by frog
Someone dropped this pen near my lilypad yesterday.
Could it have been Dr Felicity Goodyear-Smith, who advised ACC to require a diagnosis of mental illness before sex abuse survivors could get counselling paid for by ACC and who thinks sexual abuse counselling is ‘a scam’?
As Kevin Hague said on the weekend:
If it’s a numerical analysis you want, the public health departments of our universities are packed with biostatisticians who could do that. Why would you choose the researcher with the most extreme view about the topic itself to do this neutral task?
They used Goodyear-Smith because they knew she would recommend less treatment and less costs for people who had been sexually abused. That, to me, is a scandal.
What a pity ACC don’t put more effort into ensuring claimants get the rehabilitation they need to get their lives back on track and the compensation to which they are entitled, instead of embarking on cynical cost-cutting measures and ‘dob in a bludger’ campaigns.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare | Health & Wellbeing by frog on Tue, September 7th, 2010
Tags: ACC, Felicity Goodyear-Smith, Kevin Hague, sexual abuse, sexual abuse counselling
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
What is the link between a pen and Dr Felicity Goodyear-Smith..?
What is the problem with reporting people who are committing the crime of fraud..?
Like or Dislike:
4 
6 (-2)
Like or Dislike:
9 
2 (+7)
Felicity Goodyear-Smith tends to be exremely litigious, so I had to be very careful about what I said in my post. Unfortunately, that seems to have escaped Jeremy Harris.
Thanks to you, Annelise, more may now understand the link.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Two points
- if you don’t dob in a bludger then you are effectively endorsing theft from the taxpayer.
Does the Green Party really think people who are stealing should be left alone?
Secondly,
ACC, as it’s name suggest, is a scheme to where we pay in to be compensated if we have an accident.
At what stage did sexual abuse become classified as accidental?
Like or Dislike:
2 
7 (-5)
I think you too might have missed Annelise’s and frog’s point. Of course ACC shouldn’t condone fraud, but that should apply equally to those who claim from them and those who give them supposedly professional advice.
As for your second point, sexual abuse meets the “personal injury” definition under the ACC Act, just as does being injured through being smacked in the head by someone. Injuries from deliberate, as well as accidental, incidents of trauma are covered under the Act.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3 (+5)
I assume, photonz, that you are just as zealous about “dobbing in” those who don’t declare their ‘cash jobs’ as income, and regularly report them and other similar tax evaders. There is a lot of it about so you could be pretty busy.
Hard as it is to stomach theft of all kinds is normal in our society, and is not just confined to beneficiaries, who seem to particularly upset you. It’s publicly not condoned, but it exists everywhere and, in my view, is part of our collective ‘more is better’ syndrome.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
toad – it’s totally brainless of frog to say ACC should not be putting effort into fraud detection.
In past years ACC have saved over $35 million, by fraud detection programmes that cost less than $2 million to run.
And they’re only getting the tip of the iceberg.
These programmes mean there is MORE money for claimants – NOT LESS.
How stupid would it be stop detection programmes, have less moeny to spend on claimants, and thereby encourage more fraud.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6 (-3)
“In past years ACC have saved over $35 million, by fraud detection programmes that cost less than $2 million to run. ”
The pen isn’t a ‘fraud detection programme’ it’s an invitation to any unqualified dickhead to cause trouble for somebody they don’t like or have unfounded suspicions about.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
sAm says “The pen isn’t a ‘fraud detection programme’ it’s an invitation to any unqualified dickhead to cause trouble for somebody they don’t like or have unfounded suspicions about.”
Oh – I didn’t realise they could only do that if they had the magic pen.
Toad – so what’s your solution to those who are obviously stealing tens of millions of dollars from ACC – do nothing?
You don’t have to be a brain surgeon to realise that if you can stop people stealing from ACC, then there is MORE money for genuine cases – do you not want that?
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
photonz1, evidence please, as to the existence and extent of ACC fraud by claimants.
As usual, you go off half-cock!
If you have evidence of widespread abuse of the ACC scheme (other than that of those who are contracted to provide professional advise ACC), then please present it.
Otherwise, STFU!
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
toad says “As usual, you go off half-cock!
Otherwise, STFU!”
Evidence? How about evidence from the ACC Chief Executive who says
“In the last 5 years over 5000 cases have been investigated and ACC’s Investigation Unit has identified and dealt with fraud amounting to $150 million.”
From
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0807/S00075.htm
You bite the head off anyone who even suggests there might be fraud, and complain there is not enough money for genuine claimants.
But show not the slightest concern at all – in fact the very opposite – that $150,000,000.00 has been stolen from ACC.
You may want to take your own advice to STFU.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
Its the usual Natianal party divisive stuff and its effect is to get idiots all worked up ………….. like yourself.
If you want to see the realy big rip-offs which stole a lot older peoples retirement savings then you could have a look at the finance company sector where 8 Billion bucks of investors money has been squandered and swindled.
But those finance company director folk wear nice suits and ties, live in nice suburbs ……….. and vote national.
White collar crime is ok under the Nats …………………..
And so is getting right wing “experts” to write up reports which lead to bad injust laws and regulations being passed and applied.
Like the example which frog wrote this thread about ………. but you dont care about ACC and Nick Smith abusing sexual abuse victims.
Creep.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
photonz if you read the blog post carefully you’ll see that frog didn’t suggest stopping all fraud detection. It was about priorities.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
nznative says “Creep”
Your hatred and anger are palpable – and this after talking about idiots getting all worked up.
rimu – take your ideological blinkers off.
Frog actually said ACC should be concentrating putting efforts into claims “INSTEAD OF” detecting fraud.
If you don’t stop fraud, then you can look at MORE CUTS to genuine cases.
The amount of ACC money is finite. If people steal, then there is LESS.
What do you not understand about this?
It’s basic economics my eight year old can understand.
For every $1 million ACC spend on detecting fraud, they return $20 million dollars.
To say ACC should be putting efforts into claimants “instead of” stopping hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud is utterly and totally stupid.
This wrongly insinuates that by putting effort into detecting fraud, there is LESS put into claimants.
When any idiot can see that with $150 million of fraud stopped that the opposite is true.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
It must be magic if ACC always get a 20 to 1 return on the money they spend hunting down the cheats. Give them 100 million to do this job and hey presto the countrys 2 Billion bucks in the black.
Mind you how much money did they save by hireing the defender of sex abusers.
They probably saved $1000 for every buck they paid felicity.
Quick PhotoNZ1……………. tell the nats to hire nasty right wing types to run the show and they’ll save billions………… oh shit they already have.
Ah well at least the angry, obsessive green stalkers like PhotoNZ1 and JC should be happy , it seems to be what they want.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nah. Read it again
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
nznative says “Quick PhotoNZ1……………. tell the nats to hire nasty right wing types”
WRONG again – How can you blame National for hiring Goodyear-Smith, when she was commissioned to do her research in 2004.
Oh – that’s right.
Frog failed to mention that of dozens of papers, research and reports done for ACC every year, that the very one chosen to complain about is hundreds of reports ago, and over half a decade old.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think this is a slight to all the harworking people at ACC who give us one of the best (and least litigious) accident recovery systems in the world…
I still don’t get what this lady has to do with the pen… Nothing as far as I call tell except you don’t like her and you don’t like the pen… Anyone can report any crime (real or imagined) to the Police, who then investigate as to the validity of it… Why on earth should ACC be any different..?
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/independent-review-acc-needed
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
PhotoNZ1 said at the beginning of this thread that Sexual abuse victims should not be cover by ACC ………….
We can see just where your coming from PhotoNZ1 …………… you creep.
Also Felicity may have written up her report under Labor but it took Nick Smith and the National party to screw the victims of sexual abuse a second time by denying them ACC.
Just like you’d deny them PhotoNZ1 …………. natianal creep that you are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
nznative says “We can see just where your coming from PhotoNZ1 …………… you creep.”
Councilling for sexual abuse victims should not be covered by ACC.
As I’ve said before, more than once, it should be covered automatically as part of our normal health system.
Then victims avoid having to jump over additional hurdles at ACC before they get help, and they get the amount of help they actually need instead of the limited amounts available under the ACC system.
If you are going to call someone a creep, you should at the very least find out what their position is first.
Instead you’ve made up an extremist and wrong position, and falsely said that it’s mine.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Photonz,
The more quickly a sexual assault victim gets counseling, the lesser the extent of the damage and thus the more minimal the cost. In the present landscape it is probably best to handle it through ACC, even if it is something more suited to the public system.
On that subject, I do not really get the distinction. I mean to say, is cancer covered by ACC if it is not directly caused by the occupation? It clearly interferes with ability to work as much as many of the things covered. Rape interferes substantially but, usually, has none of its cause on work. Is it a case of being traceable to a specific incident? If your present problems are all traced to a doctor’s misdiagnosis in youth then are you covered by ACC if it prevents you from working? If so, how is that really different to a degenerative disease that is the fault of no-one? Toad?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – you say it is best to get counseling quickly but advocate for a system where victims first have to convince the public health system, which THEN has to convince the ACC system to pay for counseling.
Getting counseling via ACC slows down the process – better to miss out ACC all together and go directly to counseling if it’s needed.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Sapient – your other points are good.
Personally I think ACC should be temporary. I know of someone who has been on ACC long term because of an injured hand and someone else doing exactly the same job who does not have a hand.
There is far too much focus on what can’t be done instead of what can be done.
We have people in wheelchairs working productive full time jobs and people much, much less disabled on long term ACC – why?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Photonz,
My interaction with ACC is limited, so I may be wrong. I had thought, however, that given ACC’s funding of non-public-health mental health specialists, it would be far quicker to take that route once the initial assessment has taken place. If the assessment has to actually be done by a psychologist or psychiatrist instead of a psych nurse then the barrier has been set too high; it is not something which we can really afford to wait with. Psych nurses are relatively easy to see, though still harder than it should be, and are easily enough of a barrier to three or so funded sessions prior to assessment by the professional in charge of those sessions as to further care.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Photonz said: Personally I think ACC should be temporary. I know of someone who has been on ACC long term because of an injured hand and someone else doing exactly the same job who does not have a hand.
This is a misconception by you, Photonz, because observation by others is not the same as experience of pain and disability by the injured person. It is quite possible that the person who is not working has had their anatomy disrupted in such a way that their hands do not work properly and never will do – and they may well be in excruciating, 24 hour pain which can go right up their arms and into their spine, causing cell death at the spinal cord level. The person without the hand may have little or, indeed, no pain at all, and the disability may be confined to only the loss of the hand.
There is far too much focus on what can’t be done instead of what can be done. I agree that ACC doesn’t believe in providing realistic rehabilitation, and hasn’t done so for many years.
We have people in wheelchairs working productive full time jobs and people much, much less disabled on long term ACC – why?
Again, I point you to your misconceptions about disability, pain and what can happen to peoples’ anatomy. There are people who can look normal but are severely disabled.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Angel says – “This is a misconception by you”
Actually you’re wrong. I know both people.
I’m sure there are people in genuine pain.
Just like there are people on ACC for a disability that is much less than others doing the exactly same job.
We also have a problem with people sitting on ACC because an injury means they can’t to the original job they were trained for.
Instead of retraining for another job (like everyone else does on average four or five times through a working life) they are allowed to sit on ACC.
It’s a massive waste of human resources, financial resources, and all the effort put in by all those ppeople working and paying ACC so one person doesn’t have to retrain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Photonz, by “misconception” I mean that you have not understood the true situation of those people and have judged incorrectly.
It’s sad to have to say that you don’t actually know what you are talking about and seem to want to hold to your prejudices. But I guess that there are plenty like you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)