|
Barking happened - Free Cartoon Senators Gay 18C Response Nation - Thread Islamic E: Free association page snype!
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 13:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
Opinion talking making argument dog
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
[REDACTED] 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
Vladimir Poutine posted:[REDACTED] The [REDACTED] got into the word cloud because it turned up a lot in the leaked Nauru reports.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
case stupid things
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
guess there's laws
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
I sheltered myself for a month from Australian politics. Has anything changed since we hosed up the election?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Spudd posted:I sheltered myself for a month from Australian politics. Has anything changed since we hosed up the election? Nah. The new Parliament has only just started sitting, they haven't had time to screw up anything important yet. Refer to the word cloud for a rough idea of what happened last month.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
quote:Revenge porn could soon be criminalised in NSW. Well this was long overdue
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Lid posted:Well this was long overdue how is this not already illegal
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:how is this not already illegal Yeah, this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
because those sluts were obviously asking for it by dressing all slutty and being sluts and how could you break up with me you slut!??!?!?!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
loving hell, that article from the pen was hard to read. Is it asking too much to have people writing articles with any semblance of style or grace? The whole thing was just short, staccato sentences with no care or flow. I've read better-written cereal packets. Pretty horrific story, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
The criteria is appropriately byzantine. quote:http://guides.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/guide_impairment_tables.pdf open24hours fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Sep 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
iajanus posted:loving hell, that article from the pen was hard to read. Is it asking too much to have people writing articles with any semblance of style or grace? The whole thing was just short, staccato sentences with no care or flow. I've read better-written cereal packets. style? grace? flow? these are all decadent bourgeois concepts, comrade, the wise revolutionary requires merely the force and truth of his ideas to capture the audience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:how is this not already illegal The American Pie defense that boys will be boys.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:how is this not already illegal Technology outstrips law.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
iajanus posted:loving hell, that article from the pen was hard to read. Is it asking too much to have people writing articles with any semblance of style or grace? The whole thing was just short, staccato sentences with no care or flow. I've read better-written cereal packets. They seem pretty new but somehow the only website reporting this use of DoHS stats. Better than the Labor Herald.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
open24hours posted:The criteria is appropriately byzantine. That is extremely hosed up.. Like I get that often this type of poo poo is manipulated as much as possible so companies/governments can retain as much money as possible, but this feels like a whole new level. Manipulating data like that is just completely surreal. A categorical grading system where variables are cross matched in order to meet classification standards of impairment, which themselves are unbelievably hard to meet, seems like the sort of thing that should never have had approval in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
"It should be noted that a nil rating applied from a particular table does not necessarily indicate that the person suffers no symptoms or effects from a condition but only that the degree of functional loss experienced is not of sufficient severity to enable the next rating level to be assigned. Additionally, a nil total impairment rating does not necessarily indicate that a person is currently fit for work as this only reflects the assessment of permanent impairment. The person may still be disabled due to temporary impairments that prevents them from working. (Refer also to Section (K).)" Good luck trying to receive any help if you fall under this classification of impairment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
That's by design. The biggest issue with the example is that it receives zero points. Like, fair enough that getting a migraine once a week doesn't entitle you to a disability pension, but if you have five or six similar issues then you probably should be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Four to five hour headaches is considered medium? Lmao gently caress off. If I told a boss I had a condition where I had to lie down for five hours a week at any given moment I'd be on the streets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Yeah, I have friends who have had to prove they were incapable of 8 hours work a week in order to continue receiving the disability pension. Bit of a strange number, since it sure wouldn't be easy living off of 8 hours a week...
