Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2016 14:05:26 GMT 7
Sending emails to members of ACOSS might also be worth it too since they are fighting for welfare people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2016 14:26:40 GMT 7
Gai.Brodtmann.MP@aph.gov.au senator.katy.gallagher@aph.gov.au
For those who happen to be in Canberra like me.
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Jul 19, 2016 15:57:25 GMT 7
Sending emails to members of ACOSS might also be worth it too since they are fighting for welfare people. Cool; I'd forgotten about them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2016 16:58:48 GMT 7
I call in often to see the staff at Senator Siewerts office of The Greens in Perth now I am back here for a while again. They still dont know if Rachel will win her seat but are confident as the count goes on. In the senate, counting and determination of preferences is taking a staggeringly long time due to the strange way the senate voting rules were enacted. There is no clear indication of flow of preferences but given their quota stays higher than the W A Naionals, they feel Rachel will retain her seat.
That leads me to the relevance of this DSP assesment question, which once we know if Senator Siewert is successful or before, I will ask her staff again for an update of their interpretation of who will be targeted for the 90,000 and when.
Since this forums objective is Senator Siewerts shadow portfolio, I shall pursue with her good staff again at the earliest, to gain information of who/how/when and why the assesements will occur. Until then though, emailing members of parliament and ACOSS is encouraged by all here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2016 17:31:17 GMT 7
Agreed. While we know two things that they will pick those unreviewed on new tables and based on capacity what will be handy to know from them is the algorithm they will use to select. I've sent away emails to numerous MP's and Senators.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2016 17:52:04 GMT 7
Agreed. While we know two things that they will pick those unreviewed on new tables and based on capacity what will be handy to know from them is the algorithm they will use to select. I've sent away emails to numerous MP's and Senators. This my friend is exactly what I have been trying to establish from the office of Senator Seiwert. They too are attempting to do the same. The more contact from many, to all those members will create its own algorithm of meaning of purpose. Its incumbent on those who think they will be part of an assessment though, to start their own personal crusade with their doctor. Quite simply, if your over 35 and under 65, were assessed prior to 2012, you should speak with your doctor and tell him/her that there is a pending inquisition into your status of compliance with DSP. If your current doctor fobs you off, then find another one. Hard as that may seem, its the only way. Most medical people though, dont take lightly their diagnosis being challenged by changes to regulations based on simply attempts to cut costs to some obscure budget figure from Canberra. Updating of our medical conditions is important both for the reasons of pending assessment and more importantly, for our own well being. I would implore anyone who feels that they will be the next to be assessed, to make an appointment and be frank about why, with your doctor. They only too well know that people like us are being more and more marginalized, and can only assist when we talk to them. A medical condition that was diagnosed years before to comply with the tables set then, with a person now having been on DSP since, will in my view see most found to be in fact far worse. Far from comforting from a personal viewpoint, and most of us prefer to avoid such, facing up to the fact is what has to be done given what the pending assesment regime will create.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2016 17:58:09 GMT 7
Yeah I agree with all that. Also helps to have someone to be your support person with any doctor or centrelink review type appointments as it can make a difference and a bit of morale.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2016 18:01:32 GMT 7
Yeah I agree with all that. Also helps to have someone to be your support person with any doctor or centrelink review type appointments as it can make a difference and a bit of morale. Quite so. We can never remember everything. Neither can Doctors. Even when they read all their own reports and make the docs report, sometimes things are overlooked. In my case, whilst it didnt make any difference, both my doc and I forgot!!! We forgot!!! to include my heart condition. Bizare.
|
|
|
Post by bunyip on Jul 19, 2016 18:48:12 GMT 7
SOmeone from welfare rights told me the reassessments of the 90,000 wont start until either 1st of January or 1st July next year , is that correct
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Jul 20, 2016 3:27:20 GMT 7
Off topic, I know, but does anyone know what the TDR for review looks like these days? I understand it's different to the TDR for initial claim.
|
|
|
Post by Denis-NFA on Jul 20, 2016 4:10:51 GMT 7
Off topic, I know, but does anyone know what the TDR for review looks like these days? I understand it's different to the TDR for initial claim. I got assessed in 2010 with 40 points for one single disability. I have no idea what points I was allocated when I was re-assessed in 2013 for UP.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2016 4:24:16 GMT 7
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Jul 20, 2016 4:49:38 GMT 7
Thanks, peacesells, I had seen that one but wondered if there was one unconnected to PoS. It's unlikely it'd be much different though.
