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 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 13

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1373578 25-Aug-2015 10:12

MikeB4:

Yes and no, due to the complexity of what the SSA deals with it is very hard to be black and white in the "discretionary" sections of the act. The qualifications for the primary benefits are definitive.

While I think you are incorrect in this situation, good on you for arguing the other view.

We will always need people to fight for the rights of others who may be less able to stand up for themselves.

Keep it up :)

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1373579 25-Aug-2015 10:12

Although the SS Appeal Authority hearings are held in private, for good reason, if anyone is keenly interested they can attend the High Court session unless the Judge rules differently and makes it a closed hearing.

jmh

458 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1373581 25-Aug-2015 10:14

My problem with this particular situation is that there is a direct line between the salesman on tv and the client. There needs to be proper professional assessment somewhere in that lineup. After all, it's possible that the equipment will cause the person physical harm if it is not checked over by a professional who knows the client's health condition. By this, I mean a trained occupational therapist, not an administrator or 'customer services' assistant.

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1373586 25-Aug-2015 10:20

jmh: My problem with this particular situation is that there is a direct line between the salesman on tv and the client. There needs to be proper professional assessment somewhere in that lineup. After all, it's possible that the equipment will cause the person physical harm if it is not checked over by a professional who knows the client's health condition. By this, I mean a trained occupational therapist, not an administrator or 'customer services' assistant.

I take a different view.

taxmoney should not be spent on things like this. Not ever.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1373592 25-Aug-2015 10:27

DizzyD:
jmh: My problem with this particular situation is that there is a direct line between the salesman on tv and the client. There needs to be proper professional assessment somewhere in that lineup. After all, it's possible that the equipment will cause the person physical harm if it is not checked over by a professional who knows the client's health condition. By this, I mean a trained occupational therapist, not an administrator or 'customer services' assistant.

I take a different view.

taxmoney should not be spent on things like this. Not ever.

What about exercise machines to allow rehabilitation? What about Electric or manual wheelchairs or scooters? what about ramps, lifts, rails, Motor vehicles, hoists, nebulisers?

jmh

458 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1373607 25-Aug-2015 10:31

DizzyD:
jmh: My problem with this particular situation is that there is a direct line between the salesman on tv and the client. There needs to be proper professional assessment somewhere in that lineup. After all, it's possible that the equipment will cause the person physical harm if it is not checked over by a professional who knows the client's health condition. By this, I mean a trained occupational therapist, not an administrator or 'customer services' assistant.

I take a different view.

taxmoney should not be spent on things like this. Not ever.

I'm not unsympathetic with your view, but public spending should be on the basis on assessed need not personal opinion. A professional assessment of the situation would likely have led to recommendation of physio equipment at a much lower price, or perhaps a green prescription as mentioned by someone earlier. If the need is assessed by an expert through a fully transparent process, then taxpayers money is less likely to be needed for legal representation in court. I personally don't think this item should be paid for by the taxpayer, but my opinion is not really relevant.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1373609 25-Aug-2015 10:33

MikeB4:
DizzyD:
jmh: My problem with this particular situation is that there is a direct line between the salesman on tv and the client. There needs to be proper professional assessment somewhere in that lineup. After all, it's possible that the equipment will cause the person physical harm if it is not checked over by a professional who knows the client's health condition. By this, I mean a trained occupational therapist, not an administrator or 'customer services' assistant.

I take a different view.

taxmoney should not be spent on things like this. Not ever.

What about exercise machines to allow rehabilitation? What about Electric or manual wheelchairs or scooters? what about ramps, lifts, rails, Motor vehicles, hoists, nebulisers?

Those things would presumably be provided following medical advice etc and AFTER the approval has been given? I assume a person would not drop $10k (or whatever the price is) on a new electric wheelchair and then just mail the bill in expecting payment?

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1373612 25-Aug-2015 10:34

jmh:
DizzyD:
jmh: My problem with this particular situation is that there is a direct line between the salesman on tv and the client. There needs to be proper professional assessment somewhere in that lineup. After all, it's possible that the equipment will cause the person physical harm if it is not checked over by a professional who knows the client's health condition. By this, I mean a trained occupational therapist, not an administrator or 'customer services' assistant.

I take a different view.

taxmoney should not be spent on things like this. Not ever.

I'm not unsympathetic with your view, but public spending should be on the basis on assessed need not personal opinion. A professional assessment of the situation would likely have led to recommendation of physio equipment at a much lower price, or perhaps a green prescription as mentioned by someone earlier. If the need is assessed by an expert through a fully transparent process, then taxpayers money is less likely to be needed for legal representation in court. I personally don't think this item should be paid for by the taxpayer, but my opinion is not really relevant.

What value is the tax payer getting from supporting this person though?

jmh

458 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1373614 25-Aug-2015 10:35

MikeB4:
DizzyD:
jmh: My problem with this particular situation is that there is a direct line between the salesman on tv and the client. There needs to be proper professional assessment somewhere in that lineup. After all, it's possible that the equipment will cause the person physical harm if it is not checked over by a professional who knows the client's health condition. By this, I mean a trained occupational therapist, not an administrator or 'customer services' assistant.

I take a different view.

taxmoney should not be spent on things like this. Not ever.

What about exercise machines to allow rehabilitation? What about Electric or manual wheelchairs or scooters? what about ramps, lifts, rails, Motor vehicles, hoists, nebulisers?

Yeah, my dad had stroke six months ago and he has needed some equipment for the house and a wheelchair. He would be out jogging again if he could.

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1373617 25-Aug-2015 10:36

DizzyD:
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.

No it doesn't.

Being a tax payer doesn't give you, me or anyone else who pays taxes the right to decide how your taxes are spent, and it certainly doesn't give you any right to 'bash' recipients of tax dollars no matter who they may be.

Why do you want to 'bash' those who may be worse off than yourself? Why dont you like living in a caring society that uses tax payer dollars to support those worse off than yourself? Especially when everyone benefits directly from tax payer dollars being spent you, me, and everyone else who pay taxes.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1373618 25-Aug-2015 10:36

Geektastic:
MikeB4:
DizzyD:
jmh: My problem with this particular situation is that there is a direct line between the salesman on tv and the client. There needs to be proper professional assessment somewhere in that lineup. After all, it's possible that the equipment will cause the person physical harm if it is not checked over by a professional who knows the client's health condition. By this, I mean a trained occupational therapist, not an administrator or 'customer services' assistant.

I take a different view.

taxmoney should not be spent on things like this. Not ever.

What about exercise machines to allow rehabilitation? What about Electric or manual wheelchairs or scooters? what about ramps, lifts, rails, Motor vehicles, hoists, nebulisers?

Those things would presumably be provided following medical advice etc and AFTER the approval has been given? I assume a person would not drop $10k (or whatever the price is) on a new electric wheelchair and then just mail the bill in expecting payment?

Correct, but my reply was to "taxmoney should not be spent on things like this. Not ever."

As with a lot of things involved with welfare they grey is big.

jmh

458 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1373619 25-Aug-2015 10:37

Geektastic:
jmh:
DizzyD:
jmh: My problem with this particular situation is that there is a direct line between the salesman on tv and the client. There needs to be proper professional assessment somewhere in that lineup. After all, it's possible that the equipment will cause the person physical harm if it is not checked over by a professional who knows the client's health condition. By this, I mean a trained occupational therapist, not an administrator or 'customer services' assistant.

I take a different view.

taxmoney should not be spent on things like this. Not ever.

I'm not unsympathetic with your view, but public spending should be on the basis on assessed need not personal opinion. A professional assessment of the situation would likely have led to recommendation of physio equipment at a much lower price, or perhaps a green prescription as mentioned by someone earlier. If the need is assessed by an expert through a fully transparent process, then taxpayers money is less likely to be needed for legal representation in court. I personally don't think this item should be paid for by the taxpayer, but my opinion is not really relevant.

What value is the tax payer getting from supporting this person though?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1373620 25-Aug-2015 10:37

Geektastic:
jmh:
DizzyD:
jmh: My problem with this particular situation is that there is a direct line between the salesman on tv and the client. There needs to be proper professional assessment somewhere in that lineup. After all, it's possible that the equipment will cause the person physical harm if it is not checked over by a professional who knows the client's health condition. By this, I mean a trained occupational therapist, not an administrator or 'customer services' assistant.

I take a different view.

taxmoney should not be spent on things like this. Not ever.

I'm not unsympathetic with your view, but public spending should be on the basis on assessed need not personal opinion. A professional assessment of the situation would likely have led to recommendation of physio equipment at a much lower price, or perhaps a green prescription as mentioned by someone earlier. If the need is assessed by an expert through a fully transparent process, then taxpayers money is less likely to be needed for legal representation in court. I personally don't think this item should be paid for by the taxpayer, but my opinion is not really relevant.

What value is the tax payer getting from supporting this person though?

In a caring society that does not need to be answered

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1373630 25-Aug-2015 10:48

MaxLV:

Being a tax payer doesn't give you, me or anyone else who pays taxes the right to decide how your taxes are spent, and it certainly doesn't give you any right to 'bash' recipients of tax dollars no matter who they may be.

Why do you want to 'bash' those who may be worse off than yourself? Why dont you like living in a caring society that uses tax payer dollars to support those worse off than yourself? Especially when everyone benefits directly from tax payer dollars being spent you, me, and everyone else who pay taxes.

I know it does not give me the right to decide how its spent. Thats the whole problem! Maybe that's why I am ranting so much about this article!

But seeing that it is my hard earned money I think I have every right to complain, whinge, and rant when I see its being used badly (As in this case).

Its not about bashing those that are worse off. IMO the poor are extremely well looked after in NZ.
I may be making an assumption here, but this lady probably lives in a house funded by taxpayers, has her electricity bill paid for by tax payers etc. She also has free access to health care, also funded by taxpayer.

She is not very bad off at all. Its a joke that she thinks she is entitled to more taxpayer money and just buy something off late night TV (powered by taxpayers)!

/Rant

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1373635 25-Aug-2015 10:49

jmh:
Geektastic:
jmh:
DizzyD:
jmh: My problem with this particular situation is that there is a direct line between the salesman on tv and the client. There needs to be proper professional assessment somewhere in that lineup. After all, it's possible that the equipment will cause the person physical harm if it is not checked over by a professional who knows the client's health condition. By this, I mean a trained occupational therapist, not an administrator or 'customer services' assistant.

I take a different view.

taxmoney should not be spent on things like this. Not ever.

I'm not unsympathetic with your view, but public spending should be on the basis on assessed need not personal opinion. A professional assessment of the situation would likely have led to recommendation of physio equipment at a much lower price, or perhaps a green prescription as mentioned by someone earlier. If the need is assessed by an expert through a fully transparent process, then taxpayers money is less likely to be needed for legal representation in court. I personally don't think this item should be paid for by the taxpayer, but my opinion is not really relevant.

What value is the tax payer getting from supporting this person though?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Us taxpayers are shareholders in a company!
I think that's what he is getting at.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 13