ACCforum: ... - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

...

#1 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 12 April 2016 - 10:03 PM

.
0

#2 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2656
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 13 April 2016 - 01:43 AM

View Postanonymousey, on 12 April 2016 - 10:03 PM, said:

I am not sure if members are keeping up with any background news but figured I could start a thread for comments regarding the upcoming Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill

Here is link

I noticed this wee section and have uploaded FYI because unfortunately IMHO there has been some strife within the forum over the years concerning possible corelated issues etc :wacko:/>

35 Supported living payment: on ground of restricted work capacity or total blindness: ineligibility
A person (P) must not be granted a supported living payment if MSD is satisfied that P’s restricted capacity for work or total blindness was self-inflicted and brought about by P with a view to qualifying for a benefit.
Compare: 1964 No 136 s 40B(5)

ps I am not sure if the various other forums and support groups are putting together submissions or not?


This is outrageous to think the self harmer is of mind that is punishable by disentitlement.

The mental health and human rights spokespersons would be disgusted for the inconsideration of these mentally disturbed PEOPLE falling through the legislation cracks.

Will this mean the next stage is to leave the wrist cutters that are often seen as attention seekers to die rather than stitch them up ?

:rolleyes:/>
2

#3 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2656
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 13 April 2016 - 01:00 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 13 April 2016 - 12:36 PM, said:

It may be that GENUINE self harmers will receive treatment rather than be disentitled Rex perhaps?

ATM I am not sure if this section will be used more for those with addiction problems who refuse treatment OR others who deliberately harm themselves with injuries &or ignore any new Occupational Health & Safety legislation etc

IMHO the difficulty may be when & where there are indications similar to when questions are raised about ACC claimants exploiting no fault or no witnesses to their injuries etc For example, I think there was once a thread discussion in here about a worker using chemicals to burn their feet with a very expensive investigation - so possibly this section may be to reduce these sorts of claims & costs to the tax or levypayer etc


How can one define a "genuine self harmer", and class a system user

IMHO If someone self harms they are not in a stable mind sense (.)

Your example of this chemical incident (No reference so generalised discussion by me) is just proof that claimant was NOT in a stable mind state if they chose self harm IMO

Should they be ONLY entitled to suffering consequences for their actions ?

Its not their fault the system in place and the society they try to fit into is lead them to where a choice of self harm was in effect what they chose as even an option.

The legislation doesn't cater for the individual and these trimming the sail of entitlement in this fashion will lead to increased successful suicides IMO.
1

#4 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2656
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 13 April 2016 - 02:03 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 13 April 2016 - 01:46 PM, said:

hhhmmmm imho various TREATMENT issues & participation may or should be explored by WINZ if they are considering disentitlement under this section :wacko:/>

IMHO I think WINZ are mostly looking to trimming the sail of system users with this section Rex? This may be helpful in some ways and get folks the proper care needed as well as identify any criminal mindsets etc There may also be various other sections which will also already assist claimants with mental health needs where some of your POV is considered & taken on board etc

FYI the forum link on previous case discussion


Thanks I simply need to reiterate my view

View PostREX, on 13 April 2016 - 01:00 PM, said:

<SNIP>
IMHO If someone self harms they are not in a stable mind sense (.) <<<<<===== :wacko:/>
<SNIP>
The legislation doesn't cater for the individual and these trimming the sail of entitlement in this fashion will lead to increased successful suicides IMO.





0

#5 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2656
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 14 April 2016 - 11:27 PM

I GIVE UP!I got to rex and the wind came up I don't have the patients for going round and round/,.




Yawns




SUP




0

#6 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2656
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 15 April 2016 - 02:15 AM

View Postanonymousey, on 15 April 2016 - 12:42 AM, said:


***REPORTED***






-1

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users