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Jul 20, 2016 9:33:34 GMT 7
I call in often to see the staff at Senator Siewerts office of The Greens in Perth now I am back here for a while again. They still dont know if Rachel will win her seat but are confident as the count goes on. In the senate, counting and determination of preferences is taking a staggeringly long time due to the strange way the senate voting rules were enacted. There is no clear indication of flow of preferences but given their quota stays higher than the W A Naionals, they feel Rachel will retain her seat. That leads me to the relevance of this DSP assesment question, which once we know if Senator Siewert is successful or before, I will ask her staff again for an update of their interpretation of who will be targeted for the 90,000 and when. Since this forums objective is Senator Siewerts shadow portfolio, I shall pursue with her good staff again at the earliest, to gain information of who/how/when and why the assesements will occur. Until then though, emailing members of parliament and ACOSS is encouraged by all here. Your access to Senator Siewert's office gives me hope that we might find out, with greater specificity, who the reassessment targets are. Thanks for being willing to rock up to speak to her staff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2016 16:57:05 GMT 7
I call in often to see the staff at Senator Siewerts office of The Greens in Perth now I am back here for a while again. They still dont know if Rachel will win her seat but are confident as the count goes on. In the senate, counting and determination of preferences is taking a staggeringly long time due to the strange way the senate voting rules were enacted. There is no clear indication of flow of preferences but given their quota stays higher than the W A Naionals, they feel Rachel will retain her seat. That leads me to the relevance of this DSP assesment question, which once we know if Senator Siewert is successful or before, I will ask her staff again for an update of their interpretation of who will be targeted for the 90,000 and when. Since this forums objective is Senator Siewerts shadow portfolio, I shall pursue with her good staff again at the earliest, to gain information of who/how/when and why the assesements will occur. Until then though, emailing members of parliament and ACOSS is encouraged by all here. Your access to Senator Siewert's office gives me hope that we might find out, with greater specificity, who the reassessment targets are. Thanks for being willing to rock up to speak to her staff. Thanks Murphy. I was talking with the staff within the Senators office well before I became aware of this forum, and then was doing it all on my own with new DSP assessment and UP. It was the Senators staff who got me through it all somewhat, and gave me wonderful support with questions I was asking of what to do. Like so many here, I thought I was the only one in the country going through this, and it wasnt till I became aware of this forum and friends with Banjo that I realized how we can all help each other. The peer support that is available here will only help all who are having to endue the process. I was at my doctors surgery today and the subject of DSP came up. He has many patients in his practice, which is a large one, who are faced with similar DSP issues of compliance so I know he will now point those people to us for support and indeed, mine and others here experience will assist the doctors in better understanding what CL requires in 2016 and beyond. My successful DSP and UP application will provide invaluable background information on what CL requires for others to succeed, if they truly are meeting the criteria. A point that all of us understand well, is that to comply with DSP one cannot fudge anything. Medical practitioners cannot and will not make up a story so a person can, much to the contrary view of main stream media and others, that DSP can be gained when not needed. Again though I come back to this issue of the 90,000 pax who are to be reviewed and the selection process. No one knows for sure what the parameters will be, although its fair to assume that over 35 age group will be those next but at what point will the age cut off be, and what the parameters or algorithm used be. We simply have to wait till all senators are in place and known, then those members of parliament can ask questions of CL how/when/why/who will this apply to. ANy further speculation is simply that, and until then is only a cause for unnesessary anxiety. I would again remind anyone who feels they may be in that category for review to start the process now : see your doctor and tell him you have a fear that you will be required to undergo a new assessment based on the 2012 impairment tables. All the CL forms are available here on this forum to provide to your treating doctor to give them an idea of what is going to be required. Indeed, CL will provide to doctors the impairment tables, but again, those are here for people to download and print or save to file. Its a fact that medical reviews are carried out by medical professionals appointed by CL, BUT your own referring Doctors reports will go to them. If everything is in order, those doctors appointed by CL to make a decision on your DSP must take into consideration those opinions, as not to do so would abrogate their responcibility and put them in conflict with their own peers. The simple weight of numbers of doctors treating patients who are referred to CL appointed doctors far out number those of the latter, and at the end of the day, they all have to still continue to work in the same profession.
|
|