Yeah, maybe we SHOULD rethink disability spending

acotrel says:

04:19am | 17/02/11

Howard drummed up a campaign against the disability pensioners when he was in power.  The simple fact is that many of them have been hived off state Workcover pensions onto the commonwealth.  Their disabilities are often the result of industrial accidents.  So what are the taxpayers subsidising - the poor management practices of GRUB employers? The idiots who cannot even exert enough control to ensure that Job Safety Analyses are performed before work is commenced!!!!!! ANOTHER policy initiative from b@stards incorporated?

george says:

01:02pm | 17/02/11

One of the big problems in disability is that everyone IS lumped into the same boat, regardless of all the differences. By being represented within the same disability framework, it is always those people who cannot speak for themselves, the ones with an intellectual disability, who miss out.

JC says:

01:01pm | 16/02/11

Presumably because he/she can’t walk.

Saras mum says:

05:24pm | 16/02/11

Cripple can apply to ability to think, lack of self empowerment, lack of ability to influence - it is a great word so use it in all its contexts

Faz says:

09:28am | 16/02/11

@ Pete

You’re right and I suppose you don’t want to over analyse these things.

‘Angry cripple’ is confronting and if that’s important to you then I’m not sure I can suggest anything better.

I do caution against careful use of language being dismissed as ‘PC’ though. Language frames attitudes to individuals and groups.

I was working in the field in the mid 80s when stereotypes were being challenged and we were forced to think about the difference between phrases like ‘victim of Cerebral Palsy’ and ‘person with a disability’.

Tracey says:

06:59am | 16/02/11

TChong, I agree with you. Angry Cripple, I get furious about the state of disability funding, but drop the prejudice against “bad back”. (And no, I don’t have a bad back!) You should unite, including with the blind, rather than seek to further fragment an already marginalised community.

malohi says:

07:20am | 16/02/11

Well said, and 100% correct.
But I think you have taken the bad back example to literally. If I am reading between the lines accurately, bad back was used as an emotive example (many know bludgers who arbitarily claim this condition) because it is quite a non descriptive general term, perhaps interchangebale with “back pain” (as opposed to the discreet medical conditions you have rightly listed.)
Hard to disprove “pain” much like disproving “depression”, but it would certainly be a faux pa to rustle the hornets nest on this site and alledge some “depressed” people put it on for the welfare $$.
(before the obligatory flaming ensues, i recognise that depression is real and delibitating etc.)
.

Mendoza says:

07:43am | 16/02/11

@Tracey, you probably don’t have “bad back”, but I bet you are a “carer” who would not have a job if it weren’t for the bludgers who rort Australian workers.

TChong says:

08:02am | 16/02/11

Agree malohi, “bad backs” the catch all example used by AC to cover a range of possible medical problems.
Its ACs divisive underlying message that “my “affliction is genuine, yours isnt” that I find so unecessary and in the long run , self defeating, because there is always some one worse off.
Quadraplegics requiring a respirator vs a spina bifida patient requiring renal dialysis. 
How do you decide who is more deserving ?

rb says:

08:12am | 16/02/11

While I have never seen someone in a wheelchair re-roofing their house it is too common for somebody claiming DP for a bad back. It’s an easy target because it is so often abused.

ReN says:

08:19am | 16/02/11

thank You TChong

Tom says:

08:33am | 16/02/11

@TChong, “How do you decide who is more deserving?”. Yeah,  “why bother, its only taxpayers’ money ...?”

... and TChong, everyone wins a prize in your grand, stupid nanny state utopia (except workers) .

jf says:

08:43am | 16/02/11

I think that the author was using the ‘bad back’ sufferer as a metaphor for the thousands of malingerers claiming disability pensions.

I agree with the author.

There are to many people without genuine disabilities abusing the system. I accept that my comment is anecdotal but my anecdotal evidence is significant. Every cent that goes to a malingerer is a cent that is not available to someone with a genuine need.

A disability pension should be made available to those who, because of their disability, suffer financial disadvantage or hardship. Someone with a disability but that is independently wealthy or is on a high income is not financially disadvantaged and is receiving money that is more needed by someone else.

TChong says:

10:10am | 16/02/11

tom- take less angry pills.
They over influence everything you post.

Stephen Fitzpatrick says:

11:34am | 16/02/11

Tom, many of the people who are better off under under TChong’s “Stupid nanny state utopia” where workers once, before a mishap disabled them.

I suspect your tune would change too if you found yourself moving from the former catagory to the later.

Lisa H. says:

12:15pm | 16/02/11

The ‘bad back’  reference probably more directly refers to the explosion in numbers of disability support pensioners, rather than the particularities of their claimed disability.
The number of people suffering from dibiliitating mental conditions has also exploded in recent years, has it not?
The fact is that political correctness, with its culture of ‘non-discrimination’ actively works to lump all people into one bucket.
Disability can be very specific. You can have a ‘bad back’ and be in a wheel chair… or you can have a ‘bad back’, and just need to take a break from your weekly tennis game.
My brother has cerebal palsy, with a related mental incapacity. If he does not fill out paperwork every year or two, he has his pension removed!
Why isn’t there more ‘discrimination’ in government departments.
In previous ages, ‘discrimination’ meant the power to make fine distinctions and the ability to refine specific ideas.

Tom says:

12:51pm | 16/02/11

@Stephen Fitzpatrick, a thought for you - if the abusers and malingerers were not stealing money intended for genuine cases, our society would be better funded to look after those genuine cases. (that is, if you are a genuine advocate for genuine cases).

@TChong, sorry for pushing your buttons. I know the topic of malingerers and the bureacrats thriving on such abuse of workers is a delicate issue for you.

veronica says:

10:21am | 25/02/11

as usual “Lets shoot those with opinions cos they are different from ours, painful reading so far from the disabilty subject

peter says:

10:59am | 16/02/11

Absolutely.  I know people with “bad backs” who are practically immobile, and would find any kind of work very difficult - even for a few hours per day.  I also know people in wheel chairs who can happily work in occupations that are traditionally seated with few problems, as long as they can access the workplace.  Category of disability doesn’t have much to do with ability or not to work.

Michael N says:

12:29pm | 16/02/11

Lexi - “bad back” isn’t a disability/injury/illness . It is a term used to holistically address some issues with one’s back and consequently, it is liable for all manner of ridicule and derision.

On the other hand, sufferers of Sciatica, Scoliosis, Spina Bifida, Spinal Stenosis etc can be treated and the appropriate level of care (and compensation) can be delivered because they have a diagnosed issue.

“Bad Back” isn’t a lottery ticket permitting the claimant to live off the sweat of others. Well - it shouldn’t be at least.

