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 | 12 | ... | 13

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1373638 25-Aug-2015 10:50

Just my 2c: I have no problem with state-funded rehabilitation equipment and/or services for those in need

I do have a problem with an ill-informed person spending taxpayers' money without authority on something that "looks cool" on an infomercial. I saw the news video and this item seems like an over-complicated piece of rubbish - a $800 treadmill from a retailer would be a better option I'm sure.

A point needs to be made that if you try to spend public money without authority, you're spending your own money

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1373645 25-Aug-2015 10:54

DizzyD:
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

Again you are basing your "rant" on hearsay. The big difference to you is the decision of the District Review Committee which is based on the information presented and having regard to the relevant section of the Social Security Act and the decision
of the Social Security Authority based on the evidence presented and having regard to the Law governing.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1373646 25-Aug-2015 10:55

joker97: the answer is no. if it is health related the DHB can pay for it, as a loan.

And as a loan, who pays that off. Thats right the tax payers.
And now on top of this we have account feels, monthly statements, etc etc etc.

So suddenly that $3000 cost the tax payer $4000.

Compared to $16 Million for the flag, $3000 is nothing.
Or how about how man millions was it that the government put into a rich boys yachting race ?
Or how about the millions in tax payer subsidy for the LOTR movies ?
Then there is the Millions in tax losses to the Gloryvale church mob, never mind all the welfare then paid out to them.

The DHBs are already under funded, if you take more money from them how many proper will not get hip replacements etc etc.

Jase2985

13459 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1373654 25-Aug-2015 10:59

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3203449/49-95-pullover-sparks-two-year-court-battle

similar type of thing

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1373661 25-Aug-2015 11:04

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?

I would rather see the government fund private insurance for these people which would cover this sort of thing.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1373662 25-Aug-2015 11:06

DizzyD:
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?

I would rather see the government fund private insurance for these people which would cover this sort of thing.

They fund insurance for that its called "vote Social Welfare" and is cheaper.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1373663 25-Aug-2015 11:06

shk292: Just my 2c: I have no problem with state-funded rehabilitation equipment and/or services for those in need

I do have a problem with an ill-informed person spending taxpayers' money without authority on something that "looks cool" on an infomercial. I saw the news video and this item seems like an over-complicated piece of rubbish - a $800 treadmill from a retailer would be a better option I'm sure.

A point needs to be made that if you try to spend public money without authority, you're spending your own money

You have no idea, full stop.

Working with a lot of these people is extremely difficult.
There is mental illness, substance abuse, disability, etc etc etc.

Your view is like a multi millionaire buying a $10million house in Auckland then saying he found Auckland very affordable, can't se what people are complaining about.

And whats worse, the social workers we expect to work with these people are paid crap wages.

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.

MikeAqua

7779 posts

Uber Geek

#1373666 25-Aug-2015 11:10

I sort of sympathise with the women in this story ... sort of.

If I thought having this machine would enable her to find employment ... but I suspect that won't happen. I suspect in few months that exercise machine will be gathering dust and she'll be no further ahead.

As a taxpayer I do feel like everyday I go to work with another couple of people on my back.

The number of working age people in this country who are beneficiaries is simply unsustainable.

I applaud MSD for drawing a line in the sand on this.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1373667 25-Aug-2015 11:11

DizzyD:
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?

I would rather see the government fund private insurance for these people which would cover this sort of thing.

So you are saying that the government should pay welfare costs + profit margin.

Insurance companies do not run at a loss. They do a risk assessment and charge accordingly.

I am wondering how you think costing the tax payers even MORE money is somehow a sensible plan.

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1373675 25-Aug-2015 11:14

sir1963:

And whats worse, the social workers we expect to work with these people are paid crap wages.

And what are these social workers doing to up-skill themselves, and in turn obtain better paid jobs?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1373687 25-Aug-2015 11:16

DizzyD:
sir1963:

And whats worse, the social workers we expect to work with these people are paid crap wages.

And what are these social workers doing to up-skill themselves, and in turn obtain better paid jobs?

With respect you have no idea, and where would this country be with out these fine folk?

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1373692 25-Aug-2015 11:20

sir1963:
shk292: Just my 2c: I have no problem with state-funded rehabilitation equipment and/or services for those in need

I do have a problem with an ill-informed person spending taxpayers' money without authority on something that "looks cool" on an infomercial. I saw the news video and this item seems like an over-complicated piece of rubbish - a $800 treadmill from a retailer would be a better option I'm sure.

A point needs to be made that if you try to spend public money without authority, you're spending your own money

You have no idea, full stop.

...
Your view is like a multi millionaire buying a $10million house in Auckland then saying he found Auckland very affordable, can't se what people are complaining about.

And whats worse, the social workers we expect to work with these people are paid crap wages.

Well, thanks for that constructive comment /sarcasm

I'm not sure what you're trying to say but if that's your standard of discussion I probably don't want to hear it

If you read my post properly, you'll notice that I support this person having the right equipment for rehabilitation, and I support the taxpayer funding it. I just want it procured using the correct process

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1373707 25-Aug-2015 11:26

MikeAqua: I sort of sympathise with the women in this story ... sort of.

If I thought having this machine would enable her to find employment ... but I suspect that won't happen. I suspect in few months that exercise machine will be gathering dust and she'll be no further ahead.

As a taxpayer I do feel like everyday I go to work with another couple of people on my back.

The number of working age people in this country who are beneficiaries is simply unsustainable.

I applaud MSD for drawing a line in the sand on this.

Simple solution:
Kill of universal pension.
If you are working, you are not retired. If you have other income, you don't need it.

NZers are paying the LOWEST taxes they have ever paid.

MOST beneficiaries are short term , however they only haul out the ones who are extreme and show the welfare system in a poor light.

Me, I did not want my money spent on Lord of the Rings movies, but the tax pay funded rich people to make them here.
Did not want all that money going to a rich boys yacht race. Or the money going to Rugby, etc
Then there is the $Billion or so the rich people got paid back with the collapse of SCF.
And the flag, and the bribe to a wealthy Arab and we still didn't get a trade agreement, or the expensive flat in NYC.
How about the 1Billion the TPPA is going to cost in pharmaceutical cost increases which the government will bury to hide the cost.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1373710 25-Aug-2015 11:30

shk292:
sir1963:
shk292: Just my 2c: I have no problem with state-funded rehabilitation equipment and/or services for those in need

I do have a problem with an ill-informed person spending taxpayers' money without authority on something that "looks cool" on an infomercial. I saw the news video and this item seems like an over-complicated piece of rubbish - a $800 treadmill from a retailer would be a better option I'm sure.

A point needs to be made that if you try to spend public money without authority, you're spending your own money

You have no idea, full stop.

...
Your view is like a multi millionaire buying a $10million house in Auckland then saying he found Auckland very affordable, can't se what people are complaining about.

And whats worse, the social workers we expect to work with these people are paid crap wages.

Well, thanks for that constructive comment /sarcasm

I'm not sure what you're trying to say but if that's your standard of discussion I probably don't want to hear it

If you read my post properly, you'll notice that I support this person having the right equipment for rehabilitation, and I support the taxpayer funding it. I just want it procured using the correct process

They probably believed it was the right process.
Lots of medical stuff is met by Welfare, are is Dental health, mental health, beds/bedding/food/transport/ etc etc.

You would be surprise how much is met by welfare. They ARE the right people to handle this. They have the "client" knowledge, financials, etc etc, duplication in the DHB is senseless.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1373715 25-Aug-2015 11:33

DizzyD:
sir1963:

And whats worse, the social workers we expect to work with these people are paid crap wages.

And what are these social workers doing to up-skill themselves, and in turn obtain better paid jobs?

Many have degrees.

And like so many things, the tax payer loves to take the lowest price.

Ever thought if the wages were higher it would attract better quality workers ?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 13