I am a mental health consumer and live in a Small Options group home. The Dexter gov’t had promised a $15 monthly increase in comfort allowances in July. Now they switched their pitch and that increase now apparently only applies to persons living in their own apartments, not in group homes. I am not too pleased. —John
This article appears in Aug 4-10, 2011.
That sucks John! Is there a way to appeal this decision?
Gov’t officials should have to live for a month on what the poor in this province have to subsist on and then they’ll see what a difference $15 dollars makes in the lives of people need most. I believe they should add a zero after the five to REALLY make a difference.
I don’t see how another $15 is going to make a difference. There is little correlation between material objects and happiness. Just look at how miserable hollywood can be.
As someone who has grown up in a home where every dollar counts – food, heat, electricity, water all dependent, sometimes picking one over the other – – $15 can go a long way. Not everyone grew up with money… recognize the power of the great dollar sir!
I’d take rich miserable any day…
the worst day in an already financially secured life is still better than a great day when you’re living paycheck to paycheck.
believe it.
Sadly, zZz, people with health conditions usually don’t get to make the choice of financial security. Krysia knows the value of a dollar. What may seem paltry to some can mean the world to another. Five or six years ago a gov’t official was on the evening news announcing a $4 raise for welfare recipients! They begrudge the poor a few pennies while pocketing obscene paychecks. What is wrong with this picture?
Wow! (after reading 1st post) Note to self: please read what you write BEFORE posting if you expect to be articulate! Rewrite: “the lives of people *who* need *it* the most”.
Hey, that’s what happens when you elect an extreme right wing anti-socialist party to run your province! Get used to it.
If you live in a group home the government is already providing security, food, water, shelter, and counciling. As petty as it seems, I can see why that increase is only afforded to those who have to make it on their own. Be thankful for what you already have, it’s only the “rich” countries in the world that provide such a service.
the government already gives you a free ride by the sounds of it. I guess you’ll have to do without that $15/month.
Hey OP why don’t you turn it around and start being pleased. You have a home. Millions don’t. How much comfort do you want us to give you? Be glad you live in a country that takes care of people like you at all. Most countries don’t offer these services.
I know you have mental health issues. But start being thankful and see where it takes you.
OC, I completely understand that…
though I was retorting to great value’s odd opinion.
I also do see the point of not granting the allowance to those in such a home.
otherwise, you’d likely see an increase to everyone.. but for peanuts.
15 is still pretty low so I think if this was the total allotted amount (and they aren’t clawing any money’s back) then it was the right (but difficult) call.
To be perfectly fair, I haven’t read or researched anything at all on this matter… just going by hearsay and opinions.
It’s DD and his Dippers. After seeing them in action over the last couple of years, are you really surprised by this?
if not for you.. i’m glad somebody said it.
Listen OP. I’m disabled. I have chronic (and i mean CHRONIC) nerve and joint pain. And i work. I’m not telling you to go out and work because i don’ t know your situation. But try sitting all day when your entire body feels like someone is compressing it in a pair of giant hot tongs. I’m sure as hell not going to work another job just to boost taxes. Because.. you know.. that’s where that money comes from.
I’m sorry for your situation because i understand this money is meager and doesn’t go very far. And i also understand the government pockets way more than they should. And that sucks. But YOU DON’T PAY RENT. Or Bills. And you likely don’t even pay for food. So i’m not sure exactly what’s wrong here.. Do you get ANY money? Maybe you can manage it better?
IK, it’s a Comfort Allowance. To me that could be going to a movie, dining out, buying a DVD, something that is comforting to someone. It shouldn’t make a difference whether a person is in a home or on their own.
GV, wrong. A dollar to a poor person means way more than a dollar to some Hollywood fuck tard. $15 makes a huge difference to someone who doesn’t have a lot.
I know I’d sure like to get a ‘comfort’ allowance from the government.
PK- you kinda sound like a bitchy kitty… no offense.
Not everyone who gets assistance from the government is some lazy person just looking for a handout.
I’m with BT- it shouldn’t make a difference whether a person is in a group home or on their own. “Comfort Allowance” is not meant for living expenses. I’m sure most of you have a little money to go to a movie, go for dinner or even go out and get a coffee… that’s definitely not a lot to ask for.
zzzz, I disagree. I’d take poor and happy over rich and miserable anyday.
i like trees
Pine is the best smell. NOT PINE-SOL. FUCK THAT SHIT.
i love the sound of the wind in the trees and i hate the piney cleaner. this guy rawks http://adland.tv/n1rv4n4g8/2008/septjpgs/M…
I HOPE THE COAST PRINTS THIS ONE THIS WEEK!
PF: I can’t even get the insulin I really do need covered by the government pharmacare program and I have no other insurance and can’t afford it so I can’t buy it, so I really don’t have much sympathy for those who get money from the government to go to a movie.
