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 > Mental health: the DSP or unemployment benefits? > Comments

Mental health: the DSP or unemployment benefits? : Comments

By Tanveer Ahmed, published 26/4/2005

Tanveer Ahmed argues the disability support pension could be harming those it is meant to help.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
DSP was set up for a reason, to help those who need it. Assessment for DSP payments will take 2 years and until then it is unemployment support for those who are lucky enough to get into the system DSP is not automatic entry and those with serious mental illness need carers to help them as they don't often understand what to do and when their money runs out they don't understand why or how to fix it. Careing for a young adult with serious mental illness is like haveing a shadow on your soul, because they are officially adults there is very little you can do to help them within the present system (it took us three years to get limited help).

The present system needs a new direction, people are not percentages on a balance sheet. Just getting help from mental health can take years then you have to go through it all again with Centrelink and try to survive at the same time. As for DSP, in my experience you maybe right, it can be of more harm than good but each case needs individual review not a blanket solution.
Posted by TeeKay, Tuesday, 26 April 2005 4:06:04 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 am disappointed to read this from a psychiatrist. You must be aware of the miriad of issues facing people who experience or are diagnosised with a mental illness. While for a minority of people being on any sort of benefit might be a lifestyle choice for the vast majority it is far to difficult a life for it to be a choice.

Is it better to be in an low pay, physically demanding job with no sercurity and living in fear of being sacked if it became known you have a mental illness?? Is it better for someone who already suffers with the stigma of mental illness ( and very probably low self esteem) to also be rejected for job after job because 'there's something not quite right' about them??

I have been on the DSP, it was very needed as part of my 'journey of recovery'. I now work, in a very demanding full time job (and I also know many present and past consumers who work) but can only do this with the amazing support of my partner and kids and an understanding and supportive manager. Please be more careful in the assumptions you make about some one who is diagnosised with a mental illness, or as many consumers are now prefering to say a 'psycosocial disability'.
Posted by vrinda, Thursday, 28 April 2005 9:54:46 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
The DSP wasn't created so 90% of recipients could elect to remain on it indefinitely.There are many on DSP who aren't disabled.Many are just long term unemployed.

Most of our mentally ill are in gaol.Shouldn't they be entitled to some of this DSP money?The reality is that the DSP is just too easy to get.Alcoholics and drug addicts are on it.This also degrades the status of those who are genuinely disabled.

I've heard estimates of between 10% and 25% of those on social security are making another income the Govt has no knowledge of.
How can one in six people of working age be incapable of work?We must have either a very sick population,serious genetic disorders or many cunning people just subsidising their income at the expense of the tax payer.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 30 April 2005 11:41:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While Ahmed's flawed article is bad enough, "Arjay"'s comment is nothing short of appalling. Contrary to his/her callous claims, it is my understanding that the DSP was created precisely for the purpose of its recipients remaining on it indefinitely - because the criteria that recipients must meet include the permananece of the underlying condition that causes the disability.

The heartless "Arjay" points out that many of the mentally ill are in gaols, as if this is a good thing. However, this disgusting premise is belied by the many studies that show incarceration of a person is much more expensive than for them to live in the community. So, while mentally ill people who are in gaols do not receive the DSP, they are costing taxpayers much more than its equivalent in what it costs to keep them locked up.

Of course, the central thesis of Ahmed's article can be turned on its head, by the assertion that increasing welfare costs - including the costs of the DSP, unemployment benefits, aged pensions, parenting allowances etc - are a measure of the extent to which a society is civilised, i.e. its capacity to care for economically non-productive members.

On this measure, the miserable 8% that Ahmed cites as the proportion of our health budget that goes to alleviating the effects of mental illness is an indictment on our society. If it is indeed around half the OECD average then we have much room for improvement. Blaming the victims, as Ahmed does implicitly and the likes of "Arjay" do explicitly, is futher evidence of our lack of civilisation.
Posted by garra, Sunday, 1 May 2005 8:57:30 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
And another thing Arjay, as well as demonstrating your appalling ignorance about mental illness and disability, you show a lack of commonsense.

Who do you think would or should employ drug addicts and alcoholics?

Do you think they would be good employees?

Many of the men in their 50's who now are long-term unemployed became unemployed during the 80's when there was very high levels of unemployment. It is still very difficult for an unskilled 50 year old man to find work.

Could you possibly understand that addiction is very often 'self-medication'; that is, people use this method to blot out their failure?

This is a hard world for those of us who are not superior people like you seem to be.
Posted by Mollydukes, Sunday, 1 May 2005 7:18:06 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 am glad to see Ahmed can see the inextricable relationship between the rise in mental illness and rise in DSP recipients. It follows that because community services and assistance are so sparse in a state like NSW, the great bulk of mental health system users are bound to end up on the DSP.

As a matter of fact, as a consumer who has been involved in negotiations with DEWR and DFaCS (the main depts. behind Centrelink) in Canberra, I can tell you that the supposed problems of so many being on the DSP is largely a product of the government's own omission. I work with many consumers who use the DSP as an effective safety net and stepping stone back to employment (and independent income on which they pay tax).

Back in 1986 the WHO produced a report saying that by 2010 one in five people would have mental illness. While I have heard this quoted much in political forums, I have yet to hear any politician contest the projection. How remiss then to find that this projection has not been factored into DSP and mental health funding!

Clearly, to deal with this, a significant increase should be built into MH and associated budgets (like DEWR and DFaCS) so that, over an extended period like the next 10 years, MH expenditure increases progressively.

Government cannot blame its own omissions on DSP recipients.
Posted by Markmac, Tuesday, 3 May 2005 2:18:08 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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