Paddy says:

05:14pm | 16/02/11

Lexi, it’s a phrase used at work. Same as “Mediterranean back"because in the 1960’s and 1970’s when the italian factory workers found out about workers compensation insurance scheme operating in Australia some developed back problems as the back is the one area on the body that doctors have difficulty in assessing whether a person is pretending or being honest. Over the years it has been amazing how many have been caught out by investigators hired by workers compensation companies.

Angry Cripple says:

08:00am | 16/02/11

I must be missing something here - a twisted knee or a bent thumb? These people should get the DSP while people with severe mutliple disabilities have to wait three years for a wheelchair that fits? Help me here?

hermes says:

08:13am | 16/02/11

pers, you could have given better examples - bent her thumb backwards!!! Seriously? And that made her unable to walk, work etc? I don’t like to make assumptions about people I don’t know, but I think you have never travelled very far from your inner city Labor sanctum, never visited a third world country, and never associated with the sort of people who DO rort the system. I lived in sub saharan Africa and south east Asia for 30 years, where there is NO welfare; if you don’t work or cannot be supported by your family, you and your children DIE. Look at people in Cambodia who are crippled by landmines, people in Swaziland with Aids…THEY somehow manage to work. I detest this society that encourages generational welfare, of entitlement, of sucking on the government tit, by perfectly able-bodied people. Recent statistics show that claims for disability rose dramatically after the newstart allowance was made more stringent. And I earn an ok living, I don’t particularly care that people rort ME as a taxpayer, the government does a pretty good job of taking my money, without me whinging about some single parent living with her boyfriend, or some cousin who claims a bad back and her boyfriend gets a carer’s allowance…but these people are rorting GENUINELY DISABLED PEOPLE, many of whom would actually give anything to be able to work, and be treated the same as anyone else. Sorry for the diatribe…and I didn’t even get to my pet hates “chronic fatigue” and “anxiety”.

hermes says:

08:34am | 16/02/11

I assume my previous diatribe was not suitable for your august publication…let’s just summarise and say that when I read this nonsensical twaddle, I was somewhat, er, irritated. Bent thumb backwards?????????? OMFG. Pers, you must live a very sheltered life.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

08:41am | 16/02/11

I am also missing something. How can a bent thumb or a crook knee stop her having children. I once went out with a girl who, due to severe scoliosis, had metal rods permanently implanted against her spine and *she* could still have kids.

AdamC says:

08:44am | 16/02/11

Angry Cripple and Hermes, you have missed Pers’s point, that disabilities come in many forms and it is counter-productive to play different disabilities off against one another in the deservedness stakes.

However, I don’t think what she says contradicts the imperative to reduce the size of an out-of-control budget item.

Tim says:

09:06am | 16/02/11

What?
Twisting your knee or bending you thumb backwards stops you going overseas?
Stops you having children?
Really?

persephone says:

09:37am | 16/02/11

Angry Cripple/Hermes

didn’t read it properly, did you?

In both cases, these minor injuries caused significant nerve damage to the rest of their bodies.

Both are girls who I have known since childhood, so I trust their stories. One of them I know very well, and have witnessed her difficulties firsthand.

She thought she’d never have children, because of the risk of further damage. Fortunately, she’s now had two, but to have them she had to spend most of her pregnancy bedridden.

hermes

I have made it abundantly here in the past that I live about three hours from the nearest inner city sanctum.

These were both good, honest, hardworking country girls, born and raised on farms.

As I said, they’ve got enough to go on with without people sneering at them for not working. They’d love to work, and do what they can voluntarily.

But when you physically can’t stand for more than twenty minutes, and sitting too long in the same position means the muscles in your legs cramp up, there’s only a limited amount of jobs available to you.

Phil says:

10:00am | 16/02/11

@hermes

Im constantly amazed by people like you, obviously you’ve never spent more than 10 minutes with a person with a disability and DSP as their only source of income.

If you had you would realise its not for the money as what is paid is lucky to pay for the following (in my mothers case) meds, doctor and specialist appointments, food. In that order.
Everything else is covered by myself or other family (rent, health care, anything not listed above)
If you were put in a situation where you were physically unable to work but had no other option, how do you think you’d go finding a job in Australia? especially if you are a bit older (40+) then how about at 55-60+?
You would be struggling to do so and make enough to cover your bills.

As for your pet hates of chronic fatigue and anxiety well id wish that upon you but knowing people with it and living with my mother who also has serious anxiety issues (serious heart problems are the reason she is on DSP, not for the anxiety) and knowing just how draining and involved being around someone with these problems is day to day I dont think you’d cope with it to be honest.
At the same time neither my wife or myself claim a carers allowance as I dont need the money (its hardly anything anyway) and both of us have jobs which are flexible so we can deal with what goes on.
You know just in case you wanted to have a go about that.

I think you are the perfect example of the ignorance that goes on for people on DSP with a disability in Australia.

The government wastes so much money elsewhere that people say nothing about but people want to have a go over anxiety or chronic fatigue for someone on a few hundred dollars a fortnight??
There should be better support all around for anyone on a DSP.

Tim says:

10:02am | 16/02/11

Persephone,
yes everyone read your comment properly, maybe you should be clearer in your comments? The way your original comment reads is that the nerve damage was caused by the twisted knee and bent thumb.

Anyway,
Even if what you write is completely truthful, surely you would realise that people like this are in the extreme minority? I’m betting for every one person like this, there would be ten who are making it up. How we can weed out the truly disabled from the fakes is the issue.

Shane From Melbourne says:

10:09am | 16/02/11

Persephone- any statistics on the very, very few people who rort the system? My observations would bet that it is a bit more than that….Also the DSP should be means tested like every other form of welfare, except middle class welfare which should be abolished…..

hermes says:

10:50am | 16/02/11

Adam C and Phil; of course I am not against genuinely disabled people. And I *have* worked in volunteer facilities overseas helping disadvantaged people - including those with disabilities - get back to work. And do you know what, the overriding desire of every single person was that they desperately WANTED to work and be treated the same as everyone else. My beef is with people who rort the system, and people who have minor problems, who use these as an excuse to suck on the government tit for the rest of their lives. I’m sorry, but I personally know many such, including relatives, who do this sort of stuff. And of course some people have injuries that prevent them from, say standing all day in retail, or working in some trade, but does that stop them from working in an office, or part time, or from home? For example, I’m in my 50s and physically couldn’t do a labouring job, but that doesn’t stop me working. And what really p*sses me off is that somehow, people with really serious disabilities have to jump a thousand hurdles to get support, they get discriminated against by employers…while those with some fuzzy unprovable “syndrome” seem to get it automatically. Maybe we should be cracking down on doctors and psychiatrists rather; if they spent more than 3 minutes with patients, they might be more rigorous about diagnosis.

Hayley Cafarella says:

05:37pm | 16/02/11

Thank you, Persephone, for your insightful comment that was clearly misunderstood by a few. “To live in constant pain, on a low income and to be villified at the same time for being a burden on the community is not a happy place to be in.” - I know this because unfortunately I live it.

I suffer from Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. Look it up if you’re confused. This was caused by a sprained ankle in 2006. I was able to work for another 12 months or so, until the pain started to spread. I now suffer nerve pain and hypersensitivity throughout my entire body. Constant, agonising pain, the likes of which I had never known in my 24 years before. Why? Because a malfunctioning nervous system is a problem in the brain, it might be caused by a sprained ankle or a twisted thumb, but it’s not restricted to remaining in that area. It’s called a syndrome because science cannot determine the exact cause but can relate a large number of people with similar symptoms, that doesn’t make it any less painful or any less real, that just makes it more mysterious.

Some days I am unable to take more than a few steps, sometimes my body just falls to the floor without warning. Other days I can walk for 15 minutes. Some days I can write an essay, other days I can barely string a sentence together. I look pretty normal, except for when things flare up, which includes swelling and changes in skin colour. Chronic pain effects intellectual function - ever tried to concentrate with a few nails through a limb? Not to mention that people in chronic pain are often highly medicated so that they can get through the day without screaming - this also highly impedes holding down even a sedentary job. Manual jobs require physicality, intellectual jobs require concentration, a person in chronic pain cannot rely on their body for either of these things.

Had I not been through several rehabilitation programs in the past few years and gained back some function (this doesn’t dull the pain, this means I function around it as best I can) then I would still be in a wheelchair. I hope that continued rehabilitation will eventually ease the pain, eventually give me my life back.

Guess what isn’t cheap? Rehabilitation and medication, both of which have saved me from life with no mobility at all. Both of which I never could have afforded on the DSP. I still have to pay all the bills that regular people do, you see, the medical ones are just a nice little cherry on top. I am eternally grateful that I received income protection insurance, so that I can continue rehabilitating and hopefully get back to some sort of work before it runs out. Not everyone is as lucky as I am. Recovery isn’t a certainty, in fact, it’s the million dollar miracle shot. Truth is, most people with CRPS never recover.

I look normal, I suffered a minor injury and I am now disabled. I am writing this with fingers that feel like I have burnt bones. I am not an unknown party being spoken about. Please, challenge me if you think that disability cannot develop from a minor injury. Query me if you are actually interested in learning, instead of just being angry about things that you don’t fully understand.

@hermes I am extremely thankful that I don’t live in a third world country - I would probably be dead. Your ignorance is appalling. The fact that you know people who are cheating the system means that you should report them, not start throwing stones at everyone with a disability that you know nothing about.

@Tim Persephone’s comment makes perfect sense, she does mean that the nerve damage was caused by the twisted knee and bent thumb. If you would like to install brain scanning equipment that is accessible and affordable to the public, then go right ahead. That is the only way to see the effects of chronic pain on the brain. Even then, you’ll just see a whole lot of extra lights come up. The brain is only beginning to be understood. Please, advance medical science, it’ll make things a lot easier for everyone.

hermes says:

07:53pm | 16/02/11

Lots of syndromes are of course, genuine, and people who suffer from them should indeed have support, and not be vilified. However, for every genuine sufferer, there are probably 100 others, often self diagnosed, usually psychosomatic but unfortunately sometimes deliberately faked to get benefits. Look at the proliferation in diagnoses for things such as ADHD (mysteriously coincident with the invention of a new drug), and the new fad of being Coeliac (of course, people are genuinely coeliac, and this can be a debilitating condition…but I would say, in certain circles, about 50% of people incorrectly claim to be gluten intolerant). The point is, many syndromes are of course genuine, but also extremely rare - such as Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, as you mention. When the incidence in a population is of normal levels, which may be 1 in 10 million, that is fine, but when all of a sudden, every tom dick and mary is claiming to be ill. However, I apologise for anyone genuinely suffering anything who thought I was criticising them. My comments about bludgers were never intended to be criticism of genuinely suffering people. Bludgers take money and support from people who genuinely need it, like yourselves. Not from me. My tax money, without my consent, goes to all sorts of things I am against, like wars and detention of refugees. And I can’t do anything about it. And sorry, but there are many many bludgers out there; you just have to visit lower socio-economic regional Qld towns like Nambour, Gympie and Caboolture.

hermes says:

08:12pm | 16/02/11

Bravo Hayley Cafarella, that is a very good, sensitive and obviously genuine post, and definitely made me feel guilty for my ill-informed, judgemental opinions…though given that I lived most of my life in third world countries, possibly come to my opinions on welfare from a somewhat different perspective. Pers, you would be well advised to copy her example, instead of lecturing everyone, in the usual “I know best” manner, which just gets people’s backs up.

hermes says:

08:12pm | 16/02/11

Bravo Hayley Cafarella, that is a very good, sensitive and obviously genuine post, and definitely made me feel guilty for my ill-informed, judgemental opinions…though given that I lived most of my life in third world countries, possibly come to my opinions on welfare from a somewhat different perspective. Pers, you would be well advised to copy her example, instead of lecturing everyone, in the usual “I know best” manner, which just gets people’s backs up.

george says:

01:11pm | 17/02/11

I think most Australians know someone getting the DSP wrongfully. I have a cousin who survived cancer ten years ago and who has made a total recovery - but she has not gone back to work, she plays the system for all its worth and not only does she get the DSP but her husband collects the carers pension. These are the people who are using up the disability dollars. However, this is a whole different issue from adequate funding of disability services. If the government can’t monitor its social security properly, that’s not our problem. They can’t then use the expenditure on pensions as an excuse not to provide services to needy people. This is the same as saying that we can’t afford planes and ships for the armed services because all those repatriation pensioners are costing too much. That argument is a nonsense.

Hayley Cafarella says:

11:49am | 18/02/11

@hermes Thank you kindly for respecting and thinking about my comments

Anne71 says:

12:52pm | 16/02/11

Oh, yes, Kim. I definitely see the irony. I for one would be absolutely livid if disability benefits were cut while able-bodied, working people continue to get handouts for having a baby. The trouble is, both sides of politics know the backlash they’d get from the “working families” who now regard those handouts as a right, rather than a privilege, if they even suggested discontinuing or reducing them.
@Angry Cripple - I think it’s a great name. And I’m looking forward to reading your blogs.

Fiona says:

02:04pm | 16/02/11

I completely agree. I can get $136 a fortnight for being a stay-at-home mum, and only $110 a fortnight for caring for a severly disabled child.

You are right Kim in that many people now see this middle-class welfare as a RIGHT, but would see something like an NDIS as a “Great Big New Tax”. Perhaps I should just pop out another baby:  the baby bonus might come in handy to help pay for all my son’s therapies - after all, I cant get anyone else to fund them, as I already get an hour a fortnight and apparently that’s enough Early Intervention for a severly disabled child.

Every time I see some entitled, middle class mum laughing about how she spends her Family Payment B on new shoes, I feel like gouging her eyeballs out -  but I’m too nice a person, so I dont.

Angry Cripple says:

05:08pm | 16/02/11

Fiona, I nearly choked on my g-tube “Every time I see some entitled, middle class mum laughing about how she spends her Family Payment B on new shoes, I feel like gouging her eyeballs out”. I’d like to quote this in a later blog please. Love it.

Fiona says:

06:35pm | 16/02/11

Ha! Be my guest AC - there’s more where that came from…..

Helen says:

09:57am | 24/02/11

Kim, as a single woman who works and pays taxes, nothing annoys me more than my hard earned cash going to someone who makes a choice to have a child. Yay for them. Love how its their choice, but I’m paying for it. I’ve been hounded down by various families who rave on about how I “dont know how expensive it is” to have kids. Well, yes, I do. Its one of many reasons I currently choose not to have a child.

However, having worked with disabilities of various types in the past, I have absolutely no issues with my hard earned taxes going to those with disabilities. I just wish there was someone with some intelligence and compassion in the allocation of funding.

jim says:

08:54am | 16/02/11

As someone with a bad back (real as opposed to “bad”), I agree with most of the comments that you have generated. I have also heard of someone on the DPS for “anger issues”. Is this you? It is ironic that you rip into blind people with such ease, because you have real trouble seeing beyond your own self indulgence. Yet you hope to make a name for yourself as a voice for all people with a disability. Good luck with that ambition. My suggestion for your column name would have be to try out The Precious Cripple. That suits.

eye4aneye says:

03:08pm | 16/02/11

amazed that got through the mods

Angry Cripple says:

05:00pm | 16/02/11

Hey Jim - Precious Cripple - I like that - will run it by the editors. If we go with it I’ll need to know if you like milk or dark chocolate.

Lisa H. says:

09:29pm | 16/02/11

Self indulgence for wheelchair-bound people?
You are having a laugh.
There are so many aspects to being wheelchair bound that you probably haven’t even thought of, Jim.
I can see why AC gets upset about blind people getting a full pension regardless of their earnings or family wealth.
They may have relatively less expensive ongoing therapy or equipment requirements.
They may be fully mobile.

Being in a wheelchair can involve some pretty confronting stuff, Jim, like catheters and physio and bowel management, just for starters.
The costs of constant assistance are beyond many. Motor vehicle accident victims are the ‘lucky’ ones. They are insured so they can have nursing assistant care as required.
Fall of a trampoline, and you are on your own. Perhaps your disability pension might pay for your bowel management nurse to drop by once a week, Jim.

Rocky says:

05:18pm | 17/02/11

Lisa H, a blind person may not be fully mobile.  There may be absolutely no therapy requirements for a blind person.  But I believe that a Guide Dog costs approximately $25K to train, and there is a very high ‘failure’ rate for dogs in training.

Rose says:

11:37am | 16/02/11

The origin of a disability does not mean anything, it is the severity and the ability of the sufferer to adapt and cope with the disability. Are you suggesting someone born with a disability is more deserving than some one who, through accident or illness, now suffers from one?

ben says:

03:24pm | 16/02/11

No not for a minute i was merely suggesting that by having a one size fits all policy in this area will not work as all disability is different. Being born with a disability is different to aquiring a disability in for a number of reasons. For example someone who is born with a disability has a lifetime of experience functioning with that disability where as a person who aquires a disability will have a different set of needs in adapting to their new disability.

Vio says:

12:09pm | 16/02/11

Can i just say, as someone with a mentally disabled relative, we do have one of those handicapped parking permits, and people often give glares when they see able bodied people getting out of the car. So just because you cannot see a disability does not mean it isn’t there.

Jay says:

01:08pm | 16/02/11

@Vio - why does having a mental disability mean that your relative cannot walk far?  Surely these handicapped parking permits are for people who have difficulty walking?

mary says:

05:17pm | 16/02/11

@Jay There could be a thousand reasons .. that’s not up to us to decide, it’s up to the disabled, their caretakers and physicians.

For any-one pointing the finger, just pray really really hard that you will never become disabled. Just pray really really hard that your world will never come crumbling down on you. So that, if you’re one of the lucky ones who can still get out every now and then, you won’t need to endure the looks, the condemnation and the purposely loud whispers of ‘OK for some’. Just keep on praying that you won’t become disabled and discover that your friends, actually, you have no friends - any longer - or family either. No, all of a sudden, through no fault of your own you’ve been laid to rest in the ‘too hard basket.’ Your only way out now is when this basket gets replaced for a wooden one. This is the lot of far too many disabled people in Australia.

So there is a percentage of people rorting the system? Funny that. I have noticed some of that around the workplace too, people loafing. And around the home. Oh yeah and during my volunteering sessions too, there’s always the odd few just p##sing about doing nothing in particular other than being a pain in the butt.

Maybe, no matter where you go there’s always the odd few not pulling their weight, mucking about, being a pain in the ass. But hey let’s pick on the ‘disabled’ few who do so, after all, they are the most vulnerable ones in society, easy pickings.

For anyone pointing the finger, keep praying .. and if you’re an atheist or agnostic, I dunno, I wish you luck and trust me you’ll need it if you ever were to become disabled and need to dodge the stares, fingers, innuendo’s, whispers and false accusations.

Heather says:

10:18pm | 17/02/11

Vio, at least you can get a disability parking permit.  My father who is completely and totally blind (and lost his sight at 50 due to a work-related accident) cannot get one!  Simply because - he is blind!  Apparently, thats not an actual disability, or a reason to get a parking sticker.  Never mind that he lost his sight suddenly and at his age now is very disoriented by his blindness and often loses his barings in his own home and stumbles into walls.  Apparently, if its not a PHYSICAL disability that involves your legs, its irrelevant.  Blind people really do get the short end of the stick when it comes to Disability.  My father needs to be guided into the bathroom at home.  He has no ability to grasp barings or direction.  In his own home.  Yet is still not eligible for a disability parking sticker for when we drive him places (on the rare days he is motivated to leave his bedroom).  How can a blind person NOT be eligible for a parking permit?  I don’t understand that at all.

Tim says:

09:17am | 16/02/11

Individually it may be a pittance but taken as a whole DSP is a very large chunk of the budget.
Don’t you think that money should be used as efficiently as possibly instead of being rorted?

Markus says:

11:05am | 16/02/11

For a country of our physical size and resource value, and with no strong neighbouring allies (the US is the closest at about 7500 miles), a defence budget of 1.8% of GDP is already very low.

Modern Western nations may be big on the ‘violence never solved anything’ mindset, but most countries do not share this stance.

Erick says:

11:58am | 16/02/11

Well said, Markus.

Ignorant and shallow people are quick to jump on the “cut defence” bandwagon. But those people fail to realise just how small the defence budget is - and just how much they depend on it for their right to say anything at all.

James1 says:

12:21pm | 16/02/11

Markus and Erick,

It is incredibly easy to say things like “violence never solved anything” when you have a well trained and well armed defence force defending a continent with the sort of sea and air approaches we enjoy here.  If we cut our defence spending too much (or shared a land border with anyone), we would not have the luxury of saying such things.

In any case, it is a stupid thing to say, and is patently untrue.  Violence has solved lots of things.  It solved Ireland’s English problem.  It solved the world’s German problem twice in 30 years.  It solved the Japan problem.  It solved Russia’s Georgia problem recently.  My best guess is that violence will go on solving problems for a long time to come.

If anything, we should look to increase our defence spending to at least the OECD average, which from memory is around 2.3-2.5% of GDP.

And if we are going to cut welfare, why don’t we also work on cutting some subsidies to business…

Erick says:

01:25pm | 16/02/11

Sounds good to me, James1.

JC says:

01:43pm | 16/02/11

I won’t bother with your suggestion regarding Defence as others have put it well enough, but who said the mining bosses are “barely taxed at all”?  In our wonderful system they are no doubt contributing a Hell of a lot more than anyone else is towards our welfare system.  Ironic that they should be penalised so greatly for getting off their backsides and doing something so productive, and we all rely on them so heavily to keep things ticking over, and yet so many want to take shots at the tall poppies.

Phil says:

10:07am | 16/02/11

Not to mention means testing any income that you receive in addition to the DSP, if you are on that sort of income there is little chance you will be getting a DSP

Angry Cripple says:

05:04pm | 16/02/11

I know two blind lawyers who are presumably earning six figures (and neither of them are Murdoch). They are all entitled to a full DSP.
But yes, I can’t imagine there are many. It was really just an example to show the inequities in the system, which should of course be needs based, not diagnosis based.

Rocky says:

02:48pm | 17/02/11

Angry Cripple - being entitled to something does not mean you are claiming it.  Are you making assumptions that perhaps you shouldn’t be?
WTF happened to my other post?!

Heather says:

10:04pm | 17/02/11

I call bs to Angry Cripple’s invention of 2 blind lawyers.  It would be illegal for a blind person to be a lawyer, for starters.  The idea is absurd.  They also need to SEE signatures and documents and exhibits.  This fantasy of blind lawyers is too far fetched of a lie.

James1 says:

11:55am | 16/02/11

Or go the other direction, at the same time as including the mentally disabled: The Retarded Cripple.

Angry Cripple says:

05:13pm | 16/02/11

James1: We actually considered “Retarded Cripple” to be more inclusive, but the truth is I know several people with physical disabilities who call themselves “crippled”, much like lots of names for black people that they now “own”. “Retarded” however, I never hear used in a proud or positive way - I only ever hear it used to demean people.

hermes says:

10:55am | 16/02/11

I so much agree with you. People who jumped on my previous post missed my basic point, in that those who rort the system seem to get all these benefits with no problem, but people with genuine needs, such as your daughter, seem to have to jump through a thousand bureaucratic hurdles, just to get basic support. People who rort the system take food from the mouths of those in genuine need, like your daughter. For example, a relative (who I don’t speak to) has the apocryphal “bad back”, and gets not only disability, her boyfriend gets a carers pension, and she has had 3 children in the last 5 years, and got a whack of money for that too. She is perfectly capable of working, maybe not on the factory floor, but hey, neither am I.

Anne71 says:

12:52pm | 17/02/11

Hermes, I know what you mean. I realise that someone with a bad back would have trouble with manual work, but office or admin work shouldn’ t be beyond their capabilities. And before anyone jumps down my throat, I say that because my brother in law has had several operations on his back, and now has a metal rod inserted in it. It constantly gives him grief, but he still manages to work full time in an office job. He’s had to give up teaching Tae Kwon Do though

fairsfair says:

12:30pm | 16/02/11

Grandma that is because you are honest, have a work ethic and morals. My father is the same, yet year in year out someone from centrelink sends him a letter to return to his doctor where he has to be reminded of the fact that his arm will never work again and he can not return to being a functioning member of society and contribute in some manner. He has a legitimate ailment and has to jump through hoops to keep the support offered (I won’t start on how hard it was to get in the first place) - it leaves me scratching my head as to how the drunk people that sit under the rotunda on main street manage to get by.

They spot check, the follow up - but is misses the people who are fraudulent. I am also witnessing it with this Yasi disaster payment. People who legitimately lost power for days are getting letters to say that they have to provide more proof to obtain the payment (hello, can’t you just check power records?) and those who don’t deserve it and didn’t even lose power had it arrive the next day in their account. Odd.

The system is there to help us in our time of need, but it is failing in its attempts to weed out the people who are using it as a free ride. If they were out of the picture imagine the services that could be offered to those in need. Ah, who am I kidding - they woudl just find another way to blow the cash.

St. Michael says:

11:06am | 16/02/11

There’s some historical truth to that, too.  The idea of getting onto permanent disability support payments has been around since at least the 1980s, and the reason I say that is because of a (now out of print and somewhat outdated) 1985 book by Peter Sawyer called “Dolebludging: A Taxpayer’s Guide”.  Sawyer was a (former, obviously) DSS (Centrelink) Claims Assessment Officer who got so sick and tired of the welfare rorting—and in some cases the corruption at high levels within the DSS—that he wrote a short book that comprehensively covered how to rip off the welfare system of the time.  It made for quite the whistleblower book of its time, considering the government came out and declared the book’s claims of people ripping off the welfare system a fantasy, but then quietly announced an amnesty for anyone who was.

As I said, it’s outdated, mostly because many of the complaints and holes he identified in the system were related to the fact ATO refused to share its information with other Federal departments—something the tax file number now covers to a large extent.

However, one point he put up rang a chilling bell of recognition for me when I read your post.

Sawyer describes the old Sickness Benefit (as it then was, and probably now the DSL or something similar) as basically being bludging nirvana, mostly because if you could get on it and stay on it for a full year—via finding roughly 3 doctors over that year willing to certify you as suffering from persistent alcoholism—then DSS would give up trying to put you back into work or rehabilitate you, and simply process you onto the list of long-term unemployed.  That is: permanent welfare benefits.  You’d effectively be beyond challenge at that point because DSS would be unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you weren’t, in fact, an alcoholic.

And the interesting part, to me, is that whilst *unemployment* benefit cases routinely get prosecuted, because it’s one of the hardest benefits to rort (unless you’ve got an employer colluding with you) *sickness benefit* rorts are nowhere near as heavily prosecuted.  True, we do see the odd ACA of the bloke doing work when he supposedly has a bad back, but it isn’t made too clear whether it’s unemployment benefit or sickness benefit that’s been rorted.  My guess it would be the former and not the latter, and then only in cases where the bludger in question has been stupid, gone out on a limb and said “bad back” in a way that can be (via video) refuted.  “I’m an alcoholic” is a lot harder to refute via an ACA video.

Further, look a bit more carefully about who was paying the money and who’s doing the prosecution: prosecutions against “compo” rorters seem to be coming from *insurers* after motor vehicle accidents—not from Centrelink for sickness benefit abuses.

Tom says:

10:21am | 16/02/11

Hey man, Jack lives here? Cool dude, have a bong and settle down, your welfare cheques are safe. All those “smelly” workers are sick of paying for your type, dude.

Dan says:

10:38am | 16/02/11

Oh I could not agree more! The whole “in the community” and “we are equal” approach is so damned wrong. Equal respect? Absolutely! Equality? Yes! Equal? No! If we were equal we would not have a disability. 
It is all very well for those bloody activist types who can live on their own and get help because they are capable of demanding it. People with intelllectual disabilities, the mentally ill, those with communication disabilities or from a non-English speaking background - they do not have a hope so they end up with what the minority want and tell the government everybody wants.
I dont want to end up in a group house in the community. I would much prefer a larger institution with proper medical attention, activities, a choice of friends, the community taking an interest and people constantly coming in and out to keep an eye on the level of physical care.

Lisa H. says:

12:31pm | 16/02/11

Yes, I was privy to the exercise in ‘mainstreaming’ in NSW in the 1980s.

My brother was moved from a fantastic special school to the mainstream primary and high school.

He went from heated rubber floors and an occupational exercise program (in a heated pool) to a drafty demountable class room surrounded by bullies and well-meaning staring children.

Instead of an entire school of consummate professionals, he got a teacher-aide that had done an extension in disabilities support.

Recess and lunch he was left to his own devices.

Angry? I am too! The bullying and isolation my brother experienced was inexusable, and entirely predictable.

Heather says:

10:49pm | 17/02/11

Lisa H, I know someone like that.  She and her family are mentally backward and when her family re-located from their suburban housing commission home where she attended the local Special Ed Unit to a small town (when she was in year 6) and one that had an SEU at the next town, she was told by the Principal that he felt it better that she attended ordinary classes, and then attend regular high school.  This girl could not read or write at all, except spelling her name.  She couldn’t tell the time.  Or understand maths.  Yet because of the ‘mainstreaming’ policy of the time, was FORCED to attend primary and then high school.  She went from her SEU where she was learning USEFUL things, such as cooking, sewing, knitting and other life skills; to sitting at a desk colouring in.  Imagine that.  A girl in year 9, moving from class to class.  Geography, English, Science, Maths.  She couldn’t read or write.  So all she did was sit in the class with her colouring in books and coloured pencils.  Whilst others worked.  She could have been in an SEU, where she had friends, was happy, and enjoyed attending and was learning skills.  Instead, she went to a mainstream school, coloured in with pencils and crayons, was teased mercilessly and left in tears, and a few times was almost choked by a boy in her class.  Teachers did nothing.  She would be so hurt and so distressed.  It completely destroyed her mentally and emotionally.  She left as soon as she turned 15 because she couldn’t stand the teasing and bullying.  And besides; all she did was colour in from 9 til 3.  Mainstreaming does nothing but harm and devastate people and I saw what it did to her.  Forced into schooling that she could not do.  Amongst cruel kids that made her life hell.  Mainstreaming education is nothing but an evil, sadistic, cruel joke that destroys lives.

fairsfair says:

10:28am | 16/02/11

he was pretty smart too as he bought shares in that fruit company….

Mr Speaker, with greatest of respect - I like Angry Cripple. It got people’s attention and it is promoting conversation. Albeit a crap convo so far, but I do hope it leads to someone talking about housing issues, “YoungCare” etc etc.

Able bodied people dancing around the maypole discussing how we are going to fix the problem is not working. Talkfest are crap we all know that. We need to listen to the plight of someone who is affected, living the life. If you find that confronting - good. Angry cripples have the right to the stongest voice in this debate.

Zeta says:

11:05am | 16/02/11

@ fairsfair - You’re optimistic. I bet it turns into a yawnfest about how hard it is to live on a pension and the lack of wheelchair ramps pretty quickly.

I’d be interested if we end up talking about mental disabilities. Nah who am I kidding I’d still just be waiting for a Kochie thread to troll.

Beth says:

05:46pm | 16/02/11

@fairsfair - I like to see a bit of optimism out there!  Would love to see Youngcare in NSW and also keen to find out the NGO who invested in assisted housing @Lexi’s comment

Lisa H. says:

05:37pm | 16/02/11

What’s so wrong about being ‘angry’? The state of disability services in this country is pathetic. Carers are patronized, and ignored. Witness the government service and support to carers, as opposed to new mums.
To reject an argument simply because the lobbyist is not being ‘nice’ is game-playing and immature. diability services (or the lack of them) is not a Scrabble game. Political decisions have a lot of impact on vulnerable people’s lives.

Jugg says:

07:38pm | 16/02/11

If you come across as a crackpot, you will be treated like a crackpot, you will be dismissed as a crackpot.  How you do think you argument is going to stand?  Like a crackpot.

Lisa H. says:

09:31pm | 16/02/11

Crackpot is different to angry though.
At the end of the day, it all depends on the quality of the argument.

Lisa H. says:

09:36pm | 16/02/11

My brother worked for what used to be called a ‘disabled shelter’, for many years, as a lawn mower.
The team mowed large areas of government or council land, such as cemeteries etc.
They used ride on mowers, blowers etc, with a supervisor to drive them from job to job.
They worked five days a week.
They were not allowed to break at Christmas.
They worked from 7am to 4pm rain, hail or shine. And for all this he was paid around 70 bucks a week!
Is that reasonable, or fair?
Eventually, after many years of working with this workshop, my brother came to visit me on the event of the birth of my first baby (against all warnings).
He got summarily sacked.
Now he studies music production at TAFE and has put out an album

fairsfair says:

12:55pm | 16/02/11

Fair point! My father has had a stroke and cannot walk easily, but CAN WALK! He was offered a permit but declined as he is simply super stoked by the fact that he can walk.

At my local shopping centre I repeatedly see a large landcuiser ute with toolboxes in the back of it (actual drawed ones so they have to only contain tools - nothing else would fit in there) and the biggest lift kit on offer, with a sticker and in the parks. If you can hoik your body up into that car, you can walk two extra steps from a regular car park and leave the wider parking space for someone who has to get themselves out of the car and into a chair.

Sad that there is no way it can be better policed. Afterall, you can’t approach someone with a walking stick and scream FAKE.

Monkeywrench says:

02:13pm | 16/02/11

Excellent reply. “Angry Cripple” needs to drop some of his ( or her) prejudices before launching into biased generalisation.

