|
|
Post by nomadic on Oct 5, 2019 18:18:54 GMT 7
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2019 18:39:28 GMT 7
I read a rebuttal to this earlier today........"Your one big problem Ann, is you haven't added any money to the bucket in the last 25 years; so that makes you either, an outright liar, a totally incompetent minister, totally out of touch with reality; or all three. So, care to explain yourself?" Cheers bear
|
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Jan 16, 2020 16:46:31 GMT 7
|
|
|
|
Post by bear on Jan 16, 2020 19:45:31 GMT 7
I'm not being flippant with this comment; but thoughts & prayers is the only committment they have to improving outcomes. If a terminal prognosis isn't considered permanent what is? Death? But then they don't pay dead people either do they; though it's ok for their mates at the Big 4 banks to charge them fees & charges for years & years.
They don't deserve to breathe the same air as us, well any air at all, to put it bluntly. They can hardly be classified as part of the human race imho. Cheers bear
|
|
|
|
Post by latindancer on Jan 17, 2020 1:34:16 GMT 7
You may have hit the nail right on the head there, Bear. Though Nomadic has also said this in the past.
In the same way that many of our business leaders and managers have been found to have (often strong) psychopathic traits, I think many politicians do too. They are largely a breed apart, with some notable exceptions of course. But the job attracts manipulating, controlling, self-interested people like flies to sh*t.
And why not ? Their disgustingly high salaries and pensions are a huge attractant, not to mention the fame and adulation (the disgust and anger of other people they just shrug off, as psychopaths and their close mates narcissists do so well)
As empathy is the best human trait, psychopaths (who lack real empathy but have replaced it with cunning and ability to coldly "read" other people) do seem to be non-human.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Jan 17, 2020 6:48:20 GMT 7
Yes, it must be fully treated to get DSP is the most despicable idea some backroom public servant has connived. (picture the P.S. in said backroom giggling to himself when they came up with this idea. This will F them. ha ha ha I'm a genius). Means anyone getting treatment of any kind for anything cannot get DSP. So maybe everyone should stop taking all their pills and stop going to the doctor until they get DSP. Dear Centrelink, I have been diagnosed with cancer, it is stabilised (terminal) and I am no longer getting treatment for it. and then start getting treatment when on DSP, If still alive.
|
|
|
|
Post by bear on Jan 17, 2020 8:38:20 GMT 7
Yes, it must be fully treated to get DSP is the most despicable idea some backroom public servant has connived. (picture the P.S. in said backroom giggling to himself when they came up with this idea. This will F them. ha ha ha I'm a genius). Means anyone getting treatment of any kind for anything cannot get DSP. So maybe everyone should stop taking all their pills and stop going to the doctor until they get DSP. Dear Centrelink, I have been diagnosed with cancer, it is stabilised (terminal) and I am no longer getting treatment for it. and then start getting treatment when on DSP, If still alive. The interesting thing in your link though nomadic ; is they weren't using the "not stabilized" description to deny. They seem to be relying on an implied descriptor, usually associated with gainig UP for those already on the payment. "A Permanent Condition" is not in any way shape or form, part of being granted DSP. In fact; the condition only has to be expected to continue for more than two years. They are playing semantics....... These people are being denied a rightful payment illegally; by bluff, sleight of hand. Time for some left wing pro bono lawyer to take up the cause, like they have with Robodebt. The outline below sounds fairly permanent to me; in fact near identical to applications that have been denied. Bear  "Severely disabled DSP recipients who are in the terminal phase of a terminal illness can have unlimited portability if they are departing permanently to their country of origin, or to be with, or near, a family member. Terminal phase of a terminal illness means a life expectancy of less than 2 years". guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/7/1/2/20P.S. So, why is it if you're going to die you can go OS in this instance; but if you fit that same criteria you aren't eligible for payment? |
|
|
|
Post by tasjo on Jan 17, 2020 21:03:51 GMT 7
I'll have to disagree with you on this one... Their ineligibility appears to be more related to income than medical... They are however completely incorrect in needing to reapply if each fortnight's earnings are different - Centrelink has always used the previous 13 weeks income as a basis for whether a claim meets the income threshold.
Without being completely out of order as well, if the treatment being undertaken is not covered by the PBS, not having a concession/pension card would make no difference to it's cost. Private scripts are the same price with or without a concession card.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Jan 18, 2020 7:09:29 GMT 7
Yeah tasjo well done, I guessed that also afterwards but I reacted with the emotion of it as always the emotional story gets everyone all excited, myself also. What journalists thrive on rather than the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Jan 18, 2020 7:12:18 GMT 7
P.S. just noticed was channel 9 news. No surprise as the current affairs gutter news channel.
|
|
|
|
Post by bear on Jan 18, 2020 7:27:38 GMT 7
Agreed tasjo .....income rather than medical seems to be the major factor in this particular case, even though they are still just marginally under the threshold. However my main aim was to highlight the denial process; whereby a condition not deemed "permanent" should not to be a reason to be denied DSP and made me wonder how many more may have given up by being fobbed off using the same strategy. The source of the article also though, is not exactly known for it's outstanding journalism. Cheers bear P.S. I note nomadic has already addressed the press matter. |
|
|
|
Post by tasjo on Jan 18, 2020 7:34:48 GMT 7
Nomadic - on a personal and emotional level it upsets me massively that a mother with cancer is having to make choices like this but it can't always be the fault of the government when a payment is income based or the treatment is either experimental or not PBS funded.
I would like to think that maybe one of the cancer organisation would be the appropriate place for this family to get support while going through this.
I do think there needs to be some kind of allowance or HCC. For people who would be a manifest DSP qualification and also need to look at the longer term sickness criteria
|
|
|
|
Post by bear on Jan 18, 2020 10:08:09 GMT 7
In a nutshell imho; the whole thing needs to be scrapped, or at the very least rejigged back to a time when people where shown understanding and compassion through public servants fully understanding what the actual difference is between legislation, based on strict adherence & policy, based on the spirit of social cohesion.
I can't ever see that happening though because, it would mean actual human to human interaction on an ARO or CSO basis and I'm afraid those days are long gone with the advent of AI, algorithms and extreme right wing policies designed to do away with any thoughts of social cohesion for the common good. Cheers bear
|
|
|
|
Post by latindancer on Jan 19, 2020 2:01:11 GMT 7
The Libs are obsessed with the state of the economy, yet they won't or can't see the sense in a report by an eminent firm, as summed up at the end of the article linked in Nomadic's original post here :
"The report by Deloitte Access Economics found that raising the rate of Newstart by $75 a week would create an additional 12,000 jobs by 2020-21, and would disproportionately benefit lower income households who most need the money and are most likely to pump that money — around $4 billion — back into the economy. Literally everybody wins".
|
|
|
|
Post by rainyday on Jan 20, 2020 6:33:22 GMT 7
It does seem to be the income threshold is just above the limit so she doesn't get a concession card. However if she was on her own and raising kids she still wouldn't be getting a dsp, as that was rejected. At best she would get a newstart allowance. The government legislation lacks any heartfelt compassion for those in need, unfortunately. Thankfully she does have a hubby with a decent income, but I can still see that the struggles on the family would be tough at this time.
Perhaps a HCC could help the family at this time, but the government are too lousy to grant that to her at this time of need.
|
|