That might sound bitchy, but when you can’t afford to get a medication you need to stay alive yet others get government money for “comfort” things like entertainment, you can’t help but be bitchy. I’m ‘lucky’ there’s SOME alternative (which forces me to run my sugars higher than optimal levels) because for some there aren’t any alternatives.
Actually, though, the one thing I will say re: people in group homes have their living expenses paid for — those who live on their own likely have their living expenses paid for as well through some sort of disability pension.
So neither are likely working, and yeah, I can agree that segmenting each is a shitty thing to do. The only thing I can see as a rationalization is that it costs more for the government to pay for those in group homes because they have to pay for staff.
Excuse me??? pk, really? The government will spring for a sex change, but not a particular type of insulin? Please tell me I’m mistaken because the coffee hasn’t kicked in yet.
As far as the stipend is concerned, I suspect there was only a limited amount budgeted. Instead of everybody getting almost nothing, some are getting a little. In a group home you can pool your resources, where as a person living by themself hasn’t got 6 people to share. For example; games, in a group home, everybody doesn’t need a copy or their own game console.
I’m not sure about this, but I think that group homes are similar to nursing homes. While most necessities are taken care of, there are some that are not, including health related items (think hearing aid batteries, glasses, dental bills, etc) $15 could mean being able to afford to get a haircut or replacing worn out clothing.
Personally, I would be less pissed that the OP wants his extra $15 and more pissed that the government would rather spend money on a convention centre than poor people who need it. My aunt lived in a group home in NB before her health forced her to be moved to a nursing home (where she later passed away) – by the time she got there she had almost no teeth left because she couldn’t afford dental care, and lost any reading or writing skills she had because she couldn’t afford glasses. My family helped as best they could, but there’s only so much we could do.
Mental health consumer? Dude, switch products….become an electronics consumer, or automobile consumer.
PK, people on SA have the same pharmacare coverage as you. However, they’re financial circumstances are far worse, on average (assuming you’re an “average” non-SA working-aged individual). Let’s define a “synthetic” PK that is like PK in every respect except that she has a disability that prevents her from working and therefore, because there is no other alternative, she is on SA (people with long-term chronic disabilities are “typical” SA candidates). Consequently, “synthetic” PK has very little income, is on SA, and cannot afford her insulin. Compare this to “true” PK, who does not have insulin, but who does not have a disability and has more income (though I gather from reading LTWWB that she is on EI). Clearly, “true” PK is more likely to have more disposable income available to pay for other needs, including insulin.
I don’t think that comparison affords you the right to bitch if someone on SA has a “comfort allowance”. It’s like a healthy child begging his mother for candy as compensation for his sick sibling receiving a “get well soon” balloon while laying in a hospital bed.
Granted, my use of a “synthetic” PK may not be entirely appropriate, because there may not actually be someone on SA who shares the same traits as the “true PK”. More generally, people (not necessarily PK, but definitely people on this forum) like to assume that those on SA are morally inferior to those not on SA; they’re more lazy and more prone to lying or cheating the system. Yet they always fail present any shred of evidence that people on SA are more likely to be lazy (however measured), lie, or steal. Despite the lack of evidence, the morally superior crowd never have a problem judging others. It’s easy to judge when you assume you know everything. Not so much if you take a more humbled approach of assuming you know nothing.
I think that it totally unfair, so much money goes into nothingness, and people with mental health issues get the bad end of the stick always! It’s absolutely mortifying what they deem appropriate sum for living allowances also! I would definitely try and appeal, they have taken so much away already, they shouldn’t be allowed to take anymore, and it should be way more than 15$! I spend that in a day on coffee! You can’t even take in a show or buy a good book for that amount. It’s a slap in the face!
Hugo — you read it right. The pharmacare program won’t pay for either lantus or levemir which has no noticeable peak in performance, thus preventing hypoglycemic episodes.
Instead I have to take Novolin NPH which DOES have a peak, which put me into hypo episodes daily until I cut back. Now I have to run my sugars high until I get a health plan that will cover the lantus or levemir.
The gov’t won’t cover it simply because NPH costs $50 for a box, while lantus costs $120 and levemir about $150. They claim they did a study and say the benefit doesn’t outweigh the costs.
It’ll outweigh the costs when they have to treat my future complications, or have to treat the brain damage the hypo episodes cause.
And canned — I don’t know how you can compare lack of expenditure on essential life saving drugs to money to go to the movies. There are a lot of people without health plans out there — for example students who just graduated and don’t have FT employment, contract workers, temp employees… and these people all have to pay for their own living expenses, so the idea that all these people have more disposable income isn’t necessarily true.
On top of that, what’s the benefit structure like on medications for people in group homes versus the Family Pharmacare program? IIRC there’s no co pay, is there? There’s definitely a co pay and deductible for me.
