Thursday, May 12, 2005



A difference of approach

Over the past two decades, we've seen a significant rise in the number of sickness and invalid's beneficiaries. National and ACT think this is a Bad Thing, and from their history in the 90's, it's easy to see what their policy would be: slash benefits to "encourage" the "malingerers" (many of whom suffer from mental illness or terminal disease) to join the workforce by threatening them with starvation. The government has a different approach. Firstly, they're paying for medical care where this will help people rejoin the workforce. While arguably this should be done via the public health system rather than the welfare system, there's no question that it's a good idea; contrary to national's slander, very few people want to be sick, and practically everyone will leap at the opportunity to enjoy improved quality of life. And for those with permanent disabilities, they've increased funding for employment support - meaning greater access to the workplace. It's a clear difference of approach, centered around carrots and opening opportuinities, rather than sticks and threats of starvation - and I know which one I prefer.

5 comments:

Totally agree. I don't think there is much that makes me angrier than the idea of people with mental illness and terminal diseases being harassed and threatened by petty buerocrats. Support and assistance in improving quality of life are quite another thing.

Posted by Amanda : 5/12/2005 09:20:00 AM

Don't forget all those inpatient facilities that closed down so that people could experience a "normal" life outside - read: lonely, low standard of self care and housing, poor, unsupported - that just happened to be _way_ cheaper.

Hey! Now they're going to do that for the elderly. Whee, what more brilliant plans can we come up with.

And then they can move them all back off a benefit and onto work! Cos that's helpful don'tcha know!

Posted by Muerk : 5/12/2005 01:37:00 PM

I agree. I work with ACC victims, many of whom have been totally shafted by doctors working for hire for ACC. These toads will write whatever ACC wants to hear, with the result that they're cut off without a cent, still significantly disabled. The Courts reinforce this behaviour by making it almost impossible to challenge the ACC doctors. These characters often have an ex-military background and see themselves as medical police. Now its the turn of the sick and disabled. I predict the suicide rate will spike, but this will save the government money.

Posted by Anonymous : 5/12/2005 04:14:00 PM

I agree. I work with ACC victims, many of whom have been totally shafted by doctors working for hire for ACC. These toads will write whatever ACC wants to hear, with the result that they're cut off without a cent, still significantly disabled. The Courts reinforce this behaviour by making it almost impossible to challenge the ACC doctors. These characters often have an ex-military background and see themselves as medical police. Now its the turn of the sick and disabled. I predict the suicide rate will spike, but this will save the government money.

Posted by Anonymous : 5/12/2005 04:24:00 PM

the system seems to encourage inequity and inefficiency.

there is one goal - that no one live so far below poverty levels that they cant afford food etc. This is what an unemployment benefit achieves - it should be universally applicable to anyone who is not recieving money.

Simply if you are not working you are unemployed if you are unemployed you are on the unemployment benefit - that is the only name it needs.

the second goal is getting sick people back into the workforce - this is not achieved by paying them a little more or less money or any other arbitrary thing it is achieved by giving them a needed operation or required drugs or some such thing often some sort of a lump sum payment etc.

Anyway the bottom line is that "sickness benefits" should not exist.

Posted by Anonymous : 5/12/2005 06:41:00 PM