WINZ expected to pay for a 3k treadmill

Forums › Off topic › WINZ expected to pay for a 3k treadmill

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

jmh

458 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1375829 28-Aug-2015 17:09

MikeAqua: I would add to your process before step 1 a clinical psychologist's opinion that the person is emotionally/mentally up for seeking, finding and retaining employment. It's waste of time if they are unemployable.

The problem with the suggestion that you don't bother improving someone's mobility if they are unemployable is that there are other benefits of improving mobility. People with increased mobility take fewer drugs and are less likely to clog up hospital beds. They may need fewer tax-payer funded support services. If the person becomes disabled other family members sometimes need to quit work and go on benefit to care for them. Surely it would be better to help them to look after themselves than to ignore them until they become a drain on the healthcare system. It's cheaper to provide services that keep them out of hospital as long as possible.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1376524 30-Aug-2015 18:37

andrew027:
My opinion is that it's fine for my tax to be paying for this sort of stuff, provided the person follows due process, which I imagine should go something like this:

...

In this case, she's gone straight to step 5 and the government are quite rightly having none of it. Next, we'll be funding everyone's NutriBullet or Bambillo or Stonedine frying pan.

Just FYI, that's not quite how the process works. This is how it works in real life:

Beneficiary gets assessed by a medical professional (unsure on these steps)
Medical professional recommends the product as appropriate for improving the beneficiary's condition (unsure)
Beneficiary applies to the government for permission to spend the money, showing medical professional's recommendation
Government approves the purchase up to pre-defined limits depending on the category of goods and location of beneficiary, and requests the beneficiary obtain quotes from approved suppliers
Beneficiary obtains pricing information from suppliers, and takes these to Government
Government provides a promissory note (called a WINZ Quote) to beneficiary, good for purchase of specified goods from specified supplier
Beneficiary purchases the product by presenting the note (NOT cash or credit) to the supplier
~~Beneficiary~~ Supplier sends government the ~~bill~~ note
Government reimburses ~~beneficiary~~ supplier.

gzt

17122 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1377987 1-Sep-2015 23:53

I finally got to the video. What a weird looking machine.

I'm guessing that Winz exercise discretion (according to criteria) to approve or deny part or payment for disability or sickness related expenditure which has already occurred (in this case they said no). If that is the case, then abolishing that ability to approve something already purchased (as some posters have suggested) would probably have unintended really bad consequences for the people in situations where it is needed.

In relation to this case it looks like Winz is taking the Winz Appeal Authority decision to the high court for essentially a judicial review of the appeal authority decision. Ie; it is not a case of a beneficiary taking winz to high court, and not really the other way around either.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1378239 2-Sep-2015 13:34

gzt:

I'm guessing that Winz exercise discretion (according to criteria) to approve or deny part or payment for disability or sickness related expenditure which has already occurred (in this case they said no). If that is the case, then abolishing that ability to approve something already purchased (as some posters have suggested) would probably have unintended really bad consequences for the people in situations where it is needed.

I fail to see how that would have bad consequences? I think it's quite fair to say that you should be required to have permission to spend taxpayer money, and that if you do so with a valid reason (yes, sometimes there are extenuating circumstances) then I do think they should have the ability to say "no, that's not an effective use of taxpayer money". I fully disagree with the appeal authority's decision that WINZ should have paid for this lady's treadmill.

Sideface

9355 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1378245 2-Sep-2015 13:44

Kyanar: ... I think it's quite fair to say that you should be required to have permission to spend taxpayer money, and that if you do so with a valid reason (yes, sometimes there are extenuating circumstances) then I do think they should have the ability to say "no, that's not an effective use of taxpayer money". I fully disagree with the appeal authority's decision that WINZ should have paid for this lady's treadmill.

+1

The default position for unapproved purchases should be "no", with exceptions only under extenuating circumstances, and entirely at the discretion of the Department.

Sideface

gzt

17122 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1378282 2-Sep-2015 14:23

In relation to this particular case one of two things will happen:

a) The court finds that Winz has no obligation to pay in this particular case. Easy.

b) The court finds that Winz has an obligation to pay. Talkback goes crazy etc etc. The minister agrees wholeheartedly and totally with the sentiment. The leader of the opposition agrees wholeheartedly as well. The government introduces a new regulation to specifically avoid this type (however they define it) situation ever arising again. Many cheers for government and some extra votes as well.

Now the shape of that regulation is important because you do not want to make life more difficult for people who need these services.

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13