And I’d go get other insurance, but I don’t qualify. Only way I can get more insurance is if I get insured under a group policy, and I’m on contract where I work so no benefits until I’m hired permanently.
PK, I wasn’t. I was comparing your circumstances to someone on SA. People on SA have the same drug coverage that you or I do. So they can’t have their insulin AND they can’t go to the movies. Stop whining. Thank you.
“There are a lot of people without health plans out there — for example students who just graduated and don’t have FT employment, contract workers, temp employees… and these people all have to pay for their own living expenses, so the idea that all these people have more disposable income isn’t necessarily true.”
The difference is that these people can work. Most (not all) people on SA cannot work due to long term chronic disability. So your category of individuals have additional labour income they can rely on to pay for their needs. SA recipients don’t. Both can’t get the insulin they need from pharmacare, but only one has the potential resources to get it.
Uh huh, but just because you can work doesn’t mean you have any more disposable income than those on social assistance.
Ever hear of the “working poor”?
Because I’m really sure min wage workers, who work shitty jobs with no benefits have any disposable income after they pay for their rent, food, utilities, etc…. They don’t have the government paying for their living expenses like those on social assistance, so they’re likely on the same playing field, except the government isn’t handing out money to the working poor to go to movies.
The point *is*: the government will pay for someone on SA to go to a movie, yet they won’t cover a certain form of INSULIN some people need to LIVE.
Ability to work or not isn’t the point — the point is: INSULIN > going to a movie.
And for that matter — if the working poor can’t scrape the money together for “comforts” like going to a movie, why should those on SA have that privilege? Are those on SA more worthy of ‘comfort’ than those who actually get out there and work their asses off and still come up short at the end of the month? (and yes, I know many people can’t work for various reasons — BUT, this doesn’t make them deserving of special privileges, such as free movies, because of this fact).
Further: there are lots of people out there who don’t have the skills to have “potential resources” to make more money — they’ll always be in a cycle of poverty, yet still hold down a job. These are people who can’t afford to go back to school and get retrained for various reasons. So they have to bust their asses making shitty wages which puts them no further ahead than those on SA.
But all this is beside the point: we’re not talking about people on SA not affording insulin — we’re talking about the fact that I can’t get the treatment I need to live but someone else is afforded a ‘comfort allowance’ by the government. Do you not get how ridiculous that sounds, canned?
“So they can’t have their insulin AND they can’t go to the movies.”
Neither can the working poor.
So what, exactly, is your point?
PK, you’re right, but only sometimes. I agree that there may be cases where people on SA have more than the working poor do, but I would speculate that this is an exception to the rule. SA is an absolute last resort for people with no alternatives, for people in the most dire circumstances. The working poor do not receive SA because their circumstances are better, for the most part.
Numbers game:
SA typically subsidizes housing for its beneficiaries. The subsidy amounts to $570, which if I’m not mistaken includes housing and utilities. Beyond that your typical single SA recipient with one child receives $229 (for self) + $133 (dep. child), so $362 in disposable income.
*Numbers can be found on the NS gov’t website.
By contrast, an otherwise equivalent person earning a minimum wage (~10.00/hr)*35hrs/week*(30/7)=1500, less rent (let’s say $750 is reasonable) and a tax deductible adult bus pass ($100). The worker is left with $650, nearly double that of the SA recipient.
So neither the person on SA nor the working person have their insulin covered but the person on SA is still worse off because they have less disposable income to pay for their needs. That, PK, is my point.
“But all this is beside the point: we’re not talking about people on SA not affording insulin — we’re talking about the fact that I can’t get the treatment I need to live but someone else is afforded a ‘comfort allowance’ by the government. Do you not get how ridiculous that sounds, canned?”
You’re implying that you’d rather the government give you money for insulin by taking money from unnecessary programs. I agree. But what I find troubling is that you think it’s better to give to the disadvantaged by taking from the *most* disadvantaged rather than by taking from the very privileged. I think that is misguided. Surely there are other government expenditures that are far more unnecessary than a meager comfort allowance.
This is indicative of the class wars that have the poor pitted against the poorER. You do get how ridiculous that is, don’t you?
I’m not suggesting anyone take anything from those on social assistance, I just find it ridiculous that they’d give an allowance to do things like go to a movie, while they can’t fund certain other things that are way more important.
If they can send someone to the movies, there’s no reason they can’t pay for far more necessary things.
stepping away from the canned kitty debacle…
Great Value, perhaps that’s why I found your comment quite odd…
you’re indeed a very strange person.
you’d rather be happy and nearly starving to death than be set for life but have to.. say do a job you hate every day?
you’re much closer to the mentality of those panhandlers/squeegee kids than I would care to be.