WINZ expected to pay for a 3k treadmill

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 13

4629 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1373403 24-Aug-2015 21:46

johnr: She purchased the treadmill watching late night TV she is not entitled to spend tax payers money like this!

well, shopping channel! it's the same as from buying the net.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1373404 24-Aug-2015 21:50

johnr: She purchased the treadmill watching late night TV she is not entitled to spend tax payers money like this!

It is generally very hard to gain assistance after the fact but not impossible. I would think that the MSD decision to decline was due to the after the fact nature of the case, but would have assessed it having regards to all circumstances and having regards to legal qualification and entitlements.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1373408 24-Aug-2015 22:01

MikeB4:

To make such a certain decision you must be aware of all the circumstances, can you enlighten the thread with this.

No, you don't need all the circumstances at all. You just need to be aware of the price of a treadmill at Rebel Sport (what's that these days?), the price of a gym membership (which many DHBs will in fact subsidise) and compare it to what she's expecting the taxpayer to fork out for.

You're not going to get any support defending someone like this woman. I'd say I hope the court awards costs against her too, but unfortunately that'll just end up costing the taxpayer even more again, as she'll expect WINZ to pay it.

nakedmolerat:

Unfortunately it doesn't work like that.

How many DHB provides gym that you know of? Let me answer - None.

Actually, all the Auckland region DHBs will under something called "green prescription", where they heavily subsidise gym memberships to get people active. Probably costs the taxpayer less than $3000 too.

MikeB4:

It is generally very hard to gain assistance after the fact but not impossible. I would think that the MSD decision to decline was due to the after the fact nature of the case, but would have assessed it having regards to all circumstances and having regards to legal qualification and entitlements.

Uh no. I would say the decline was actually due to the fact that WINZ policy is not to just hand over money to any random supplier, but requires that any goods be purchased from authorised suppliers using a WINZ promissory note document which the supplier hands in to WINZ in exchange for payment for goods, which ensures that people are spending taxpayer money in the most efficient way possible if there is genuine need.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1373409 24-Aug-2015 22:06

Kyanar:
MikeB4:

To make such a certain decision you must be aware of all the circumstances, can you enlighten the thread with this.

No, you don't need all the circumstances at all. You just need to be aware of the price of a treadmill at Rebel Sport (what's that these days?), the price of a gym membership (which many DHBs will in fact subsidise) and compare it to what she's expecting the taxpayer to fork out for.

You're not going to get any support defending someone like this woman. I'd say I hope the court awards costs against her too, but unfortunately that'll just end up costing the taxpayer even more again, as she'll expect WINZ to pay it.

nakedmolerat:

Unfortunately it doesn't work like that.

How many DHB provides gym that you know of? Let me answer - None.

Actually, all the Auckland region DHBs will under something called "green prescription", where they heavily subsidise gym memberships to get people active. Probably costs the taxpayer less than $3000 too.

MikeB4:

It is generally very hard to gain assistance after the fact but not impossible. I would think that the MSD decision to decline was due to the after the fact nature of the case, but would have assessed it having regards to all circumstances and having regards to legal qualification and entitlements.

Uh no. I would say the decline was actually due to the fact that WINZ policy is not to just hand over money to any random supplier, but requires that any goods be purchased from authorised suppliers using a WINZ promissory note document which the supplier hands in to WINZ in exchange for payment for goods, which ensures that people are spending taxpayer money in the most efficient way possible if there is genuine need.

Trust me these decisions are never easy and never taken lightly. These decision can only be made with all circumstances known and cannot be made by anyone here.

gzt

17160 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1373422 24-Aug-2015 22:34

johnr:
Aredwood: The article didn't say if she bought it outright in 1 payment. Or if it was bought on some type of finance. (Just lots of [not so] easy payments of $30 per week type thing) As if it was on finance, Then there is now a responsible lending code. Which requires lenders to check that people applying for finance won't suffer undue hardship to meet their repayments. I doubt that that code would have been complied with in this situation. In which case the lender would have some liability as well.

She could of paid cash or put it on a credit card but the cheek of her to expect the tax payer to fund a 3k treadmill is nuts

I kind of doubt an infomercial company would just send one out on that basis. I read the article and a few more but I have not seen the videos yet. But it looks to me like she purchased it herself (because going by the pictures it was delivered) and then applied to Winz (with her doctors assistance) after that.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1373433 24-Aug-2015 22:57

MikeB4:
Trust me these decisions are never easy and never taken lightly. These decision can only be made with all circumstances known and cannot be made by anyone here.

Oh, bollocks. These decisions absolutely can be made by people here, because those people are taxpayers, and those taxpayers are the ones expected to pay for this.

Ultimately, if someone is receiving support from the taxpayers, they should be expected to respect those taxpayers and use taxpayer funds as efficiently as possible. This women did not do that. She showed blatant disrespect for the taxpayer support she is receiving, and to then take the government to court because she feels entitled to spend taxpayer money however she likes is utterly inexcusable. She should be cut off entirely.

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1373450 24-Aug-2015 23:56

nakedmolerat:
Jase2985: is there something wrong with walking outside?

Yes, if you're fat enough it is much better and comfortable to run on treadmill rather than walking outside.

Edit: just read the article. It sounds like she has had fracture in the past. Walking on treadmill is much better as it is properly padded.

If she's had an injury in the past, shouldn't ACC be paying at least part of the cost?

Haven't read up on it yet, as to MSD paying for yet, so dont offer any opinions on it being justified or not.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1373451 25-Aug-2015 00:11

Kyanar:
MikeB4:
Trust me these decisions are never easy and never taken lightly. These decision can only be made with all circumstances known and cannot be made by anyone here.

Oh, bollocks. These decisions absolutely can be made by people here, because those people are taxpayers, and those taxpayers are the ones expected to pay for this.

Ultimately, if someone is receiving support from the taxpayers, they should be expected to respect those taxpayers and use taxpayer funds as efficiently as possible. This women did not do that. She showed blatant disrespect for the taxpayer support she is receiving, and to then take the government to court because she feels entitled to spend taxpayer money however she likes is utterly inexcusable. She should be cut off entirely.

She's a taxpayer as well, so's her doctor, everyone on the appeal committee, the lawyers, the judge, etc. Hell I'm a tax payer as well and I dont have any objection to my tax dollars being used to provide for those that need it!

Just because she's asking for tax payer funded support isn't ANY reason to flat out deny her the support. After all Millionaires who play rugby and sail expensive yachts get a fair wack of our tax dollars as well, then theirs the billionaire Arab that got a free tax payer handout, and all those being paid to persuade us to choose a new flag...

And you're complaining about ONE woman asking for $3,000 from the us taxpayers.

nathan

5695 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1373461 25-Aug-2015 06:31

MaxLV:
Kyanar:
MikeB4:
Trust me these decisions are never easy and never taken lightly. These decision can only be made with all circumstances known and cannot be made by anyone here.

Oh, bollocks. These decisions absolutely can be made by people here, because those people are taxpayers, and those taxpayers are the ones expected to pay for this.

Ultimately, if someone is receiving support from the taxpayers, they should be expected to respect those taxpayers and use taxpayer funds as efficiently as possible. This women did not do that. She showed blatant disrespect for the taxpayer support she is receiving, and to then take the government to court because she feels entitled to spend taxpayer money however she likes is utterly inexcusable. She should be cut off entirely.

She's a taxpayer as well, so's her doctor, everyone on the appeal committee, the lawyers, the judge, etc. Hell I'm a tax payer as well and I dont have any objection to my tax dollars being used to provide for those that need it!

Just because she's asking for tax payer funded support isn't ANY reason to flat out deny her the support. After all Millionaires who play rugby and sail expensive yachts get a fair wack of our tax dollars as well, then theirs the billionaire Arab that got a free tax payer handout, and all those being paid to persuade us to choose a new flag...

And you're complaining about ONE woman asking for $3,000 from the us taxpayers.

she may well be a tax payer, paying tax on the income that she receives, income that sounds like its a benefit.

A benefit that is paid for by the long suffering taxpayer.

So she is a net recipient of the state.

Who in their right mind would order a $3,000 exercise machine off late night TV infomercials without checking out how you would pay for it.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1373463 25-Aug-2015 06:46

Kyanar:
MikeB4:
Trust me these decisions are never easy and never taken lightly. These decision can only be made with all circumstances known and cannot be made by anyone here.

Oh, bollocks. These decisions absolutely can be made by people here, because those people are taxpayers, and those taxpayers are the ones expected to pay for this.

Ultimately, if someone is receiving support from the taxpayers, they should be expected to respect those taxpayers and use taxpayer funds as efficiently as possible. This women did not do that. She showed blatant disrespect for the taxpayer support she is receiving, and to then take the government to court because she feels entitled to spend taxpayer money however she likes is utterly inexcusable. She should be cut off entirely.

Unless the people here are in one of the following they cannot mike a decision as press articles tell a small part and often erroneous part of the facts......

MSD Case Manager
MSD internal review committee
SSA Appeal Authority Member
Client representative
Client.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29771 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1373464 25-Aug-2015 06:59

I went to Amazon and the product is withdrawn from market, has extremely bad feedback.

Anyway, since you can just buy something off late night shopping channel, we should all buy something we really need and claim it back.

nathan

5695 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1373465 25-Aug-2015 07:03

joker97: I went to Amazon and the product is withdrawn from market, has extremely bad feedback.

Anyway, since you can just buy something off late night shopping channel, we should all buy something we really need and claim it back.

beneficary bashing is sometimes well deserved

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1373468 25-Aug-2015 07:26

what should have happen.

Person: Hi WINZ I have this problem and I have seen this device on TV that might help, I have already tried running outside but due to my medical problems i have had/have then running outside is not an option.
WINZ: Thanks, lets go over it and have a look. Ok we don't think this is be best equipment but lets send you off to one of our specialist and see what they say, if they say there is a problem then I am sure we can find something better than an over the price "as seen on tv" product to help out with your issue.
Person: Thanks let do it.

Person goes off to doctor/specialist gets the sign off and finds the best equipment to help. Winz does it as a loan or works something else out with person.
Everyone is happen

The lady was in the wrong, you should not expect WINZ/MSD to pay for something without first getting authorisation from them.

The reason why WINZ/MSD now need to take this to court is because it has open a door for others to buy products and getting MSD etc to pay for it before getting the OK to do it.
What is stopping someone from booking up a trip to fiji, canada etc for "treatment" and getting MSD to pay for the loan they took out to go.

Or "yes i did need that $10,000 bed because my old one gave me a sore toe"

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1373469 25-Aug-2015 07:27

nathan:
joker97: I went to Amazon and the product is withdrawn from market, has extremely bad feedback.

Anyway, since you can just buy something off late night shopping channel, we should all buy something we really need and claim it back.

beneficary bashing is sometimes well deserved

No it is not

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1373471 25-Aug-2015 07:39

MikeB4:
nathan:
joker97: I went to Amazon and the product is withdrawn from market, has extremely bad feedback.

Anyway, since you can just buy something off late night shopping channel, we should all buy something we really need and claim it back.

beneficary bashing is sometimes well deserved

No it is not

Depends if you a tax payer or not.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 13