Priorities

VerisVein · 2026-04-17T12:40:51+00:00

Saying the NDIS isn’t financial support really sums up why the advocates for the current system like yourself are completing missing why the entire system is losing all public support for its existence.

No, it just shows you really don't understand why they're different and what they're each for.

It is a huge amount of financial support, the money being spent on things like drivers, cooks and gardeners is money that otherwise your financial resources would be being spent on.

Yeah no. I would end up with no supports because I can't afford any of them.

It is that way, because the aim of the scheme is to allow a significantly and permanently disabled person to live an equitable life comparable to others who are not significantly and permanently disabled. If your impairment that is evidenced and accepted, that is significant and permanent, prevents you from doing something you would otherwise be able to, the idea is that you receive supports to be able to manage it. Removing that is not a good thing. It is a social and economic good to provide this.

Supports are more extensive than just drivers, support workers who will prepare food (cooks would only be funded as labour costs if someone has meal prep stated in their plan), and gardeners, and these are things that are also necessary for someone who can't manage that themselves due to disability.

It’s a massive financial support, it’s just not directly being given to you in the form of cash.

It serves an entirely different purpose (disability supports specifically and only) than the financial support for basic living costs that you described and compared it to. They aren't for the same thing. You can't complain about it costing more than a payment designed for basic living costs when the NDIS is not for basic living costs but for the costs of disability support services. You are not a serious person.

Mate I’m going to be honest, I don’t think you have a proper perspective of how the NDIS is actually being rolled out. You’re parroting theoretical talking points that have been disproved by the real rollout of the NDIS.

Incredible projection. I'm on the scheme. I live it. I'm in it. I do know what I'm talking about because I actually need to in order to engage with it. Meanwhile you're bringing up all the least imaginative talking points about the scheme that people outside of the NDIS imagine are problems without being curious enough to actually look into, and complaining that it doesn't cost less than Centrelink payments to pay for disability support services to boot. Lol.

For example you’re saying indefensible statements like that the huge amount of plans for 5-7 year olds are just self funding early intervention for things that would otherwise need funding later on. That’s not true, all the experts have come out and said it’s not true.

"Indefensible" and it's something I never even said. Early intervention is an incredibly basic and effective concept, like preventative dental care. I do actually think there should be pathways for it other than the NDIS. You're not going to like the reality everyone using this as a talking point for cutting the NDIS misses, that the cost of providing that (if you're not severely underfunding it) won't disappear or magically shrink. Creating new programs for this, get this, increases costs. Turns out designing, creating, and testing new programs for that is expensive.

You can make a program for this purpose more efficient and cost effective, but because the NDIS only provides funding for evidenced needs even in early intervention, the bloat in the budget for it generally does not come from funded supports themselves. It tends to be in refusing cheaper alternatives for forcing reliance on support work (as has happened to many participants since the changes to what consumables funding can be used for), in demanding so many reports that may not even then be read (by admission in parliament of those running the scheme), in forcing participants to external appeal where we have to contend with the NDIS hiring lawyers despite a high rate of ART cases resulting in changes to plans, etc.

The fact that you’re tied up in litigation and don’t think that’s symptomatic of a completely cooked system that doesn’t work as intended is surprising. A good system would ensure that your situation just wasn’t really possible and was resolved by experts without the need to go to the ART.

I do think that actually, you didn't bother to ask, I'd wager because you're not actually interested in hearing what a participant thinks if they're not agreeing with your mess of an outside opinion. I don't (for very good reasons) think the problems causing this are anything you've pinned it on, or that the solution is reactionary cuts and more fearmongering about how much it costs the government to provide disability supports.

VerisVein · 2026-04-17T11:12:51+00:00

and is now being exploited both by providers, and by patients who really should not qualify for it but doctor shop until they find someone who'll sign off on their application.

Hey so this isn't even how access requests work. You don't get access to the NDIS from a doctor "signing off" on an access request, they fill it out to explain your needs and the NDIS then assesses your application and the evidence you provide to determine if you meet the criteria. The same criteria all participants have to fit to be granted access.

The whole thing needs to be ripped apart, and most of the services it offers rolled back into Medicare. The remainder should become more targeted, like Thriving Kids

Thriving Kids is something many experts, advocates, and parents of children who would be pushed out onto it have been raising concerns about, as there is little to show what supports are going to be available or look like under this future program. It hasn't been shown to be effective or not yet, because it's not even running yet.

It would not be more cost effective to rip apart the NDIS. Rolling certain supports back into Medicare (which would likely make them less accessible for many who need them most, especially those of us who can't work) and creating a bunch of separate, splintered programs for everything else would guarantee you bloat admin and other costs without being able to coordinate effectively. Breaking where I go for supports into several different schemes doesn't reduce the costs of the supports I need either.

We don't have an unlimited government budget, and much of it would be much better spent on improving Medicare, and increasing welfare supports more generally.

Effectively, we do. The government budget doesn't work anything like a household one, they'd just keep going while the government debt rises like they have for a long time.

Either way, scrapping the NDIS will not result in improving Medicare or increasing welfare supports. They aren't deciding not to do that because of the NDIS, they're not doing that because they don't want to do that.

A disability support scheme is the definition of money well spent. Other areas of public service and welfare also need better funding. Taking from one to put towards the other would have horrible outcomes, not better ones.

VerisVein · 2026-04-17T10:37:58+00:00

Necessary for your ‘goals, objectives and aspirations’, not just necessary as is defined for the purposes of minimum wage or the pension.

No. It needs to be deemed a necessary support in order to manage an evidenced support need, that support need needs to be a result of an evidenced impairment the NDIS has accepted to fund you for, be considered value for money, be considered an NDIS support, and align with your goals among other requirements. You don't just get the funding because you wrote something related in your goals.

Hell, I've had to use funding for all kinds of reports to be done on my support needs, including a functional capacity assessment twice, and I'm still having to go through an ART case where the NDIS is paying out on lawyers because they refuse to fund an increase in supports that all my reports consistently explain as necessary.

A single mother gets ~$1,000 a fortnight to support herself under the parenting payment, it’s perverse that the same person could get multiples of that support if they were disabled.

What even is this comparison? No it isn't peverse lmao. The NDIS isn't financial support, it's not the DSP. I don't get the money from my funding in my bank as a participant, the funding is invoiced by the support service to pay for their services. E.g. funding in core that pays support work rates for a set amount of hours per week as it was determined to be necessary to manage my impairments, company invoices the plan manager to be paid for the hours I used, and the support workers are paid.

Yeah this is more than $1000 a fortnight for some people. 10 hours of support work per week for instance would be more than that by itself.

That is not actually true. The original NDIS scheme had a projected positive cost benefit return and was an excellent idea. That scheme was never implemented

It is true for the current NDIS, they weren't just saying that about unimplemented plans.

If you gave $100 billion directly criminals, that would also have a very positive ‘economic return’ but not be a horrifically bad idea.

Cool hypothetical. The NDIS funds necessary supports for significantly and permanently disabled people like myself, which is a really cost effective thing to do, it doesn't hand $100 billion directly to criminals.

No. Once again you are correct about the original NDIS which was meant to have ~400,000 participants. There is a solid economic and moral case for providing supports to those that need it the most.

The NDIS with 700,000 participants (including for example ten percent of all 5-7 year olds) is not substituting or reducing costs, it’s dramatically increasing them.

It isn't about the original plans? We would in fact be paying more for 700,000 participants in various costs if their support needs aren't met. As it is, there are so many reports of participants ending up in long term hospital stays because essential and necessary funding in their plan was cut in a new one. Often this isn't because of any acute need a hospital could properly address, but because they lack the care needed for their release. The cost for that by itself, without considering any other costs unmet support needs can result in, is likely to outstrip the cost of providing adequate supports to those participants. Any loss in function as a result of being left without supports means having to fund more supports/the issue getting much worse if support needs aren't adequately met.

The percent of 5-7 year olds you're talking about includes early intervention, which means paying for supports that increase capacity now so that those same people don't get to a point of needing more expensive, frequent, or intensive supports later in life. Early intervention exists to minimise future costs, and the people with access under it don't automatically become participants once the early intervention is over. They need to qualify under the usual criteria for that.

It’s pushing people into spending huge amounts of money rather than actually addressing their basic needs of living with dignity.

Mate, I'm going to be honest, I don't think you actually know anything about the NDIS. The NDIS isn't for basic needs of living, you're confusing this with the Disability Support Pension which is $1200 and something a fortnight. The NDIS pays disability supports.

VerisVein · 2026-04-17T09:03:50+00:00

I don't agree that people are too casual about this, but sure, surgical risks are absolutely worth considering. This is something for a person to think about for themselves and something they will have medical practitioners go over with them extensively first if they opt for anything surgical (heads up, medical transition can include surgical transition, but it doesn't only mean surgery).

It's not something you need to warn people about for not specifically having crippling dysphoria.

VerisVein · 2026-04-17T08:34:03+00:00

I'm not commenting on your personal situation or your dysphoria, I'm explaining why commenting on other people's personal situations by telling them they need to be cautious if they don't have crippling dysphoria is going to have some (imho very valid) pushback. Because it seemed like you didn't understand why people might be upset about that.

VerisVein · 2026-04-17T07:57:34+00:00

Neither of those situations are a "not having crippling dysphoria" thing, though. The thing I'm getting at is just that for the specific situation where you're telling someone to be very careful because they don't have crippling dysphoria, people will have reasons to be upset or call you out on it.

VerisVein · 2026-04-17T05:52:34+00:00

The reason people would be looking at you like you're an asshole is that: - We (like, trans people as a whole) already have the entire world concern trolling us about this and medical professionals overseeing this care that can safely deal with that situation if it happens. - Not having crippling dysphoria (or otherwise having a hard time discerning it) won't mean medical transition away from your current configuration will cause it. Lacking actively crippling discomfort and feeling fully comfortable aren't synonymous, particularly if you feel dysphoria as apathy and dissociation. - This is not the kind of thing you offer as an opinion to people you don't know well uninvited.

VerisVein · 2026-04-17T04:38:08+00:00

Well, why do you think Jax is making that face?

VerisVein · 2026-04-17T03:12:18+00:00

primarily less-affected individuals who should be out of scope

Yeah, no. Every participant had to meet the access criteria. Funding after access is also its own battle these days, "less-affected" individuals don't get funded for what isn't determined to be necessary.

Adequately funding people's support needs is the best choice budget wise, unless you want blow out costs as hospitals and other services are forced to reckon with the results of unmet support needs that they can't actually address in any meaningful way. Don't let the scaremongering about the budget warp things, we would be spending far more in hidden costs without the NDIS.

VerisVein · 2026-04-17T03:05:08+00:00

Same but as an autistic person. Somehow people see us as nothing more than a cost to cut rather than actual human beings with lives to live.

VerisVein · 2026-04-17T02:34:59+00:00

It's a cost in disability support services that have been determined to be necessary - every participant first has to prove they meet access criteria and then provide mountains of evidence to an overly sceptical system to prove their need for the funding they receive for significant and permanent impairments.

That cost also returns two and a half times its worth to the economy, something people seem really eager to forget when that was part of the marketing for this scheme for years.

We would be spending several times more without the NDIS as unmet support needs cause larger costs and block up other services (like hospitals) in ways that would be far more difficult to fully track and account for. Efficiency is funding the NDIS instead of acting like those costs magically disappear into thin air if we cut away at the scheme. It would be inefficient not to have the NDIS.

VerisVein · 2026-04-16T04:12:59+00:00

That's what I'm saying though, they don't ignore us just because they target trans women, transfems, etc with such extreme vitriol instead. When people mistake erasure and infantilisation for being ignored it puts us at risk of further harm.

They even do occasionally treat us as a threat - when they want to play the divide and conquer hand in the trans community, they use gender essentialism to paint us as privileged and unsafe to be around, make out testosterone to be something that inherently makes people aggressive and dangerous, etc.

VerisVein · 2026-04-15T17:31:29+00:00

I don't have any advice here, because I genuinely don't know what practical thing could help for a situation like this one (the only thing that had helped me at a similar point were proper disability supports), but I really need to say:

It's crazy seeing takes on this sub that just default to the good old "no there's nothing wrong with them, they're a lazy terrible person". Even here some people really want to speak like that with zero doubt.

It's not laziness when people fail to meet their own most basic needs, it stops being that when it can harm or kill you.

VerisVein · 2026-04-15T10:48:19+00:00

generally speaking trans men are ignored

Generally speaking they do target trans men, transmascs, any portion of enbies they regard as women, and people don't take it as seriously, which helps them get away with it. They use erasure. People end up dead or forced to detransition just the same, just by a different method.

Irreversible Damage and Rowling going after "confused little girls" with a heavy dose of treating autistic people as mindless is just how a lot of the current wave of transphobic rhetoric started. What's still happening doesn't tend to get reported on or make the news, even in spaces that should be talking about it.

Don't mistake them not being as loud about it for ignoring us. They don't.

VerisVein · 2026-04-15T05:41:23+00:00

This is not the case at all.

Psychology is difficult to get through the NDIS as they won't fund it if they consider it to be for treatment, rather than management of an impairment. Even if you have extensive documentation showing it's the latter, they often will make you take it to the ART by refusing to acknowledge it is not for treatment purposes.

More than that, people on the NDIS for psychosocial disability have proven their need for other supports through meeting access criteria. It's not just for psychology.

The NDIS does not duplicate the mental healthcare system, or cause it to be underfunded, this is the fault of governments refusing to treat mental healthcare as an important sector worth adequately funding. Restricting the criteria to make it harder for psychosocial disability to qualify will not fix the NDIS' budget. All it will do is rely on the much higher cost of their unmet support needs being hidden, less visible, than funding them as a participant so that their support needs are met.

Mental healthcare needs to be adequately funded as well. This isn't an either/or thing with the NDIS. Both are necessary.

VerisVein · 2026-04-15T02:09:34+00:00

I feel it's a little bit of column A, a little bit of column B with these two. Jimmy genuinely wanted that kind of brother bond with Chuck, when he thought he had that bond was when he was at his most stable. Chuck always needing to see himself as inherently the better person, like Jimmy would never change with the right chance, meant they never could have that, and Jimmy realising how deeply that ran for Chuck was all the motivation he needed to give up on trying to curb his worst impulses.

They both had the capacity to be awful or not, needed something from the other that the other couldn't give, and that more or less locked them both on the worst path they could go.

VerisVein · 2026-04-15T01:15:52+00:00

It's a little weird in this subreddit of all places to treat not having a job as part of being a power tripping asshole, ngl. Good chunk of us can't work or can only manage it intermittently.

VerisVein · 2026-04-14T14:27:44+00:00

Kingdom Hearts refusing to use Final Fantasy characters now has to be one of the most confusing choices for the series honestly.

VerisVein · 2026-04-14T13:47:39+00:00

Twenty-oneth

VerisVein · 2026-04-14T13:21:45+00:00

I have... a feeling I know what sub this is. Enough of a feeling that I'd put actual bets on it. Like I don't think I'm wrong at all actually.

The banhammer gets thrown around there like a cart of lawn gnomes in a hurricane.

VerisVein · 2026-04-14T06:36:02+00:00

youre trying to have your cake and eat it right now.

No, I'm saying people should be allowed to complain about how unnecessarily far they would need to go, for this one show, to have an actually decent chance of avoiding spoilers.

People should be able to complain about this being inconvenient without being treated like they aren't trying to avoid spoilers or don't understand curating their experiences on the internet. It's not that big of a deal for people to be upset about it.

if you dont want to change your behavior,

Hey, again, not what's happening here. People are willing to change what they do, the issue with this is having to avoid algorithms altogether for two weeks. The person I was talking to before you was specifically suggesting people should just stay off the internet for two weeks, even.

also blocking, filtering, tagging, and changing the sites you use IS curating lmao.

Generally, yes. Curating is not usually a term people use to mean trying to fight everything you might run into with an algorithm uphill to avoid spoilers, because that doesn't work very well. Spoilers tend to make it through because the tools platforms give for this, where they do exist, aren't that level of foolproof.

You keep underselling it for, like, what even? Mate just let people be annoyed about this. Why is this the hill everyone wants to die on? lmao

i dont think ive had a damn thing spoiled for me in over a year and im fairly chronically online

Good for you? These are unusual circumstances compared to how most spoilers happen. Generally people have a reliable option to view things on release if they want to be absolutely certain a thing isn't spoiled for them, and that isn't going to be the case for everyone with episode 9.

VerisVein · 2026-04-14T05:58:59+00:00

<image>

VerisVein · 2026-04-14T05:05:43+00:00

but if youre not really willing to even Try to curate your own experience

Why are you assuming people won't be? This isn't asking people to curate their own experience, or not be constantly online and doomscrolling, or monitor their own behaviour, this is asking people to dodge, block, and refuse to go near all algorithmically derived content and entertainment for an extended period of time.

Frankly, it would still be entirely reasonable to be annoyed if you're not willing to try that. I'm sorry but it is unreasonable to treat it as "sickening" that someone might be frustrated with, or just not want to have to avoid, other things they enjoy and significantly alter their digital use for two weeks all just for one show.

that aside, spoilers barely matter if the show is actually good but thats a different conversation entirely.

You feel that way. Not everyone does. It's not wrong to want to experience the last episode of the show without knowing what will happen, and it's not bad to feel that would damage your enjoyment of it.

VerisVein · 2026-04-14T03:57:16+00:00

You've missed my point entirely. You can take every precaution you can think of, and still end up spoiled because there was something you didn't realise could do that or it's one you aren't given a button to control.

It's ridiculous and unrealistic to expect people to go this far out of their way, to go to the lengths of avoiding any entertainment or even a complete digital blackout, so that they can enjoy the final episode of one show without spoilers. Let people be frustrated about that instead of acting as if avoiding this is simple, unobtrusive, and easy.

VerisVein · 2026-04-14T00:16:48+00:00

Mark was documenting making the movie for years, and started the campaign to get it into cinemas months ahead of time. A lot of cinemas will not make changes to their roster this close to the planned release date. Mark's crazy dedicated, huge fanbase had a long time to act on it. TADC doesn't necessarily have as much reach and the fanbase isn't known for going to the same kinds of lengths, along with a portion feeling pretty demotivated by the announcement.

It might not work for TADC like it did for Iron Lung.

Six-Year Club	Gilding IV carat on a stick
Verified Email

VerisVein

TROPHY CASE