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
open24hours posted:That's by design. The biggest issue with the example is that it receives zero points. Like, fair enough that getting a migraine once a week doesn't entitle you to a disability pension, but if you have five or six similar issues then you probably should be. Yeah I figure most organisations need to have hard categories for classifications sake, but I'm against this very type of classification. If we lived in a perfect world the whole process of applying for DSP or any other form of assistance regarding impairments, would be on an individual basis where your circumstances are taken into account in relevance to your impairments. Of course this would be practical so we would rather have an all encompassing system that makes it easy to declassify people as having any impairments that could potentially stop someone from working for the dole. I just want to see a system that listens to people who need assistance, and takes into account their individual needs and desires in reference to the work they do/want to do and what is available in the area and available within their circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
I'm extremely curious in who is actually interpreting the information here, there's references to a medical officer but that doesn't really have a guideline for level of training/experience. Like this isn't a dig at the people currently doing the assessments yet, and I'm still reading the manual, but really I'd be expecting a clinician, or a panel, to be making these judgements.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
quote:12. A medical condition such as Vascular disease (Stroke) may cause brain damage to different parts of the wow this is extremely dumb
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Recoome posted:I'm extremely curious in who is actually interpreting the information here, there's references to a medical officer but that doesn't really have a guideline for level of training/experience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
So knowing nothing about australia I decided to read up some on what's going on there recently but I have an important question What the gently caress, Australia?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Recoome posted:I'm extremely curious in who is actually interpreting the information here, there's references to a medical officer but that doesn't really have a guideline for level of training/experience. ooo here's where I can provide some insight; I used to be an assessing officer for the DSP. Initial assessments of disability can be made by anyone qualified to do a Job Capacity Assessment which includes most registered health professionals (psychologists, occupational therapists, doctors etc) however, after the initial JCA, everything has to be signed off by an actual medical doctor who takes all the evidence of impairment made by assessing professionals and signs off formally that, in aggregate of all this evidence, the person has a) a clinical impairment that results in them being unable to work more than 8 hours per week and b) the functional impairment is unlikely to improve to more than 8 hours even with treatment within the next two years The treatment part is important because a lot of people may be disabled now but sometimes the treatment may produce improvement within two years. If the doctor doesn't know either way (it may or may not), he writes "cannot determine" and the person is disqualified for DSP until all treatment options are exhausted. Also, the medical doctor who used to sign off on the final report used to be a doctor of the patient's choosing. One of the biggest but un-reported changes to DSP made by Abbott is the introduction of "independent assessors", that is, assessors employed by Centrelink. Which means the final determination is now made by a doctor who actually has no history with you; you fill in all forms you can, get your assessment paperwork together and then have to sit another interview with a doctor with whom you have no history but who has a right to contradict the opinions of other treating professionals and decide that your impairment actually isn't proven enough to say with confidence that you may not reach 8 hour work capacity with treatment. The thing is, the doctors selected to independently assess your final application are at the discretion of centrelink and it's pay-per-assessment based so if you, as a doctor, find yourself approving too many reports, you can be assured that centrelink will put you at a lower priority when kicking new assessments your way. You can imagine what the criteria, that you are certain that the patient will show no improvement with treatment for at least two years did to the success rate of DSP applications for mental health conditions in particular. Mental health conditions are, by nature, somewhat ambiguous, some people actually do respond to treatment, even when you don't expect them to. I've learned to write my reports in the strongest and most concrete phrasing possible because of this which has resulted in occasions where I tend to overstate my pessimism, just to give my clients the best chance they can have when making an application. *edit* sorry, I didn't directly answer your question. Any treating professional can comment on impairment and contribute to an application. The initial assessment is done by anyone who can process a Job Capacity Assessment but the JCA is more a review of the evidence already available. A JCA officer can kick the report back to the patient to say "We need more evidence" or can recommend to c/l that they hire an independent assessor to examine, more closely, the level of impairment that will contribute to the application. the final-final determination, though, is made by a centrelink-employed, independent medical doctor who reviews the final report once it's prepared Serrath fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Sep 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:DHS have their own nominated medical officers that assess this, so your own GP has no real say on the matter. so ugh like what's the level of qualification here? Like I'm assuming that the reports et al. are going to be from clinicians, but the question is whether the person synthesising the information is also a clinician, because currently I'd be pretty worried that this is violating a testing vs. assessment thing
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Recoome posted:so ugh like what's the level of qualification here? Like I'm assuming that the reports et al. are going to be from clinicians, but the question is whether the person synthesising the information is also a clinician, because currently I'd be pretty worried that this is violating a testing vs. assessment thing I answered this in my edit because I realised after I posted that I didn't answer your question. Any registered health professional can review the evidence and help prepare the application but only a medical doctor can do the final-step synthesis of the application. the medical doctor can request more information but it's expected that the process of assessment leading into the final assessment would have already resulted in the evidence being gathered so the medical doctor can make the final determination
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
I haven't read your whole post yet Serrath but holy poo poo thank you so much, you are literally my posting idol
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
For my own part, I applied for disability back in 2013, while recovering/still in treatment for leukemia. I had a form filled out by my haematologist, and had an interview with someone from Centrelink or whatever. I explained everything to them, like how even having a shower exhausted me to the point where I had to rest afterwards. She was sympathetic and made it sound like it'd pass no problem. Cue a couple of weeks later I get a letter saying it was turned down. Then I get a concession pass that said "disability" on it and my next appointment was set for a year away. After that was up, I got a phone call saying I missed an appointment with a disability employment provider and it turns out they sent the letter to my old place in Queensland, when their office was in Penrith, Sydney. The entire thing is a steaming garbage pile.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
open24hours posted:The criteria is appropriately byzantine. This is essentially the problem of having a debilitating disability and finding work. If the choice to hire is between a person who may be unable to work for days at a time with little to no notice, or a person who doesn't have those problems, then it is a no-brainer. And the worst part is that if it isn't chronic or crippling enough, it doesn't factor significantly into assessments. Vladimir Poutine posted:Yeah, I have friends who have had to prove they were incapable of 8 hours work a week in order to continue receiving the disability pension. Bit of a strange number, since it sure wouldn't be easy living off of 8 hours a week... You really need to have a doctor who is sympathetic to your condition and will describe your condition in the worst possible light, and you have to be able to communicate that effectively to Centrelink's assessors. So what ends up happening is that many people will inadvertently 'perjure' themselves on this criteria.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Serrath posted:the good poo poo Serrath posted:more of that good poo poo Thats pretty interesting, thanks for that insight. I definitely agree WRT certainty of prognosis for mental health conditions (schizophrenia is one which springs to mind). Although there's probably not a lot of stats on it, I bet the DSP process is pretty detrimental to the people who are actually going through it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
I'm on a very long waiting list for a JCA, not expecting anything but a change of stream though. But your description, Serrath, is horribly familiar: it's what they've been using (with some variation) in the Dept of Veterans Affairs. I believe they still use a board of medical professionals instead of just one. I doubt much has changed since I worked there years ago, they were regularly re-assessing veterans to see if they could overturn their disability assessments. Imagine missing a limb and being hauled in every six months to "prove" you were still disabled as a result of service.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Recoome posted:I bet the DSP process is pretty detrimental to the people who are actually going through it. The only payment type that doesn't suffer from this is the aged pension, because it'd be electoral suicide.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:You really need to have a doctor who is sympathetic to your condition and will describe your condition in the worst possible light, and you have to be able to communicate that effectively to Centrelink's assessors. So what ends up happening is that many people will inadvertently 'perjure' themselves on this criteria. This has become the only way to be approved, really, which means that approvals tend to be concentrated among people of relative socioeconomic standard already who are more likely to have a regular family doctor who knows them and who is willing to expose themselves to the liability of explaining the condition in the strongest terms possible. The person to impress is the final assessing doctor but if you present to that doctor with letters from your own doctor stating that the condition is intractable and unrelenting, a letter from your clinical psychologist stating that you've been in treatment for years already with limited effect, a letter from your psychiatrist stating that you've already tried medication X, Y, and Z and you're still of limited means then, for the final assessing doctor to deny your claim, he would need to put himself in a position where he is contradicting all these other professionals who have had a persisting relationship with you for X years already. Key in this is the weight of evidence; a doctor who has known you for 10 years will be viewed as meeting a higher standard of evidence than a doctor who has known you for 6 months when both doctors are saying you have no capacity. With sufficient evidence already prepared, I've known patients who's final interview took less than 15 minutes as the centrelink employed doctor reviewed the evidence they had already and decided that further questions were not needed. But this means you have to have this established relationship already so people with housing instability, frequent moves, a pattern of unstable/inconsistent relationships in general (often due to their disability) will be at a disadvantage. Accruing points on the disability table is actually the easy part, the hard part is proving permanency to the condition and resistance to treatment, that's the part that needs to be commented upon in the strongest terms when preparing a report. I would also point out that preparing reports to assist with an application isn't subsidized; I argue that it is the professional obligation of a treating health professional to write these sorts of reports but a lot of psychologists I know disagree and will flatly refuse to write a report commenting on mental health conditions for their clients, forcing those applicants to rely on the comment of their GP only (who will have less insight into the chronicity and resistance to treatment). *edit* quote:it's usually reinforced further to either delay applicants for as long as possible Oh yeah, also, if you follow every step exactly and there's no process of appeal and you've collected your evidence as quickly as possible, the wait times alone (ignoring the time it takes you to attend the respective assessment appointments and collect your evidence) exceeds 6 months and can stretch as long as a year. This is for an uncomplicated, straightforward application with no surprises and ample evidence Serrath fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Sep 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Wish they'd put Llama on the DSP so he wouldn't have to keep posting
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
Serrath posted:I would also point out that preparing reports to assist with an application isn't subsidized; I argue that it is the professional obligation of a treating health professional to write these sorts of reports but a lot of psychologists I know disagree and will flatly refuse to write a report commenting on mental health conditions for their clients, forcing those applicants to rely on the comment of their GP only (who will have less insight into the chronicity and resistance to treatment). This point is actually really interesting, because I'd argue that it's definitely a responsibility for clinical psychologists (clinical is where I have the most exposure anyway, part of the job), and I'd even argue it's an ethical responsibility. What is the counter-argument to this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 02:39
|
|