The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Budgeting for disability > Comments

Budgeting for disability : Comments

By Melinda Tankard Reist, published 12/11/2008

So, you thought discrimination against people with a disability was a thing of the past?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
There is more than a modicum of truth in what Hasbeen suggests. There are some outrageously expensive support models around. Part of the reason that the many have nothing is because the few have so much. Why, for instance, cannot the four people referred to share the same house and therefore the same support staff? This debate was hijacked a long time ago by the "inclusion activists" who insist on integration at any cost. While one-in-twenty persons with a disability enjoys the sort of support outlined by Hasbeen, the other nineteen are languishing in family homes with ageing and often ailing parents. This country must find cost-effective models through which to care for its disabled adult citizens - all of them.
Posted by estelles, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 9:41:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't see the problem with this so-called cost of supporting the disabled. The comparatively small sums of money spent on carers etc stays in the country, unlike the millions of dollars (maybe billions)support of multinational industries where substantial sums leave the country.

It's a small price to pay where signficant benefits are being provided to the community by the parents concerned.

It reflects very poorly on our society if this becomes the norm.
Posted by Phil Matimein, Thursday, 13 November 2008 10:04:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yet another anti-abortion article from Tankard-Reist.

Sorry about Dr Moeller's circumstances but the law in Australia has always been that you have to be healthy to migrate here. He pushed the envelope and it didn't budge and I am as concerned about his plight as a Bendigo doctor dealing with a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy.

Its a pity that Tankard-Reist has chosen to hijack this issue because there are really tragic circumstances that Australians who are denied access to disability pensions face every day.
Posted by billie, Thursday, 13 November 2008 2:16:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In this case, I've got to give HasBeen credit for highlighting the less popular side of the coin.

I see Phil Matimein's point, but I've pretty much got to dismiss it. Government incentives for multinationals is a complex issue. What if the incentives mean the difference between Australia being the base of operations for a large company? What of the tax that is gained, and the employment? Of course, there's overkill if the incentives are more expensive than the gains, but my point is this is a different issue and if we look at every cost issue on the basis that we need to resolve multinational issues first... we're never going to accomplish anything. You simply can't use that as a basis for comparison.

I was surprised to find myself agreeing with Reists article... at first. When she then hijacked the issue for her anti-abortion cause I was disgusted. I'm surprised she can't let the issue go, for even a single article, and given the nature of her other articles, I can only believe that abortion is her focus, leading me to believe Mr Moeller's case has been cynically used.

On the basis of a single case, I can't help but think the government is being too harsh on Mr Moeller, however on the broader scale I realise that multiple cases such as this would have enormous costs and a line must be drawn.

I like the suggestion of rationalising the resources by perhaps having four people share a home.

I also can't help but note that Mr Moeller offered to pay the costs - in which case, I don't see the issue. I do understand that in future cases, there could be a snowball effect, of people at first agreeing to pay for their family member's treatment, then reneging and playing the 'poor-me' card (even if they have genuinely hard circumstances and it's warranted), which would make a conditional migration system (i.e. sign a contract stating you will cover the costs of health care) fall apart.

Tough issues. I'm glad I'm not the one who has to solve them.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Saturday, 15 November 2008 7:17:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
" ... This is a stance which she and others share with the Catholic Church and prominent members of the previous Liberal government, i.e. Tony Abbott. ... "

I note that she says nothing about all the children that are yet to die as a result of ionising radiation weapons, initially yellow cake sold by her precious nefarious liberal guvment to englund & n.america.

This is becoz as of old, on the really important issues, the catholics say nothing, caring more about themselves than others.

Dr Helen Caldicott alleges that the n.americans even use spent fuel rods from reactors, turning these into ammunition and now, it's all over the middle east, some really nasty cocktails of potentially lethal isotopes.

Oh yes, that's right, the Islamic extremists are anti democracy and anti western aren't they, with no rational legitimate grievances?

Perhaps *runner* should have a look at some dead DU baby photos, and then tell us again about her mates howard et al?
Posted by DreamOn, Saturday, 15 November 2008 8:10:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regarding funding for the disabled, I simply cannot concurr with some of the views expressed here. Reason being, i.m.o. u ought not think of quantum alone, but rather, what is the harvest of the use of these funds. And, money is an energy which say cld flow into a community that has centres for caring for both the aged and the disabled. Now, the question to ask yrselves, is where dos this money go. On what is it spent. Well, to support the carers, food and suplies to local small business etc etc.

It is an old red blue trick to watch those with the least fall upon one another when one group say the BlakFells, may b seen to get more than the bottom of the barrel red necks. The mind boggles.

To look at some of the current money bills b4 guvment, it seems quite plain that the lawyers are paid too much, as are the accountants and as are the war and medical machine developers. Their excess wages goes into the markets and lavish overseas trips etc and well, .. here we are. Those moneys do not go to benefit local communities. They are concentrated with policy extremists who in turn donate, and the mechanism of political donation needs to overhauled drastically to ensure a level playing field for all, not just those with the most capital. Snapping the neck metaphorically of the media moguls is also a very important ingredient to future growth and development. Had we kept telstra and plowed some of the profits into rolling out the fibre, we wld now have mass video on demand servers with bulk channels and $5 weekend mint multimedia courses for the ongoing education of all of us.

We are betrayed by our own ..
Posted by DreamOn, Saturday, 15 November 2008 8:26:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy