Paid Parenthood
I saw this headline on Stuff and thought “about time”.
Parents win disabled children care payment case
Sadly, it turns out only that parents with adult disabled children have won the support of the Human Rights Tribunal, not the government itself.
Currently only caregivers who are not related to the disabled adult receive payment from the government. Family members, even ones who have to give up their livelihoods to care for their disabled children, brothers and sisters, receive nothing at all (they can, of course, claim unemployment benefits but this is well below the amounts paid to caregivers).
This is an anomaly that should have ended a long time ago. It is absurd that a complete stranger can be paid a salary to look after a disabled adult, but that a family member must provide the same service for free. This often places unnecessary hardship on the family of disabled adult children, despite the fact that paying them would likely cost the government little or no money. This is because more people would be willing to look after their disabled loved ones and the government could pay only their salaries and no agency fees.
For those who say that such a system could be open to abuse, I say it is far less likely that family would provide a poor level of service to their disabled adult child than an agency whose sole interest is in being paid.
My feeling is this should also be extended to the elderly although here there is certainly more potential for abuse, as elder abuse is unfortunately very common. However, I see no reason why safeguards cannot be put in place (as long as they are not too intrusive). Families that look after their infirm and disabled generally do well as family units, apart from the stresses of the financial drain.
I sometimes wonder if we have some sort of fixation about only letting external agencies access government funding, rather than the families who need it. It is time to remove this strange anomaly from our health and disability services.
Related posts:
- Beneficiary Bashing? Both KeepingStock and Kiwiblog have posted on National’s “new” policy...
- Spam Journalism #57 Spam Journalism: The spurious use of sensational headlines to add...
- Accidental Baby I have a great deal of misgiving about the attempt...
- Not Old Enough Last night on the TV one news was a disturbing...
- Out of the Mouths of Babes… Readers of this blog will appreciate that I am fascinated by...
Jan 12 10 9:23 am
The Australian MS Society has a well referenced paper on the average cost of MS to families. Its well over $30,000 per annum with about half that falling on the MS person and her family.
NZ, and by extension many people dealing with long term illness and disease will be similar. However, because it doesn’t qualify for ACC that loss is poorly recompensed within the family.
Agree about your comments re the elderly. At the end of the day wealth is mainly transferred from the elderly to the younger, and something like dementia interrupts that process unequally compared to an older person who enjoys reasonably good health till death. Its all very well parking the demented one in managed care and draining her wealth to pay for it, but that assumes the care, wellbeing and wealth is better managed institutionally than at home.
JC
Jan 12 10 2:32 pm
Hear hear. I am at a loss to explain why family should have been forbidden funding to care, who better to care?
I suppose some well meaning twit thought they might ‘abuse’ the sitation for pecuniary gain. Hardly, its so little money.
It does go towards quality of care though, generally families that want to provide the care provide excellent care.
The other anomaly now is the caregivers DPB to care for a sick spouse. Often partners have to give up their employment when a spouse is ill, especially with degenerative and terminal conditions. They cannot receive the caregivers DPB solely because theya re the husband/wife. The kids can get it, the grandkids can get it, but not the spouse. Stupid