Posts by diversitynz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Definitely stoked to have BDO right down the road in 2014. Hopefully I may even be able to just sit on the deck and soak up the sounds, depending on the wind direction.
-
Check out what we're doing at Diversityworks. Self-employment makes a lot of sense when compared with these do-gooding charlatans. Not for everyone, but certainly levels playing fields.
-
Im a bit lost by Phillip refeering to a situation when you are hit by a bus and who will or wont be paid to care for you.
Its obviously an accident so is covered by ACC.
Is it just me or is he being deliberately misleading.Why would I be deliberately misleading??
1. I'm referring to Ryall's claim that 'the decision could “open the floodgates to potentially thousands of claims for ACC short-term injuries' - see my original post.
2. I'm trying to engage "non-disabled" people in this debate – it's not just about disabled people – it's about YOU!
-
Sacha ... snap what?
-
Oh and to add insult to injury (!) one of the Ministry's expert witnesses (arguing against people's right to choice) was himself disabled. But not a user of support.
Nice.
-
It would seem logical if the funding was attached to the person needing care.
Indeed! But this is Government we're dealing with.
I receive Individualised Funding, a monthly amount with which I employ support workers (I prefer the term PA because that's what they are, essentially). However, I am still not "supposed" to employ family members.
-
Could I ask for some context? What allowances or other support do people in this situation currently get?
Currently family members supporting disabled family members get up to 28 days respite/carer support entitlement. The most common use of this is for some sort of (pseudo)institutional care.
-
Interesting discussion folks, thanks for the feedback.
The other aspect to all this is that (to recap) the Crown’s argument is that “the decision could open the floodgates to potentially thousands of claims for ACC short-term injuries where people leave hospital but still need care and a family member is willing to provide that for a payment.”
But ACC already pays family members – and if a person was assessed as needing care after an injury, someone – family or otherwise – would need to be paid anyway. So why is the Government now deciding it can’t be a family member?
Apparently “the decision to appeal was ‘in the public interest’ because of the potential fiscal impact of the finding and its flow-on effect to other policy.”
What about the fiscal impact of lengthy court battles to uphold the Government’s insistence on infringing people’s rights? Isn’t it in the public’s interest to curtail that?
Add to all of this the disparity between support for people injured and born with impairment (unique function) - ie funded by ACC vs MoH - and ... well ... I think I'll just go and sit in the sun!
-
DVD Philip made for the Health and Disability Commissioner last year (I think this is right, and hopefully it is still publicly available, Philip?)
Sure is:
Making it Easy to Do the Right Thing - Disability responsiveness training - a DVD with supplementary training notes to help providers understand the issues that need to be considered when working with disabled service users.
http://www.hdc.org.nz/resources/videos
...top of the list
-
As far as sanctuary goes, wouldn't it be grand if there were publically funded Relaxation Lodges where one could have Time Out for a month or two? Honestly, we could do this whole 'civilisation' thing a whole lot better.
Hear, hear, I'm in :-)