Good morning John,
It seems to me that you just have made a long answer out of my short one:
A voucher system is neutral in itself, may be the band aid covering a
healing cut or abrasion, or hide from view a festering sore where the
rhetoric: 'this is good, noble, just, accountable, transparent' is the exact
opposite to what it aims to achieve: abrogation of community/government
responsibility, cost cutting, and 'sweeping under the carpet' or other
'Clayton' solutions.
Which brings me back to my original point: If the community/government is
serious about its 'duty of care' and 'human rights' obligations, it will
abandon disability as a charity/welfare issue and make it a rights issue,
where its commitment is not idle rhetoric or smoke and mirrors like a
voucher system, but a realist assessment of needs, and consequently the -
recurrent - resources to meet it.
Have a good time, rgds John
----- Original Message -----
From: John Storey <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: John Homan <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: Vouchers - pros and cons
> Recently I have detected a dis-empowering, anti-government, fatalistic
> (almost whinging) note in a number of postings to this list and have
> resisted responding. However, I think it important to challenge Homan's
> response to Singer's query about vouchers - voucher systems have both
> positive and negative aspects and are more than just an alternative
> distributive process.
>
> It can be empowering. What Judy muses brought out was that if there is
> "real" ability to choose the service of choice then a transfer of power
> occurs so that the recipient of the service becomes the "de-facto"
employer
> and the provider is accountable to the person receiving the support. A
> good example of this is the disability pension where the "voucher" is a
> cheque and people have freedom to choose what they spend it on.
>
> There are a number of ways that control can be exercised over choice and
one
> of these is through the voucher system. These may range from
>
> * a discount voucher such as where the Government re-imburses the
> provider for the difference between the full cost and that paid by the
> person with the voucher;
>
> * a credit note whereby the person cashes in the voucher and receives
an
> agreed service or product.
>
> The problem with these systems is that it individualises the process and
> relies on the individual to ensure that they get value for money, the
> service they want, at the right time and of the right quality. Its easy
> with a tram trip but not quite as easy when its attendant care.
>
> You also don't have to be Einstein to work out that it is a lot easier to
> move between these two options when operating in an individualised system
> than it is to impose a fee-for-service (or "cost-recovery) system to
replace
> a "free" service.
>
> This highlights some of the negative or dis-empowering aspects of voucher
> systems which are that they can:
>
> * be used to destroy a universal system (or "introduce structural
change"
> to use jargon) by a death of a thousand cuts.
>
> * distances Government by moving responsibility for managing compliance
> with standards and quality control from society to the individual by
relying
> on the "purchaser" to police the system.
>
> So, while I am sure that Judy would be able to ensure that she gets "big
> bangs for her bucks" under a voucher system, many who are tied to a single
> organisation by the tyranny of distance, unwilling to risk losing
> experienced carers or fear retribution from their service provider, may be
> ripped off.
>
> While there is greater demand for support than there are funds to meet
that
> demand, society will always have to find ways of streaming, targeting
supply
> or limiting access. Voucher systems have often been used to do this but
> rarely do they improve the system. The call for the introduction of
> vouchers is often a response by recipients when a service system has been
> run down to the stage where it is no longer providing the service is was
> intended to. They are also a vehicle preferred in a market-driven system
as
> they reduce the level of direct services provided by Government and,
> initially, reduce costs as recipients choose cheaper services. They
rarely
> stand up as long-term solutions (unless the solution is to transfer costs
to
> the person receiving the service).
>
> The real issue is that, as individuals, we accept Government-managed
> services delivering a poor service, we often accept it as a given and feel
> unable to change "the system". I though the response to the "Disability
> Experts" theme by Alden Chadwick (8 Nov) was particularly pertinent to
this
> debate - This is all about power and accountability.
>
> Perhaps this is where Disability Advocacy groups need to take a lead role.
> Its too easy to sit back and blame the system, the point is that its the
> only system we have and we can change it and we do change it.
> Unfortunately, this is often through inaction and ignorance. Service
> providers who don't deliver should be challenged and they should held to
> account for delivering poor and irrelevant services We must demand
quality.
> If we don't who will do it for us.
>
> It doesn't get better under a voucher system, it just gets swept under the
> carpet and becomes more difficult to see!
>
> CYA
>
>
> John S
>
> include
>
> Boundaries set by the provider of the funds as to what the voucher can be
> spent on. This is to ensure that the funds are actually used to benefit
the
> target group. In these cases it is limited choice. i.e. education, the
> choice may be between suppliers but the goods purchased must be the
ame -
> again, limited choice.
>
> of transfer that can take place through this system s
>
>
> John Homan <[log in to unmask]> replied
>
>
> >I think vouchers are just a distribution system, in itself neither good
or
> >bad. I believe a more important issue is that there are enough resources
to
> >give everybody a fair go, which is certainly not the case in oz,
> >particularly in queensland.
> >
> >rgds John
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Judy Singer <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >Cc: <[log in to unmask]>
> >Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 8:58 AM
> >Subject: Vouchers - pros and cons
> >
> >
> >> Do people have any thoughts on voucher-funded disab care?
> >>
> >> As I reflect on the inadequacy of the govt-run domestic assistance I
> get -
> >> which specialises in giving me what I dont want, when I dont want it,
and
> >too
> >> little of it, plus I feel constantly under pressure to justify why I
> >deserve
> >> this so-called "help" at all ... I think, wdnt it be great if I cd
afford
> >to
> >> buy the precise service I really need ...
> >>
> >> Is there some political problem with a voucher system?
> >>
> >> Judy
> >>
> >
> >
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
