|
|
Post by highlander4000 on Jun 29, 2014 1:04:31 GMT 7
|
|
|
|
Post by Denis-NFA on Jun 29, 2014 4:08:32 GMT 7
What could they mean by permanant?, currently for the unlimited portability they say permanant is 5 years plus, but you have to be reassessed for that. Would they reassess every DSPers. We all have a permamant disability under centrelinks current terminology rules of 2 years for qualifying for the dsp when we handed in our dsp applications. Any ideas?. I think permanent means fully diagnosed, treated and stabilized. In other words 'the system' has tried to fix you but it has given up because you are far-QED. I have no idea how Centrelink flags our disabilities, eg hours able to work, length of time a disability might last, but I would make sure that all my medical records were up to date particularly prior to July 1 2015 when the $7 co-payment levy might start. Don't forget that the article you quoted from The Courier also says that there is opportunity for public input. All the best. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2014 4:20:30 GMT 7
Abbott Government to consider welfare reforms including disability support pension abolished for anyone not suffering permanent disability.
What could they mean by permanant?, currently for the unlimited portability they say permanant is 5 years plus, but you have to be reassessed for that. Would they reassess every DSPers.
Who knows what they mean. It changes day to day, office to office. The guidelines for unlimited portability also suggest an "or". Severe Impairment/No Future Work Capacity "or" be assessed as manifestly eligible for DSP under the current (post December 2002) manifest criteria
guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/7/1/2/10
least the next 5 years (i.e. no significant improvement is expected to the level of impairment within this period), and
•have no future work capacity, that is be prevented by their impairment from performing any work independently of a program of support within the next 5 years, "or"
•be assessed as manifestly eligible for DSP under the current (post December 2002) manifest criteria.
So please explain, why is it both? Because they can! C'mon now, that's hardly the way to play the game. Double dippin'
Cheers bear 
|
|
|
|
Post by blahblahblah on Jun 29, 2014 4:51:59 GMT 7
This is what 'permanent' currently means. guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/1/1/p/2201.1.P.220 Permanent condition & permanent impairment (DSP)DefinitionFor the purposes of DSP, both a person's medical condition and the resulting impairment must be permanent before an impairment rating can be assigned under the impairment tables (1.1.I.10). A permanent condition is a medical condition which has been fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised (1.1.F.240) and is more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years. A permanent impairment is an impairment resulting from a permanent condition (1.1.F.240) which is more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years. Example:A condition may last for more than 2 years, but the impairment resulting from that condition may be assessed as likely to improve or cease within 2 years. If this is the case an impairment rating cannot be assigned to the impairment. This is what 'permanent' will mean under Abbott.  |
|
|
|
Post by dani on Jun 29, 2014 5:18:07 GMT 7
This is what 'permanent' currently means. guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/1/1/p/2201.1.P.220 Permanent condition & permanent impairment (DSP)DefinitionFor the purposes of DSP, both a person's medical condition and the resulting impairment must be permanent before an impairment rating can be assigned under the impairment tables (1.1.I.10). A permanent condition is a medical condition which has been fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised (1.1.F.240) and is more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years. A permanent impairment is an impairment resulting from a permanent condition (1.1.F.240) which is more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years. Example:A condition may last for more than 2 years, but the impairment resulting from that condition may be assessed as likely to improve or cease within 2 years. If this is the case an impairment rating cannot be assigned to the impairment. This is what 'permanent' will mean under Abbott. I guess everyone on DSP with a mental illness should be very worried as it looks like they''ll move them to the new "temporary DSP". Also what about people with back problems, chronic pain suffered ect. will they also be moved to the new temporary DSP. Unless you are in a wheelchair or close to death you will be moved off the DSP. I must say McClure and Abbott's plan is genius, this way there will be no reviews the govt can just move people with with illnesses in certain categories off the DSP. No costs associated with appeals like in the UK. The job networks will be the big winners, the money which people will lose by getting a lower DSP will go straight to the job networks who don't even help you find a job. |
|
|
|
Post by Denis-NFA on Jun 29, 2014 5:36:24 GMT 7
I guess everyone on DSP with a mental illness should be very worried as it looks like they''ll move them to the new "temporary DSP". Also what about people with back problems, chronic pain suffered ect. will they also be moved to the new temporary DSP. Unless you are in a wheelchair or close to death you will be moved off the DSP. I must say McClure and Abbott's plan is genius, this way there will be no reviews the govt can just move people with with illnesses in certain categories off the DSP. No costs associated with appeals like in the UK. The job networks will be the big winners, the money which people will lose by getting a lower DSP will go straight to the job networks who don't even help you find a job. Just make sure your medicals are up to date because that is your best and greatest defense. |
|
