Just one inevitable outcome of a national disability insurance scheme

To "separate injury from cause" is a good idea. 
I fully support the idea of eliminating all rights to personal damages litigation.   If a person has been injured by negligence then this should be a criminal issue e.g. an factory or restaurant owner, doctor or accountant should be warned, fined, disbarred, or goaled depending on the circumstances.
Any fines should go to the common weal and be used to support welfare.

Welfare should be restricted to providing a minimum subsistence level for those who have no other assets (i.e. skills, abilities, money etc) regardless of cause.

This IS the "insurance" scheme i.e. a system whereby the culture supports any of its own to a subsistence level.
Groups of people may want to voluntarily contribute additional assets to improve the minimum standard. It is important for the culture that this unearned support i.e. charity, and the accompanying gratitude it should evoke, are kept separate so that a culture of entitlement does not grow. The organisations that deliver charity should be kept at arm's length from the government agencies charged with providing subsistence support.

The above is of course not the current state of affairs in Oz. We have a rampant entitlement culture that makes even the work of nurses on the "front line" stressful and increasingly dangerous. We have a welfare entitlement culture that is being educated to expect the government to provide everything from set top boxes to life time income support at levels that aim to ensure a comfortable life style rather than subsistence.

We have a public health system that may not be as bad as that of the UK, but which is certainly under stress.
The proposed scheme is an attempt to top up and overlay once again because the quality and quantity of existing public health support is not considered adequate for people with "special needs". The fiction will be promoted that funds going to "special needs" will not affect the funds available to other public health priorities.

Even more damaging is the use of the language of contractual obligation.

The government wants to force and additional insurance payment onto all people regardless of their need or desire, and will then tell those with "special needs" that they are not receiving charity, but their contractual rights under an insurance scheme.

Everyone is well aware of the long and frequent history of insurance claims portrayed as equivalent to a lottery win, and people receiving insurance compensation (as opposed to charity) will become even more aggressive regarding the level of support for their needs.

We need to oppose both the creation of an additional "special" health funding system, AND the redefinition of the social relationship between the community and those claiming need.

These issues are extremely emotive for those with "special needs". Our politicians are renowned for their inability to tell any section of the community that we cannot afford more. Separating the funding for brain injury from lung cancer will not only create another bureaucracy, but one with a direct line to the our pockets that no-one will dare to challenge.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comment or Send a Message

You can use this form to send a message OR make a comment as your contribution is NOT published automatically, but sent to Stephen for
consideration.


You can select "anonymous" from the drop down menu below if you do not have a google account.