Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
3284 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953


  Reply # 1373578 25-Aug-2015 10:12
One person supports this post
Send private message

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 :)



Onward
11346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5059

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1373579 25-Aug-2015 10:12
Send private message

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.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


 
 
 
 


jmh

446 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 140

Subscriber

  Reply # 1373581 25-Aug-2015 10:14
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 153
Inactive user


  Reply # 1373586 25-Aug-2015 10:20
Send private message

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. 


Onward
11346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5059

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1373592 25-Aug-2015 10:27
One person supports this post
Send private message

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?




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


jmh

446 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 140

Subscriber

  Reply # 1373607 25-Aug-2015 10:31
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.  

9939 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3030

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1373609 25-Aug-2015 10:33
One person supports this post
Send private message

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?





9939 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3030

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1373612 25-Aug-2015 10:34
One person supports this post
Send private message

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

446 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 140

Subscriber

  Reply # 1373614 25-Aug-2015 10:35
Send private message

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. 

515 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 102


  Reply # 1373617 25-Aug-2015 10:36
4 people support this post
Send private message

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.

Onward
11346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5059

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1373618 25-Aug-2015 10:36
Send private message

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.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


jmh

446 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 140

Subscriber

  Reply # 1373619 25-Aug-2015 10:37
Send private message

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. 

Onward
11346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5059

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1373620 25-Aug-2015 10:37
2 people support this post
Send private message

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




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


523 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 153
Inactive user


  Reply # 1373630 25-Aug-2015 10:48
Send private message

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

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 153
Inactive user


  Reply # 1373635 25-Aug-2015 10:49
Send private message

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 | 12 | 13
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Phone prices rising as users move upmarket
Posted 24-Nov-2017 17:16


Talking net neutrality on RNZ Nine-to-Noon
Posted 24-Nov-2017 12:11


Air New Zealand experiments with blockchain technology
Posted 23-Nov-2017 15:39


Symantec selects Amazon Web Services to deliver cloud security
Posted 23-Nov-2017 10:40


New Zealand Ministry of Education chooses Unisys for cloud-based education resourcing management system
Posted 22-Nov-2017 22:00


Business analytics software powers profits for NZ wine producers
Posted 22-Nov-2017 21:52


Pyrios strikes up alliance with Microsoft integrator UC Logiq
Posted 22-Nov-2017 21:51


The New Zealand IT services ecosystem - it's all digital down here
Posted 22-Nov-2017 21:49


Volvo to supply tens of thousands of autonomous drive compatible cars to Uber
Posted 22-Nov-2017 21:46


From small to medium and beyond: Navigating the ERP battlefield
Posted 21-Nov-2017 21:12


Business owners: ERP software selection starts (and finishes) with you
Posted 21-Nov-2017 21:11


Why I'm not an early adopter
Posted 21-Nov-2017 10:39


Netatmo launches smart home products in New Zealand
Posted 20-Nov-2017 20:06


Huawei Mate 10: Punchy, long battery life, artificial intelligence
Posted 20-Nov-2017 16:30


Propel launch Disney Star Wars Laser Battle Drones
Posted 19-Nov-2017 21:26



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.