Reverse Discrimination & A Fair Entitlement For The Disabled & Their Caregivers

It could be considered that all politicians are socially retarded and perhaps even those with little experience, be though it may, they go in with good intentions, as the saying goes "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" they too develop this retardation the longer they are exposed to political life.
I wouldn't wish a disability on any of them, however, I don't think it would phase me too much to learn of any of them being wheelchair bound and totally dependent on others for their very lives. In fact I would view it as a possible positive if their nests weren't already "feathered", as a voice who has "been there and done that" often develops the necessary enthusiasm and know-how to change things for others and bring about new awareness in their peers.

What comes to your mind when you hear the word "disabled"? Do you see a person with a broken leg? or do you see a dribbling contorted figure in a wheelchair and quickly think of something else?
Do you see perfectly normal looking people that are unable to move or communicate? Which-ever you may see I can guarantee you there are many more versions of disability than you can imagine.
As a voice for the disabled I would like to raise awareness in all people, but more importantly in politicians who more often than not are totally unaware of the true nature of the difficulties experienced in the lives of the people they are supposed to serve.

If you have never considered it before now, take a moment to think about what life might be like if you or one of your loved ones had a disability that made them or you totally dependent on others 24 hours a day.

Disability is not always something that people have from birth. Accident, medical misadventure, exposure to dangerous environmental conditions, can often result in total disability and misfortune of that nature can strike the healthiest of people from all walks of life in the blink of an eye, none are immune.

How we care for those less fortunate in our communities, is a direct reflection upon our government, our society, our country, our people.

At present, funding for care of the disabled is geared towards institutionally provided caregiving, a badly considered throw-off from a poorly educated past. In other words, institutionalization being the standard in care of the disabled.
This standard is without regard for the spiritual or mental well being of the disabled person or their family. Somehow between good health and "normality" and total dependance they become no more a human being but a pet or livestock. Probably stemming from our inability to communicate with them in their "altered state".

Take another moment to think and ponder yourself no longer in your fully functional body unit but in one crippled by some horrific accident. You are unable to speak, unable to move but you are still in there. Doctors say your prognosis is grim you will never function again as a "normal human being". What does that mean? does it mean you are less than a human being? does it mean that you should be given no choice but to be institutionalised, ripped away from those you love and placed in a home where you are merely viewed as work? If you were able to communicate, where would you like to be? I am 100% sure you would choose "home". You might be of noble nature and consider the burden you may become on your loved ones, given the lack of support that is presently available for home caregivers, and be unsure, but even then, your heart would tell you home is where it wants to be.

In order to truly serve the disabled best, the fully-abled must become their voice. the choices caregivers make for the disabled must be as if the choice is for themselves.

Provisioning for the disabled and their caregivers falls a long way short of socially responsible government. There is a reverse discrimination applied to the disabled in so much as they are included in the same provisioning applied to the unemployed and their caregivers are included in the domestic purposes benefit provisioning and are subject to the same mean spirited denial that both Work and Income and ACC are renowned for and perhaps the worst and most indifferent event being their need to have the caregiver prove every year, even when Work and Incomes' own chosen medical practioner has signed a statement that the disabled persons' condition is lifelong. Surely those that wrote that rule are not so stupid as to think that a sudden change in a disabled persons condition that brought them back to perfect health would go unnoticed or not reported to them?
Two things are obvious and blaringly disparate with this discriminatory approach to the disabled and their caregivers,

1. A disabled person has greater living expense due to their condition, than an able bodied unemployed person.

2. The caregiver is working on call 24 hours a day, recognised by the authority, but paid at a rate which works out to approximately $1.74 an hour.

Whilst the disabled person and their caregiver may be able to exist on these benefits it cannot be classed as "a living".
Is it responsible or fair that the government is allowed to pay below the minimum wage for officially recognised work in caregiving? or is it that they are merely taking advantage of the love and personal responsibility that each caregiver that opts to care for their own, and saves money against the institutionalisation option?
Opportunities for most caregivers to earn outside of their caregiving responsibilities are rare, meaning that there is little or no saving, little or no money for things such as life insurance, home insurance, car insurance, let alone saving to own their own home, rising costs of food, fuel and electricity and no chance for a retirement plan.

Yes it is true, there are plenty of able bodied people that can't own their own home or have insurance or won't have a retirement fund, but that doesn't make it right in any way, it only makes the disparities in NZ society more obvious.

We could organise a number of caregivers to get together and run their own institution and charge the government standard rates and pay the caregivers a decent wage, however that would not work for all as there are many with other children, family, members that need their attention as well, obviously the best and most cost efficient choice for the caregiver, the disabled and the government is home care.

We could organise en masse that all caregivers fill the forms out and officially place their disabled in the care of the government and watch the sparks fly and the jaws drop when they are asked to step up to the plate and deliver their social responsibility when we all park the wheelchairs in the front yard of the beehive. However, that would be extreme and in all fairness should not be necessary.

Saying that we are a compassionate society and providing it are two very different things. Of course we all at one time or another have been faced with those ignorant few who think that if people have a disabled child it is totally their responsibility, can you imagine trying to prove that your childs disabilities are a result of medical misfortune or due to a spray that say for example, MAF approve to kill some moth or suchlike. To get an impersonal faceless authority to admit to any wrong doing is almost impossible let alone to seek or receive any form of compensation.

Surprisingly the British appear to lead the way, they give a massive lump sum so that the disabled and their caregivers can own their own home and on top of that, ongoing financial support to enable them to integrate with a level of dignity and self reliance - self determination, in a life dictated by their society.

In New Zealand, we wait......... will our government step up to realize their responsibility towards us?

Ask yourself why you pay tax, what would you expect from tax dollars? What kind of support would you expect? Would you see yourself and your loved ones reduced to second rate citizens should one of them become disabled?