St. Michael says:

06:38pm | 16/02/11

With greatest respect, Economist (seriously; I like your work) I think you give government departments too much credit for competence and truth.

Do you really expect governmental bureaucrats to do anything other than fudge the numbers to show that their system is not horribly broken?

Peter Sawyer identified massive fraud against DSS in the 80s.  The Minister ran the usual “shocked, shocked” line that anyone could even suggest fraud was being committed against Social Security.  Then he offered a big amnesty for those who were doing so.  The more things change…

Lisa H. says:

07:06pm | 16/02/11

I’m not so sure it is a great answer.
Surely someone who genuinely needs the system has a ‘right’ to comment on it.
This is not a black and white argument of ‘pro’ or ‘against’ government welfare payments.
Many people, such as myself, think permanently disabled people and their carers deserve a much better deal than they have.
At the same time, the same people may also wish to point out what they see as discrepancies or wastage within the system.
We can agree that ‘we’ want a social security system, but we can disagree on the finer details, such as who qualifies.
Why the urge to shut down debate? Disabled people need to be heard more, not less. The plight of the seriously and permanently disabled and their carers is serious and in many if not most cases, marginal.

Economist says:

08:00pm | 16/02/11

@Lisa H totally agree. We need to debate the finer points, but its a minefield, how would you say compare someone with what may be perceived with three minor disabilities compare to someone with a major disability. Both may not be fit to work. That’s why you require professional assessment with regards to DSP making an assessment. Sure there will be cases were a patient can manipulate the opinion of their local GP, that’s why the government has work capacity assessors. 

Simplification is the key as it also will result in less bureaucracy, but no matter where you draw the line there will be people who just miss out and others who fall over the line even if they possibly shouldn’t.

@St Michael. not at all. Bureaucrats are people and make mistakes, check out this article.http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/welfare-errors-may-be-waived/story-e6frg6nf-1225967247671

I wouldn’t accuse public servants of deliberately fudging, eventually they’d get caught out. In the 80s I’m not surprised that fraud was prevalent however today’s technology allows for data matching and data mining. The cash economy is still an issue, but we are not Greece our pension schemes are nowhere near as generous and open for abuse. I suppose my point was when managing over a $100 billion in payments to over 4-5 million Australian households which Centrelink do with a staff of around 20000 people.There’s going to be mistakes. Don’t get me wrong clearly mistakes of 2% will cost $2 billion, but how many bureaucrats would you need to address the issue. If they employed another 10000 public servants to administer payments, compliance checks etc., say at a cost of half a billion dollars would it save around $2 billion in loses or maybe only $100 million? Hence employing the extra 10000 public servants would cost the tax payer $400 million.  If it was only 100 million people would be screaming look at the waste and those bludgers in the public service. Having worked in both sectors, public servants are people and waste occurs in both sectors. One with tax payers money, one with shareholders money.

In addition while I appreciate the complements, I generally find my rants are far too long.

Lisa H. says:

09:45pm | 16/02/11

Interesting comment Economist. Surely with current technology and date management our system COULD be streamlined.
As far as I know my brother still receives ‘reviews’ from Centrelink every so often. He is compelled to respond or risk losing his pension.
As he lives independently, this has led to him being suspended more than once, as he does not understand the letter and promptly files it in the bin.
A reasonable person would assume that disability services assessment could provide an option for ‘permanent’ disability when it comes to cerebal palsy with physical and intellectual damage, don’t you think?
In this way, when it comes to disabled pensions, more, not less, discrimination is required.
Perhaps ongoing medical costs and rehab / treatment expenses should also be part of ongoing assessment when deciding who gets what?
Or is that already the case?

St. Michael says:

10:14pm | 16/02/11

@ Economist: not to hammer the point into the ground, but I guess I should have made my objection a little more direct: I don’t think the issue is so much with the *accuracy* of the payments.  It’s more about the *eligibility* for the payment as compared with what the benefit is meant to do.

Centrelink announcing that it gets 98% of its payments correct is a bit of a red herring.  The majority of Centrelink waste (IMHHO) comes at the front end when the smart-arse bludger tells the right lies to get an accurate payment that the benefit was not *meant* to support, but which is paid because the bludger knows what criteria he must satisfy and exactly how powerless the Department’s claims assessors are to look deeply into his assets and finances to refuse eligibility of the claim.

It’s also unfair to quote you out of context since I’ve gone a bit tangential, but to take your earlier quote: “If they employed another 10000 public servants to administer payments, compliance checks etc., say at a cost of half a billion dollars would it save around $2 billion in loses or maybe only $100 million?”

I think the answer to that is that if you have enough public servants—and statutory authority, that’s essential—to properly evaluate the legitimacy of the applications for aid, you would have less bludgers all round, and the savings would be well worth it at that point.  Quoting from Sawyer as I do, he says to aspiring bludgers of the 1980s: “Don’t bother trying to look like you’re in genuine need.  The Determining Officer has seen dozens of bludgers just like you in the past week, and can spot you a mile off.  He has also today had to turn away 5 people who were in genuine need because they didn’t lie or change their stories to fit the facts.  He also knows you are now going to feed him a pack of bull and he is most likely going to have to pay you money.”

Frontline Centrelink officers, I suspect, haven’t changed that much in general manner since the DSS days.  I suspect they can pick the bludgers from the genuine cases quite well, but they’re also hamstrung by the lack of discretion they have to look into your affairs.  They also have so many cases to go through they don’t have the time, either.

Not against Social Security, I might add—but the fact it’s tied down to administrative law makes it ripe for abuse by those who know where the cracks are, and ripe for injustice against those who don’t.

Economist says:

07:12am | 17/02/11

Lisa H I agree that Centrelink could record your brothers situation and therefore look at other means for reviewing his case, but I suppose they still do reviews as your brothers situation could change. He could inherit money or win lotto.

From my point of view the greatest reform that could be done is to not only streamline the payments but to increase the tax free threshold significantly above payment levels about $25000. This then will encourage people to want to work as they face a lower effective marginal tax rate for coming off benefit and less bureaucracy as we’re not taxing benefit recipients.

Kate says:

10:30pm | 17/02/11

@Economist - I agree. I’m always quite surprised when I hear reports about the “large numbers” of people rorting Centrelink.

I’m on Youth Allowance payments from Centrelink while I study full time and work part time. Centrelink have a very strict regime for qualifying for these payments - you have to prove that you’re studying, report your income fortnightly, send in pay slips every now and then to confirm that you’re reporting properly, report your partner’s income if you live together, report any assets etc etc.
Yes, you could probably falsify some information but honestly, who would have the time? Not to mention that dealing with Centrelink is a nightmare and you’d avoid it if you could. I know that as soon as I stop studying and start full-time work I hope to cease all interactions with them.

