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
3026 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 808


  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 :)



Departed
10050 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4206

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
IT Management Consultant, Freelance money spender
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 

 

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

 

 


 
 
 
 


jmh

441 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 137

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. 


Departed
10050 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4206

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
IT Management Consultant, Freelance money spender
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 

 

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

 

 


jmh

441 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 137

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.  

9062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2636

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?





9062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2636

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

441 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 137

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. 

443 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 80


  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.

Departed
10050 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4206

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
IT Management Consultant, Freelance money spender
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 

 

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

 

 


jmh

441 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 137

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. 

Departed
10050 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4206

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
IT Management Consultant, Freelance money spender
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 

 

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 »

Security concerns reach new peak, Unisys Security Index
Posted 27-Jun-2017 14:11


Behind Spark’s slow-burn 4.5G plan
Posted 26-Jun-2017 16:23


Red Hat unveils production-ready open source hyperconverged infrastructure
Posted 23-Jun-2017 22:10


Whatever ailed Vodafone broadband … seems to be fixed
Posted 23-Jun-2017 14:10


VMware NSX Meets Stringent Government Security Standards with Common Criteria Certification
Posted 22-Jun-2017 19:05


Brother launches next-generation colour laser printers and all-in- ones for business
Posted 22-Jun-2017 18:56


Intel and IOC announce partnership
Posted 22-Jun-2017 18:50


Samsung Galaxy Tab S3: Best Android tablet
Posted 21-Jun-2017 12:05


Wellington-based company helping secure Microsoft browsers
Posted 20-Jun-2017 20:51


Endace delivers high performance with new 1/10/40 Gbps packet capture card
Posted 20-Jun-2017 20:50


You can now integrate SMX security into Microsoft Office 365, Google and other cloud email platforms
Posted 20-Jun-2017 20:47


Ravensdown launches new decision-making tool HawkEye
Posted 19-Jun-2017 15:38


Spark planning to take on direct management of all consumer stores
Posted 19-Jun-2017 10:03


Qrious acquires Ubiquity
Posted 14-Jun-2017 12:21


Spark New Zealand prepares for 5G with Nokia
Posted 14-Jun-2017 12:16



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.