Taking responsibility for one's own life

[Hitcher]

An enigmatic heading, I know, but one that I hope becomes clearer. Please bear with me...

On the news over the weekend was the story of a couple of mothers who were distressed that ACC money wasn't available to provide counselling for their traumatised children who have witnessed horrific events -- notably one witnessed his father being stabbed to death. A terrible business.

Without wanting to denigrate the benefits of counselling services provided by skilled and competent counsellors, I was perplexed by this odd line in logic.

My take on what these women were saying is "Counselling only works if somebody else pays for it". If counselling is the answer to their children's problems, then why haven't they taken steps to ensure that this service has been made available, rather than condemning those kids to unspecified mental trauma for the rest of their lives. ACC doesn't pay, the kids don't get counselling. It's a bit like not taking your kid to A&E after they've broken a limb because you might have to pay.

If I had been the reporter I would have asked the question "So what steps have you taken to ensure that your child receives appropriate counselling and, if none, why not?"

And what's wrong with telling people that they're ferkin idiots?

I have been observing the perennial discussion in a couple of other threads about idiots who don't wear appropriate gear whilst riding motorcycles. They're ferkin idiots. Should I ignore them and pretend they don't exist? So there are no laws that prescribe what bikers should or shouldn't wear, apart from a securely-fitting helmet. Does the lack of relevant and appropriate regulation forgive the mental capacity of people who should know better? Telling me it's their life and their decision as to how they choose to live it is, in our society, crap. Who is going to pay for the months of plastic surgery for these dickheads after they spread their skin over hard, abrasive and resilient materials? Not them, that's for sure. If I were their mothers I'd probably expect ACC to pay for counselling as well. Mine.

[Sniper]

Well said Hitcher

[Mrs Busa Pete]

Dam well put could not agree more have to have for that

[EZAS]

Counsellling eh ... sad issue.

Mrs and I have issues for the last 6 years, been together for 8. Never took counselling cos we thought we couldn't afford it. Finally managed to get a bit of money behind me, took the better option and went to get some help. ONLY TO FIND OUT I get 6 sessions free, BUT there is a course better suited to me that costs $40 a session and that I would getter 'better' results. Free healthcare VS private LOL.

Don't you think its strange that those on the bottom-end incomes tend to be more affected by mental illnes? This gets way to policitical.

As for the ACC thing, Perhaps if we had more strict regulations on what we HAD to wear, we might be able to lower the ACC levey on the rego's. its worth a thought. either way .. I agree I'd want my kids to have the best counselling if it had happened to me (paid for by ACC.

[Groins_NZ]

Good, interesting point, worthy of consideration, contemplation and I'm sure, a good deal of disscussion.

[yungatart]

I don't believe the State should have to cover everything, I have paid for one of my kids to have surgery-on more than one occasion- because I didn't want him to languish for goodness knows how long on the public lists for what was really minor stuff, but at the same time was affecting his quality of life. If people can't be sensible/adult/mature/reasonable or whatever, why should I or any other taxpayer pick up the slack for them. My mumalways used to say- if you go and kill yourself doing stupid things, then don't come crying to me- my thoughts exactly!

[Jackrat]

I see I still can't put you on my (ferkin') ignore list.
What's with that shit???
Far more important to me than your bitching about OTHER PEOPLES intelligence.

[Winston001]

Agreed. Its a funny old world today. If you skin your knee, or your girlfriend drops you, its off to the counsellor for some psychic massage. Virtually any event which causes human distress results in the warm breathy advice to get some counselling.

Until recent times the counselling industry didn't exist. People talked to grandparents who had wisdom and were respected, or their local minister/priest. Communities were more close knit and there were people who could be trusted to listen to you and give sensible advice.

These don't seem to be options today in our secular society.

So counsellors do have a role and meet a need. Indeed counselling is a very good thing in lots of circumstances. Certainly if I had a child/relative who needed trauma counselling I'd organise it.

The ACC problem is that the door is partly open already. A person gets assaulted, they are entitled to counselling. Their child who sees it happen isn't. Yet the one event (the assault) affects both people. So it seems irrational that one person gets help and the other doesn't.

But that is the rule that ACC has to operate by and if there is to be any change then it has to come from Parliament. And our levies will rise accordingly.

[Hitcher]

My point wasn't about an apparent "double standard" for ACC providing counselling services: that is another argument entirely (and one on which I have strong views). My point was about parents/care-givers denying their children appropriate and relevant care because they think that somebody else should be taking responsibility for organising and paying for it.

[mangell6]

Hitcher, Keep in the back of your mind when reading or watching any article that the media is there to produce money, responsible and "fully" informative journalism does not exist (phew sweeping statement I know. But I recently read an article from a newspaper person who said the same thing about the media in NZ.)

The current society is about "someone" else being responsible for my inability to "insert reason here".

As for the ACC thing, Perhaps if we had more strict regulations on what we HAD to wear, we might be able to lower the ACC levey on the rego's.

EZAS, to "regulate" removes the "responsiblity" from individuals and society, then the "Regulatory Authority" becomes responsible.

There are enough "agencies" out there that offer "services" IF someone REALLY wants something bad enough. But remember that I want to sit here and be told what I have to do not think of it myself OR make a decision.

Mike
JMHO

[cowpoos]

the mothers would hav found that the counciling was free...and paid for by tax payers... but that is only if the kids in question were demeed in need of it other wise they would be told to pissoff....which is what I'm presuming happened...

and I totally agree with your point about the parents taking responsability for the kids well being... if they believed counceling was nessecary the should hav paid for it... twats

[idb]

My point wasn't about an apparent "double standard" for ACC providing counselling services: that is another argument entirely (and one on which I have strong views). My point was about parents/care-givers denying their children appropriate and relevant care because they think that somebody else should be taking responsibility for organising and paying for it.

I largely agree but counselling is an interesting one.
It isn't seen by most people (in NZ anyway) as a form of care that one would purchase like a dentist or GP for the benefit of one's health.
It has always been provided by an agency such as Police, Red Cross, St Johns or whomever and usually in response to a collective traumatic event such as an earthquake or bus crash.
True that these folks should examine the logic of their complaint a bit more closely but they are likely starting from a position that does not consider counselling as an individual health responsibility.

[lia]

while I wholeheartedly agree with you hitcher re taking responsibility for ones self (and family - particularly children) however you are presuming that the parent is able to afford to do the counselling. This is not a 'youthline' kinda situation and while I would presume that victim support (and likeminded non-profit orgs) would have it covered ... it seems Victim Support has been lobbying re lack of funding from ACC this for some time now.

In all systems there are gonna be holes and ACC sure has plenty of them. I know from experience and continue to pay for it 4 yrs later

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...ad.php?t=17791

I say that we are better to be informed, hear the personal situations (as this is the only way debates/chances/policy reviews are gonna be made) and form our own opinions according to each case.

[lia]

Counsellling eh ... sad issue.

Finally managed to get a bit of money behind me, took the better option and went to get some help. ONLY TO FIND OUT I get 6 sessions free, BUT there is a course better suited to me that costs $40 a session and that I would getter 'better' results. Free healthcare VS private LOL.

.

This is for 'relationship counselling' that the govt subsidies up to 6 sessions. Highlights how when 'holes' are highlighted the government does patch ups ie. this was probably in relation to increasing divorce rate.

There are many self help groups, not for profit orgs. and government funded organisations trying to address specific areas sometimes its just hard to know where to look to figure out where to go (particularly while in crisis mode) although I guess thats what the C.A.B is for aye?! :slap:

[mangell6]

At least the ACC minister is a decent person, one who takes responsibility for ones actions.

The thread is about the people 'blaming' someone else for their own inaction, at least that is how I read it. Man it is warm today, 26 in the lounge, might have to go for a swim to cool off. But I can't decide.