NDIS

[willedoo]

I was listening to the ABC radio a couple of days ago and they were interviewing a farmer who had lost both legs and had prosthetic legs. He was talking about how he ran the farm and said he didn't consider himself disabled. But in the next breath he said the NDIS supplied him with a worker on the farm. My first thought was that maybe he only considered himself disabled while filling out the forms to get something for nothing. I've known blokes with legs missing and they just carried on without anyone subsidising them. And that's in physical jobs like building and machinery operating. I just thought it was an odd thing for someone to say they don't consider themselves disabled while getting a worker through the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

[old man emu]

My response is that there are degrees of disability. Perhaps he thinks that it is only in the area of physical farm work that he is disabled, but in other areas he thinks he's OK.

[facthunter]

IF you want more things from the Government you are going to have to PAY more in taxes.. That should be obvious..   Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

Whether or not one thinks the NDIS is a good thing (in principle, anyway, as administering it seems to be a ball ache and open to all sorts of fraud and corruption), is, I guess a matter of one's values. Should the taxpayer pick up the tab for those who are chronically and debilitatingly disabled? I guess that will depend on a few things such as:

• What our social conscious is - do we want to look after those genuinely in need or do we want to let them fend for themselves
• Assuming many can't afford the necessary care and treatment (pricate health insurance doesn't seem to be as good as it used to be despite being seemingly more expensive - and there are caps on everything), do we want to overburden the public system anyway and  hinder that being able to treeat accute health issues?
• Do we want to leave people languishing and their family and friends also affected to the point that it could impact macro-economic productivity? Is the cost of the scheme more than the econcomic activity it protects and, indeed produces (or can produce)?
• Also remember that in around 2010, the tort law system was altered radically due to pressures of insurance premiums, for which there was no real evidence proffered by the Ipp report to suggest that tort cases and compensation payouts were the direct result of such premium increases and I think it as AIA Insurance going bust; Since it is now extermely difficult to sue for the cost to cover ongoing treatement of a permanent and debilitating injury, and most workers comp and traffic accident comp schemes are clamping down, is NDIS simply solcialising the otherwise compenstation payments that would be made under the laws of negligence?

Even if the farmer didn't consider himself disabled, it does not mean he is not disabled. They get on with their life, but they need support, whether that is a prosthetic limb, that has to be maintained, etc, or a blind person needing guide dogs and home help to clean the house, to a sever anxiety nuerosia patient needing cognitive-based therapy to be able to manage what most of us consider very duull and mundane activities.  If someone cannot function normally without some form of support or aid, they are disabled. They may not be debilitatingly so, but they are. The use of the NDIS should be limited to those with debilitating disabilities (IMHO), which can only be defined as sunstantial or material impact on the person to lead a normal life without ongoing assistance (or something like that).

 

Personally, I would be very happy for my taxes to go to the NDIS and less to corporate welfare, even if it meant I had to pay a little more for petrol and groceries.

[red750]

Trump has the answer, even for his nephew's son with (I think) Down Syndrome.  Trump - "Let him die." This is his alternative to welfare.

[Jerry_Atrick]

You'd be surprised at hoe many people would agree with him.. Survival of the fittest, etc.

[old man emu]

9 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Should the taxpayer pick up the tab for those who are chronically and debilitatingly disabled? I guess that will depend on a few things such as:

• What our social conscious is - do we want to look after those genuinely in need or do we want to let them fend for themselves

That is the very crux of it. Care for others in one's group has been shown to be an intrinsic component of what it means to be a human, maybe even that of being a mammal, since all mammals which live in groups seem to show this type of caring behaviour. What we are seeing in this backlash against things like the NDIS and an apparent support for eugenics is an increase in self-centredness. The adoption of the "Me. First. Last, and every other time" attitude. What people don't take into account is that disability can come upon a person at any time. How many people do you know who were alright yesterday, but had a stroke overnight and today are disabled? How many do you know who have been disabled to some extent by injury occasioned by accident?

 

If we, with our present ability to finance the care of others, object to providing support to the disabled, what does that say about our intrinsic humanity?

[pmccarthy]

It depends on who you consider is within your group. There are now many people in Australia who do not consider themselves Aussies and identify as members of another group. I am not keen for my tax money to support them. Happy to support my group, which is still a majority of Australian residents. If those others choose to fit into our society, then I will agree my taxes should support them.

[spacesailor]

Agreed.  Learn the language, the laws . Then Naturalise to be counted as .

one of us.

spacesailor

[facthunter]

Yeah, you must know the Don Bradman cricket scores, Bash poofters, put women in their place and have such a good night out drinking that you don't remember any of it. . Nev

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

It depends on who you consider is within your group.

Sorry. I didn't mean to be obscure. I intended the word to have its most basic meaning, a number of things that are located, gathered, or classed together. 

[facthunter]

Where ever a group is gathered in my, Name there am I in the midst of them. JC. Some common purpose or aim., Could also be a gang who form a vigilante violent group. Volunteer fire  fighters. Surf  Clubs. Hells' Angels. Jehova's Witnesses, The MAFIA.  the RSL, Masonic Lodge.  etc etc etc.  Nev

[Marty_d]

If someone has permanent residency, they're an Aussie.  Simple as that.

 

If you want to say that someone's not Australian because they don't like the laws, or the government, then you can probably include most true-blue bogans from <insert dodgy postcode> in that lot.  Splitting by country of birth is just nit-picking.

[facthunter]

Once you're a citizen you really should not differentiate. If we do where does that end?. Crime thrived during the war in ENGLAND and no doubt other places like HERE. Black Market anyone?  Nev

[onetrack]

Re the farmer getting a worker on the NDIS - I didn't see the original programme, so I can only comment on what Willie has outlined. But the problem I see, is that the farmer has chosen to undertake a business operation in running a farm.

I don't believe the NDIS should be supporting business operations - even if they are run by disabled people. Conducting a business is a risk-taking operation and businesses fail regularly.

 

I don't see where the Govt should be supporting the farmers decision to run a business. That's a personal decision that shouldn't involve Govt money.

As a matter for comparison, if you're a War veteran and declared disabled - to the extent you get the Special Rate pension (formerly known as the TPI), then you cannot be a director of a company, or indulge in any business pursuit. 

Formerly, the TPI was only handed out to those soldiers who had lost numbers of limbs or sight or who were unable to work due to shell shock, major hearing loss, etc. The conditions to be met to get a TPI pension are now relaxed, as compared to earlier decades, where you had to prove you were unable to hold down a job or make a living.

Around 30,000 veterans now get the TPI and many appear to be relatively normal-looking - but many suffer from PTSD, skin complaints, hearing loss and other relatively hidden medical complaints. DVA add up all the medical complaints until you reach a score that entitles you to the TPI.

 

As to the farmer, if he needed regular daily care to do basic stuff, such as getting around, washing, eating, even interaction for shopping - then yes, I'd say he's entitled to the NDIS assistance. But as to assistance that's required for farming operations, I'd say that should be outside any NDIS remit.

 

Edited August 1 by onetrack

[old man emu]

Let's not concentrate on the recipients of benefits from NDIS. I believe that the recipients are not the ones scooping the money out of the Treasury's coffers. Like all these things that governments establish with the aim of doing good, unscrupulous operators wheedle their way into acceptance as providers, then inflate their claims for reimbursement. At the same time, those on the government side charged with setting the various amounts payable as reimbursements don't seem to have any idea of what is a reasonable amount a provider should get for providing a service to a disabled person. I know of one provider who last year was being paid $93.00 per hour for providing what were basically outings for individual disabled persons.

 

I might be out of whack myself, but I think $93.00 per hour for taking someone for a drive is a bit OTT.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Jerry sure has it right with his desire to see ndis restricted to the genuinely-deserving cases.

I hate to disagree Marty, but there are people here who have contempt for the attempts by the rest of us for a responsible and kind society. I would use deportation much more freely than at present, and I would expand deportation to include "born in Australia" and "foolishly given citizenship" cases.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I understand getting ND8S support is not easy. But milking the system may be easier: https://ndismarketplace.com/ndis-businesses-for-sale/

 

 

[Marty_d]

12 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Jerry sure has it right with his desire to see ndis restricted to the genuinely-deserving cases.

I hate to disagree Marty, but there are people here who have contempt for the attempts by the rest of us for a responsible and kind society. I would use deportation much more freely than at present, and I would expand deportation to include "born in Australia" and "foolishly given citizenship" cases.

No problem with disagreement Bruce!

 

My point is simply that citizenship by birth is a happy accident.  We have many people born in this country who are a burden on the criminal justice system their whole lives.  Can we deport them too?

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

I understand getting ND8S support is not easy. But milking the system may be easier: https://ndismarketplace.com/ndis-businesses-for-sale/

 

 

Definitely hints at my suspicion that the NDIS is wide open to rorting.

[spacesailor]

No one gets " citizenship " by birth .

Ask any Aboriginal if they have a " citizenship certificate " .

But , my Irish wife has ' English citizenship ' paper because her father was in the

English army . I DIDN'T get one, ever .  ( only born there ) .

and the Pakistan's have English citizenship. 

spacesailor

 

[red750]

Spacey, read this information on birthrights and citizenship. https://rightnow.org.au/opinion/why-did-australia-abolish-birthright-citizenship/. 

 

 

[spacesailor]

Yes that is what I expected !.

but

Citizenship by parents has a hole in it . as from the " viking " & subsequent 

Invasions,  who is English. 

If,  I had a forebear who was an English Citizen,  could I not be an English citizen.

spacesailor

[old man emu]

In 1986, the Australian parliament amended the Australian Citizenship Act to implement citizenship based on ‘jus sanguinis’ (‘law by blood’), under which citizenship is determined by looking to the citizenship of the parents. 

 

My son was born in 1988. In order for his son, my grandson, to get a passport, the application has to include my birth certificate to show that my son is the child of an Australian citizen, and therefore so is his son.

[red750]

The idea is to stop people jumping the gun, foreign nationals coming to Australia to give birth hoping to use that as an avenue to getting citizenship. A bit like marrying an Australian national to get citizenship then getting divorced. The Biloela case was a bit different.