St. Michael says:

06:46pm | 16/02/11

Ah, but that’s the horrid beauty of the social security system, isn’t it?  It’s not that alcoholics and/or drug addicts have to fit a “profile”.  They merely have to satisfy “criteria”, which is a different thing entirely.  Centrelink has very limited powers to call into question anything a person says, if the person provides nothing that can refute those answers.

Consider the DSP’s design cast into criteria a person has to meet: “Disability not likely to improve within two years.”  Some people have been alcoholics for a lifetime.  How is a lowly Centrelink claims assessment officer, with no power to force a doctor to talk to him, meant to contradict that? The word of the applicant is all he has.  By contrast, the poor bastard in a wheelchair who gets a quack specialist (usually an insurer’s ‘pet’) that suggests there “may” be a “likelihood” of “some recovery” 18 months away is probably going to get rejected for DSP because of the wording of the criteria and the fact the Claims Assessment Officer has little to no discretion on how to interpret the Social Security Act for himself—thanks to lots of successful SSAT appeals.

“Incapable of working 15 hours a week or more.”  Easy enough for a dedicated bludger to get around: you merely assert you drink in the morning, in the afternoon, and in the evening.  The claims assessment officer can’t exactly stake out your house or raid your property to see if you are, in fact, drinking and incapable of working.

As Peter Sawyer observed: whenever they change the social security criteria, all it does is force the bludger to tell a few more lies, and push out more and more people in genuine need who told the honest truth and therefore got rejected from eligibility.

James1 says:

12:24pm | 16/02/11

Would you prefer to employ a drug addict?

Anita says:

02:39pm | 16/02/11

James1 - that’s the only reason they are on these payments. My point was more that a competely self inflcted ‘disability’ is potentially getting funding above an actually disabled person. I was recently abused roundly by a young lady on a disability pension (and who was also a foreign national) because my company would not provide her with a personal loan to fly her equally ‘disabled’ boyfriend here from overseas. She didn’t have any *discernable* disability other than a smokers cough and a bad temper. Unfortunately for her she also did not have any *discernable* way of paying the loan back…

Godwin says:

01:55pm | 16/02/11

Godwin’s law. Do not collect $200.

deluded says:

05:22pm | 16/02/11

You are delusional, Its probably why you’re on a low income.

Eye4anEye says:

06:48pm | 16/02/11

I suspect they should be receiving “anything” from the government because they are putting the “things” into the government coffers in the 1st place. I also suspect that some (probably a minority) would look seriously at leaving the country for more tax friendly climates should our high taxing nation goucge them in yet another way (brain drain).

Stewart Henstock says:

09:26am | 17/02/11

If i was on a low income i doubt i’d be able to afford the PC to view my opinion….which by the way is not delusional but factual.
The millions spent on middle class welfare over the decades has resulted in money being diverted away from those whom welfare was created for, fixed and lower income earners and given to those who believe the sole purpose of the Gov is to give them hand outs ie the bludgers.

disgusted says:

07:46pm | 16/02/11

early intervention and medical services are necessary for those born with disabilities but what about those that become disabled later on?  Not all disabled people need supported living services, some can live on their own and might only need a small amount of assistance such as with housework or gardening.

disabled peoples employment skills are not valued, look at how little employers pay disabled workers, even if the disabled person is working to the best of their ability, some earn as little as $2 an hour, which is a disgrace.

Middle income earners get thousands for their choice to have a child, they get FTB, rebates/child care benefits worth thousands for child care and some have the nerve to complain about what people on DSP get, ungrateful sods.

Kim says:

09:27pm | 16/02/11

what about those who are temporarily disabled?
Handicapped tags shouldn’t be changed to permanent disability only nor should it be a symbol on a licence plate.  It wouldn’t make any sense for the system to work like that, it would discriminate against those who are temporarily disabled but who do need access to disabled parking and those who do not have their own vehicle.

Kimberley says:

04:48pm | 17/02/11

Alice it makes me angry too, many people with disabilities were also taxpayers for many years and we paid higher taxes than people do now.

Trying to get a job when you have a disability is a nightmare, employers don’t want disabled people because of the risk it involves - risk that they will need too much time off or not be able to perform their duties (unreliable), risk of further injuries (increase to workcover premiums).  From the disabled persons angle theres other issues like trying to fit in regular medical specialists and doctors appointments, physio, hydro etc,and workplace accessability and considerations (special equipment or regular breaks/rests), not to mention those disabled people who require someone to assist them with showering, toileting, dressing or transporting.

I’d love to be back in my old life where I earned a decent wage and could afford to participate in various activities in the community and with friends; instead because of my disabilities I’m stuck living below the poverty line, unable to participate in activities I used to enjoy and unable to accept most invitations to go out (very rare to even get an invite these days as people got sick of me saying no, you tend to lose friends when you become disabled). 

It’s also really wonderful the way we are treated with disdain and contempt or get classed as bludgers and parasites by those whose baby bonuses, child endowment or FTB payments or old age pensions were paid for out of our taxes when we were the taxpayers.

Try living in constant pain or being doped up on medication to cope with that pain for a while.  Try battling on causing more pain because you have children to consider and want them to have a good home, education and life.  Try dealing with family that because they don’t see you every day or even often think that because you look normal and put a smile on your face when you see them that you are just lazy.

Or how about the horrible embarrassment of shitting yourself in public because your bowels decide to sometimes explode without warning at random and when as little as a 2 metre dash to a toilet is too far, its so much fun to have stinking shit running down your legs and having people looking at you with disgust or laughing at you isn’t it?  is it any wonder people with disabilities often end up depressed? 

Why is it that people are considerate and compassionate to people with cancer, even if they can’t see that cancer, yet any other illnesses that aren’t visible must be fake? 

Give us back some of our dignity and pride instead of making us grovel for basic life and medical needs.  Have some empathy for how hard it can be for many disabled people who struggle to get through the day as it is.

Angry Cripple says:

05:21pm | 17/02/11

Kimberly, it my true hope and desire to use this column to open doors for you and others living with disability. Your story must be told. I am not here to preach to the converted, but to spread the word about the ridiculousness of the system the way it stands. All services and funds MUST be NEEDS based. Labels should be irrelevent. It should matter not if you have cancer, krohns, autism or spinal injury - if you need in home care, and bowel/bladder support, you should get it, and it should be means/assets tested. Full stop.
Check out http://www.everyaustraliancount.com.au
Thanks for your words.

Angry Cripple says:

07:53pm | 17/02/11

typo there, sorry

http://www.everyaustraliancounts.com.au

Angry Cripple says:

10:54pm | 17/02/11

Hi Heather, here is a story which might surprise you.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7318398/ns/health-health_care/
I know quite a few blind people with different kinds of jobs - a professional fundraiser, several lawyers, a professional musician - all sorts of jobs. And the ones I mention are people who have no sight at all.