What GOVERNMENT'S STATE and FEDERAL think of you
The National Disability Insurance Scheme which we are all paying for is
going before Parliament at present. I was listening to a panel
discussion last Friday and was curious as to why the CEO of Disability
Services Australia was less than enthusiastic about the Scheme in its
present form. It was pointed out that anyone 65 years or older would not
be covered by the scheme, the reason being it would make the scheme cost
prohibitive (given an aging population etc). If you have a disability at
the time you reach 65 years of age you will be covered for the benefits
of the scheme when you pass age 65. If you become disabled at age 65 or
over you will not be covered and there is no other safety net scheme to
provide support and services other than present State and private Health
Insurance product/services. The Disability Services representative on
the panel pointed out that a large number of disability cases in the
community affect elderly people who by misfortune have a stroke leading
to partial or greater permanent disability, folk with bone degenerative
disease, osteoporosis etc, other degenerative disease- Dementia,
Parkinson's and the like, plus serious accidental- broken hips, etc.
From age 65 and older none of these people are covered and as was
pointed out the impact of this exclusion would include large numbers of
baby boomers, parents and grandparents of the current 25-40 year olds. I
have not heard one mention of this exclusion from any of the Politicians
from both sides. What was mentioned from a legal participant in last
Friday's panel discussion was that the Federal Government tinkered
carefully with the title of NDIS, so as to have a loop hole against
future litigation for discriminating against a section of the Australian
population with a Nationally funded program. Apparently the trick is in
the use of the word "Insurance" in the scheme.
From a Western Australian perspective, I can also understand Colin
Barnett's reticence to sign up to the scheme. Our current state run
disability scheme offers more comprehensive and superior services to
that of the services proposed by the NDIS and there are no age
exclusions. It was pointed out that with the present proposal if we are
part of the NDIS our level of services will decrease.
My own view is that while the concept of an NDIS is laudable, I question
why in main younger 30-40 year olds are paying an increased Medicare
levy to fund a scheme that would not cover their parents and elderly
dear ones, in the event of disability. In the age 30 to 40 group young
people are career focussed, have a lot of cost in their lives, getting
established with a house, raising young children etc, so the scheme
should be funded from consolidated revenue and not yet another levy.
They also mentioned in the panel discussion that around 1000
Commonwealth Public Service FTE's would be required to administer the
Scheme from Canberra, again I have great concern about the efficiency of
this, given the present Federal Governments track record with the Home
Insulation Program, Better Schools Program, management of Australian
border protection and the like.
If you feel inclined please forward this email on so at least there will
be a better awareness of the pitfalls and oversights in the hurried put
together of the NDIS- in that way we can get it changed to cover all the
Australian population. Thank you.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme which we are all paying for is
going before Parliament at present. I was listening to a panel
discussion last Friday and was curious as to why the CEO of Disability
Services Australia was less than enthusiastic about the Scheme in its
present form. It was pointed out that anyone 65 years or older would not
be covered by the scheme, the reason being it would make the scheme cost
prohibitive (given an aging population etc). If you have a disability at
the time you reach 65 years of age you will be covered for the benefits
of the scheme when you pass age 65. If you become disabled at age 65 or
over you will not be covered and there is no other safety net scheme to
provide support and services other than present State and private Health
Insurance product/services. The Disability Services representative on
the panel pointed out that a large number of disability cases in the
community affect elderly people who by misfortune have a stroke leading
to partial or greater permanent disability, folk with bone degenerative
disease, osteoporosis etc, other degenerative disease- Dementia,
Parkinson's and the like, plus serious accidental- broken hips, etc.
From age 65 and older none of these people are covered and as was
pointed out the impact of this exclusion would include large numbers of
baby boomers, parents and grandparents of the current 25-40 year olds. I
have not heard one mention of this exclusion from any of the Politicians
from both sides. What was mentioned from a legal participant in last
Friday's panel discussion was that the Federal Government tinkered
carefully with the title of NDIS, so as to have a loop hole against
future litigation for discriminating against a section of the Australian
population with a Nationally funded program. Apparently the trick is in
the use of the word "Insurance" in the scheme.
From a Western Australian perspective, I can also understand Colin
Barnett's reticence to sign up to the scheme. Our current state run
disability scheme offers more comprehensive and superior services to
that of the services proposed by the NDIS and there are no age
exclusions. It was pointed out that with the present proposal if we are
part of the NDIS our level of services will decrease.
My own view is that while the concept of an NDIS is laudable, I question
why in main younger 30-40 year olds are paying an increased Medicare
levy to fund a scheme that would not cover their parents and elderly
dear ones, in the event of disability. In the age 30 to 40 group young
people are career focussed, have a lot of cost in their lives, getting
established with a house, raising young children etc, so the scheme
should be funded from consolidated revenue and not yet another levy.
They also mentioned in the panel discussion that around 1000
Commonwealth Public Service FTE's would be required to administer the
Scheme from Canberra, again I have great concern about the efficiency of
this, given the present Federal Governments track record with the Home
Insulation Program, Better Schools Program, management of Australian
border protection and the like.
If you feel inclined please forward this email on so at least there will
be a better awareness of the pitfalls and oversights in the hurried put
together of the NDIS- in that way we can get it changed to cover all the
Australian population. Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment