Get rid of ACC... In favour of a fair, robust support organisation

If I went blind in an accident, my adaptive technology would be covered, my mobility aids would be covered, my income would be assured, my support needs would be covered. 
I went functionally blind from a neurological illness. I have to buy my own white cane, and apply to the lotteries disability fund for adaptive tech, and prove that I am giving back to my community to somehow earn the right to have my basic needs met. 
Buy your lotto ticket this week... because otherwise Jane doesn't get a wheelchair. 
Quite apart from the harm gambling does, that is flat out rediculous. No one should have to beg and get letters from community members to have their basic mobility needs met, even if my disability makes it physically impossible to leave the house without the adaptive equipment, I would have to be an active part of my community to get the equipment... that would allow me to be an active part of my community. 

My weekly income, after tax, from the supported living benefit is $359 a week. To put that in context, that is $104 LESS than the pension! 
If I had been working MINIMUM WAGE, full time, and become disabled because of an accident, I would get 80%, which would be, after tax $562. Which is $203 more than supported living. And that is minimum wage, people with higher pay when they become disabled due to an accident, get higher incomes. Because if you are born disabled, I guess you just aren't worth anything...

Get rid of this unfair, broken, 2-teir system, and bring all disabled and chronically ill  people under the care and support structures of ACC, as you should under the UNCRPD. 

Currently, our lives, as disabled people, are a lottery, based on how we became disabled. But hey.... maybe that lottery will fund Johns seizure alert dog.

Why the contribution is important

We all pay taxes. Why should two people with the exact same disability needs and effects have such different levels of financial, medical, and practical support? 
There is no reason. 

by AceTimelord on March 24, 2023 at 03:53PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 4.8
Based on: 5 votes

Comments

  • Posted by Bware March 25, 2023 at 08:34

    Strongly disagree.
    ACC is annoying and far from ideal, but the alternatives are a lot worse.

  • Posted by AceTimelord March 26, 2023 at 05:00

    I don't mean get rid of it with nothing in its place. I mean expand it, so it covers everything it currently does, plus those who need their care, but don't currently qualify because their disability is not caused by an accident. This would mean a name change. But the problem isn't that ACC is bad. The problem is ACC is too good, but only a few people get to access it, through random chance of how they became disabled.
    So it needs to be expanded, with a wider brief, so that everyone who needs it gets care and support.

  • Posted by listay1 March 29, 2023 at 15:25

    ACC only covers accidents. It's in the name.

    Expanding it would be a separate thing. My question is why aren't mobility and accessible aids easier to access for those who need them? Why are disabilities seen as a huge expensive issue? Adaptive technology in vehicles is a massive cost and doesn't need to be.

  • Posted by vision4ME April 11, 2023 at 13:15

    I support AceTimelord's call to replace the current two-tier system with a single, broader one where the level of help and support provided is fairly based on need, not on how a disability was incurred.

  • Posted by Jenny13 April 15, 2023 at 08:04

    I agree with the inequity in ACC.
    I'm going out on a limb here and suggesting that we get rid of ACC altogether.
    Use the funding (or an alternative tax method) to prop up the actual health service and MSD.

    ACC spends massive amounts on admin.
    Much of that admin is wasted on deciding whether a claim is to be covered by ACC or flicked back to health or MSD services.
    The health professionals working for ACC could work for the public health services (and at lower cost)

    A similar argument to yours would be a person with a stroke, or with a head injury causing a stroke.
    Why should the two have to be separated and treated under different systems?
    Why should the two have different ongoing income if left unable to work?
    Why should one get a funded wheelchair, physio, home help etc, and the other not?

    A patient I knew was in limbo for years waiting for surgery on an arthritic ankle, secondary to a serious assault.
    The hospitals knew that this should be treated by ACC.
    ACC agreed. They just couldn't decide WHICH injury claim number to use, as a surgeon mistakenly mentioned in a letter that the patient had at some other time injured this same ankle on a motorbike.
    The fact that they had never been on a motorbike in their life, and had no ACC claim for a motorbike injury was irrelevant to them.
    Their ankle was a piece of paper being passed from desk to desk for years while the patient hobbled around on crutches untreated.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas