Should people like this be helped?

Forums › Off topic › Should people like this be helped?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 13

761 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2081189 30-Aug-2018 08:57

Rikkitic:

I find it a little disheartening that so many people are so quick to refuse help to someone in serious trouble because they didn't dot the right 'i's or it might cost money or (horrors) set a precedent.

There used to be a time when we sprang to help others regardless of the circumstances or who was to blame or whether they 'deserved' it or not. This is not a minor issue of some hippy who ran out of money overseas and wants a free trip home. These are people in serious trouble (or is a coma not enough for you?) and the attitudes expressed here are quite frankly shameful.

Well I think it's shameful that we don't spend more money funding rare cancer medication in NZ, or early childcare education, or young parents, or university education, or better public transport, or cleaning our waterways, or paying teachers more. The fact is there is only so much tax money to go around, and you can't fund everything.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18668 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2081197 30-Aug-2018 09:09

networkn:

I assume based on this, you made a sizeable contribution to assist then?

I assume, based on the snarkiness of your comment, that you are reveling smugly in your moral superiority?

No, I have not contributed to this. As a pensioner I do not have the means to support every worthy cause that comes along but I do support a number to the extent I am able. Not that I have to justify my charitable donations to you. In any case, my comment was in regard to the matter of principle involved, that so many people seem so ready to write off others who suffer misfortune.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

sxz

761 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2081198 30-Aug-2018 09:09

MikeB4:

sxz:

Batman:

On a different note, anyone who has ever been sick are not allowed to travel in case something happens again?

Of course they are allowed to travel. They just need have a plan and not rely on someone else doing it for them. Lots of people have problems, and plan accordingly.

They did plan the HAD insurance

They didn't plan their insurance properly. They didn't seek cover for (or disclose) their pre-existing condition, which invalidated that insurance. I've had enough insurance policies to know they would have been warned about this. We don't have enough information to know whether that was a fair decision or not for the insurer not to pay out on that basis, but on the facts provided, they DID NOT have insurance for that person's particular circumstances. It sucks. It really does. But we can't afford to bail out everyone who doesn't do things properly. We would go broke as a country.

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#2081199 30-Aug-2018 09:09

MikeB4:

They did plan the HAD insurance

Based on media coverage they did have insurance but I suggest either: -

- The policy purchased excluded one of the medical conditions she has developed (based on pre-existing issues); or

- A pre-existing condition relevant to the problems she is suffering wasn't declared;

But .... problem solved by give-a-little.

Mike

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18668 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2081200 30-Aug-2018 09:13

sxz:

Well I think it's shameful that we don't spend more money funding rare cancer medication in NZ, or early childcare education, or young parents, or university education, or better public transport, or cleaning our waterways, or paying teachers more. The fact is there is only so much tax money to go around, and you can't fund everything.

That at least is a sensible comment. I just wonder in this specific case if the government could not do more to help out. A guaranteed loan has been mentioned as one possibility. I am sure there must be other things.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32370 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2081206 30-Aug-2018 09:20

Rikkitic:

networkn:

I assume based on this, you made a sizeable contribution to assist then?

I assume, based on the snarkiness of your comment, that you are reveling smugly in your moral superiority?

No, I have not contributed to this. As a pensioner I do not have the means to support every worthy cause that comes along but I do support a number to the extent I am able. Not that I have to justify my charitable donations to you. In any case, my comment was in regard to the matter of principle involved, that so many people seem so ready to write off others who suffer misfortune.

Speaking of snarky..

I am not reveling in anything. Superior or otherwise.

In my experience, people who boldly claim that more help should be given to x and y, are the people least likely to be actually contributing. It's easy to spent other peoples money. Just like your own budget and it's limitations, we have a budget for the country which also has it's limitations. Unless we increase our tax take, we are then deciding that helping this women is more important than other things, and once you open the gates for this, then there will be MANY more.

I am not without compassion, you should well and truly know that by now, however, money spent on x can't be spent on y.

There are private options for helping this women get home if her cause is deemed worthy by contributors and her target to get her home has been met now.

There is a lot of information missing from this story, I don't think it's near as simple as many are making it out to be.

tdgeek

29755 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2081210 30-Aug-2018 09:27

gzt:
DaveB: Should people like this be helped?

Yes, and they have been assisted by NZ diplomatic staff. Givealittle has raised the required funds. Hard to know what the insurance story is without full information.

Agree

It seems that its not about their insurance, its about the insurance coverage they should have got

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29755 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2081222 30-Aug-2018 09:39

Rikkitic:

No taxpayer money to help citizens in genuine trouble because it is needed for more important things like this. Good to know we have our priorities right.

You can't say that. There are so many costs to run a country, and some costs give a return. I could also say lets stop making cycle lanes so we can pay that to the insurance company to fund claims that are not covered. Or blame National for spending 26 million on a flag, blame Labour for spending money on student benefits, blame the Greens for spending money on native flora when we already have plenty of it

If the Mum wasn't prepared to insure herself for her needs to cover the pre existing breathing issues which appear to have caused a one time hospital intervention, into a lengthy problem, that's not genuine trouble. As someone stated, it was a gamble and she lost. Had she been caught up in an unforeseen situation, and no way out, then yes, that's a genuine need.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18668 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2081223 30-Aug-2018 09:40

networkn:

In my experience, people who boldly claim that more help should be given to x and y, are the people least likely to be actually contributing. It's easy to spent other peoples money. Just like your own budget and it's limitations, we have a budget for the country which also has it's limitations. Unless we increase our tax take, we are then deciding that helping this women is more important than other things, and once you open the gates for this, then there will be MANY more.

I am not without compassion, you should well and truly know that by now, however, money spent on x can't be spent on y.

There are private options for helping this women get home if her cause is deemed worthy by contributors and her target to get her home has been met now.

There is a lot of information missing from this story, I don't think it's near as simple as many are making it out to be.

This is a different comment from your previous one and (unlike your previous one) it warrants a serious reply. I do indeed know that you are not lacking compassion, which is one reason I was surprised at your responses here. I agree that there is information missing from this story, and the people involved may not (or may well) be deserving of help from others. Again, I was not responding to this specific case, but rather, to the apparent unwillingness of most posters here to lend a helping hand. I found that regrettable.

Indeed we have to make choices, and I have chosen in this specific case not to contribute, which would have reduced my ability to contribute elsewhere. These people do indeed seem to be getting the support they need without my help, and that is good. It demonstrates that there are still people in this country who are prepared to help others in need.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

29755 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2081225 30-Aug-2018 09:43

MikeB4:

Batman: Absence of detail in a news article is not proof of anything.

But the attitudes being displayed in this this are proof of something

I don't agree with that. Many say no, as insurance covers this, but the Mum didn't cover herself correctly it appears. If it was standard practice if your house burnt down and was not insured that the Govt would cover that, that's a problem as well, probably similar to this

tdgeek

29755 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2081226 30-Aug-2018 09:49

networkn:

trig42:

I wouldn't have minded if the Government had offered to help get her back to a NZ hospital as a loan (similar to what they do if you are refused entry to a country and have to be repatriated and you have no means of doing so - you have to pay it back - I believe anyway).

Looks like the Givealittle has raised a fair chunk of change. I hope for her and her family they get home safe and she comes right.

Give a little was the appropriate response I think. but I shadow your sentiment that a loan may well have been another option from the Government, though the time it would take to put something like this in place wouldn't be ideal. They tried to remortgage their house and couldn't raise enough, presumably because they wouldn't be able to service the additional debt.

The question that was raised above, was a reasonable one.. Is there evidence to support that coming back to NZ would result in superior medical treatment to that she is already receiving. From what relatively vague press coverage there has been, it seems her illness is anti biotic resistant.

I read they cannot leave until they pay the bill, which in itself is a high daily cost. Not seen anything about the quality of care.

networkn

Networkn
32370 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2081227 30-Aug-2018 09:50

Rikkitic:

This is a different comment from your previous one and (unlike your previous one) it warrants a serious reply. I do indeed know that you are not lacking compassion, which is one reason I was surprised at your responses here. I agree that there is information missing from this story, and the people involved may not (or may well) be deserving of help from others. Again, I was not responding to this specific case, but rather, to the apparent unwillingness of most posters here to lend a helping hand. I found that regrettable.

Indeed we have to make choices, and I have chosen in this specific case not to contribute, which would have reduced my ability to contribute elsewhere. These people do indeed seem to be getting the support they need without my help, and that is good. It demonstrates that there are still people in this country who are prepared to help others in need.

I have seen no replies that say we shouldn't help anyone (To be fair we are a socialist little country who helps a lot of people in general at both Government and Personal Level).

I have seen a lot of people who have commented on this specific case, as that is what this thread is about.

There are a lot of people saying they don't support Government intervention based on what information has been provided (or not). That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Personally, in terms of spending priorities, I'd support helping this woman, long long long before I'd spend money (maybe) recovering remains of miners.

tdgeek

29755 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2081229 30-Aug-2018 09:55

networkn:

Personally, in terms of spending priorities, I'd support helping this woman, long long long before I'd spend money (maybe) recovering remains of miners.

Not enough "longs".

I detest spending big money for symbolic reasons, let alone the vote catching reasons for that topic.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18668 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2081235 30-Aug-2018 10:02

Way off topic but I support the mine re-entry. It is a crime scene and something may have been covered up (no pun intended, it's not funny).

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

29755 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2081241 30-Aug-2018 10:15

Rikkitic:

Way off topic but I support the mine re-entry. It is a crime scene and something may have been covered up (no pun intended, it's not funny).

It was a crime scene, its been dealt with. The families want the remains, at a cost of millions if not 10's of millions. I feel that is unreasonable. If someone gets hurt in there again.... A big and well designed plaque would have been my preference.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 13