as a valid alternative also means to work closely with the Greens.
-
Up Front: Cui bono?, in reply to Sacha,
Having suffered severe depression I know that controlling one's behaviour in such situations is not so much a matter of choice, it is near impossible.
So if Cameron Slater has a mental illness that causes his outrageous comments and personal conduct, I doubt there is any simple solution.
Where "choice" may come in, that is where a person suffering mental illness that negatively impacts on others, can perhaps choose to seek treatment, whether psychotherapy or medication or both.
I wonder though whether Mr Whaleoil has chosen proper treatment, he may be treatment resistant, or simply unwilling to be treated, hence his continued inappropriate conduct and nasty comments.
I suspect he may actually love to indulge in his mental illness behaviour, as that may give him a sense of power over others, as he can intimidate and cause much outrage. Manipulative "skills" seem to be part of this, if that is the case.
Perhaps someone should refer him for a mental health assessment under the appropriate Act? I wonder what the outcome of that may be.
-
Up Front: Cui bono?, in reply to mark taslov,
"I applaud Emma’s sentiment, however I feel that the issues underpinning the treatment of beneficiaries are consistent with those measured out by society as a whole."
Actually, beneficiaries are at the very end of the stick, where the stick resembles that of a baseball bat, where it is a bit thicker than the rest of the bat, going down to the handle.
But you are right, society as a whole is somewhat “sick”, and it has become “sicker” since 2008, what “coincidence” it falls together with an election changing government.
Desensitization is perhaps the word, when dished out rough treatment, people “toughen up” and lose sensitivity, that includes cultural, ethical and respectful manners. War is a perfect example, people do sadly get used to violence and in the end walk past dead bodies as that is the new “normal”, look at where this is happening, for instance in Syria.
The same applies to social realities in a society not in war, but where changes are made that lead to a rougher society, less humane and more competitive and ruthless. We have exactly that, competition favours the fittest, and the fit try to keep up, as not being able to leads to more pain than putting up with harsh, competitive work and business, so they fulfill Darwin’s theory, adapt or die is the motto, there is no alternative.
Joining the ones at the bottom, those on benefits, that is for many like dying, losing all social respect and security. So they avoid it like the plague, and put up with so much, they start frowning on those who do not or cannot “toughen up”.
Tax cuts for the better off, less so for those on average or low pay, yes GST “compensates” and “balances” the equation, and those at the bottom are hit much harder, that is what we got. The wealth gap has developed over two or more decades, and is wide, those that have are doing fine, their homes just go up more in value than wage or salaries earned per week here in Auckland. That gives them more advantages, the owners, and they can cope and do well.
The ones without are facing ever harsher times, so that same as laboratory rats, when the stress goes to the max, they start eating each other, attacking each other, hence the beneficiary bashing by workers, even those on low pay.
And the competition goes throughout life, the divisions with it, so we have the better off afford nice oak wood or perhaps even “nobler” wood made coffins, others get the WINZ style burial, as cheap as possible, barely covering what is the basically socially acceptable funeral service.
In the end we all end up the same, as “ashes to ashes”, as “earth to earth”, we become decomposed, rich and poor, but it seems, as humans, vanity, competition, frowning, hatred and division are attributes that are kept alive, as it serves the purpose of those at the top, and the top levels of a hierarchy.
And as most of us are so trapped in our day to day lives, we do all play the same game to varying degrees, all guilty to some levels, it is saddening, shocking really, is that human nature, is that human values and being?
So no wonder Labour avoid even talking about beneficiaries, disabled and the less fortunate, except about those working poor, as they qualify as "workers", participants in the game, fulfilling the criteria as belonging to the club of "fighters", perhaps also deserving of some. In summary it is a disgrace where we have ended up, a total disgrace.
-
A reviewer of the WCA did actually recommend the UK look at New Zealand, where things seemed to be done all so much “better”, here some analysis of the WCA, it’s failures, and how New Zealand has come into the picture there:
https://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2015/01/23/the-discredited-indefensible-work-capability-assessment-wca-in-the-uk-and-what-its-demise-must-mean-for-nz-welfare-reforms-part-1/And where is the “transparency” re what the outcomes of all this reassessing is? Remember this post that was discussed a while ago, on Public Address:
http://publicaddress.net/speaker/how-is-government-evaluating-its-welfare/We have been told some information was going to be made available at the end of last year, but there was NOTHING, yet again.
Remember Bill English throwing a few comments around, before the last election, and again a week or so ago, about “hopeless” people:
http://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2014/10/19/nz-finance-minister-bill-english-insults-beneficiaries-with-mansel-aylwards-work-will-set-you-free-approach/I dread these “designated doctors” WINZ use, some seem to be used a lot, those that make recommendations that save them money, I suppose:
http://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/designated-doctors-used-by-work-and-income-some-also-used-by-acc-the-truth-about-them/Dr Bratt has trained them:
http://www.gpcme.co.nz/pdf/2014%20North/Sat_Room6_1400_Bratt%20DD%20Training%20Workshop%20GP%20CME%202014.pdf
On slide 23 he comments this:
"If you ever get a complaint channelled through the Health and Disability Commissioner’s office let me know asap."
The author also of this “presentation”:
http://www.gpcme.co.nz/pdf/GP%20CME/Friday/C1%201515%20Bratt-Hawker.pdfAnd that “bio psychosocial model”, twisted by “experts” such as Aylward and our Principal Health Advisor David Bratt (at MSD), that has not gone away:
http://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/medical-and-work-capability-assessments-based-on-the-controversial-bio-psycho-social-model/What is happening seems to be, that so far WINZ have tried to not push too hard with most, but the longer term journey is certainly following the UK in their direction, avoiding though the more extreme approaches.
I dread the future, but having tried to get some figures from WINZ on people committing self harm or even “successful” suicide, they keep NO figures on causes of death of people on benefits, they simply close the files.
-
Multi layered investments are the business of the Panamanian and other experts, this involves shell companies, trusts, holdings and so forth, it is extremely difficult to keep track, so some investments will not be identifiable against individuals, they will be held by whatever legal entity and investment vehicle, and John Key may be able to quite honestly say, he has NO foreign trust investment, but who knows, an entity he may have legally founded and listed years ago may well do so.
That is not Mr Key's investment then, he is an insider and expert, Kiwis are idiots to believe his naive play and antics, he grew up in this business environment, he knows all about it, and is NOT innocent, he will have some stuff that is not yet disclosed, that will harm him.