Potential ramification of changes to ODSP ...... A $469.00 cut.

[Pick Monger]

Toronto Star (March 15) ......
"Under the new system, there would be no distinction between disability support recipients and general welfare recipients. Under the current system, an individual receiving disability support gets $1,075 a month; an individual on general welfare gets $606 a month."

If there will be no  distinction does that mean that GWA an d ODSP recipients are going to be receiving the same.

[abrowne]

SW,

They did this in the UK, and even the SAR report recommended we look to the UK way.

A

---

From: SW <stormwon...@gmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 2:54:47 PM
Subject: [odspfireside: 49657 ] Re: Potential ramification of changes to ODSP ...... A $469.00 cut.

I can't see that happening---the whole reason people are on disability is because they cannot work. those on welfare are on hard times. The reform to help disabled people ---that would cause a huge outcry to those suffering with disabilities.

[ROBERT ALDRED]

Do you have any idea what the income would be for a single person?   Will it be as high as the current maximum amount plus the Food Suppliment?



On Sun 31/03/13 3:12 PM , Goldielover fio...@hotmail.com sent:

No.  The base rate is the same, but there would be various supplements to be added to it, depending on circumstances (i.e. disability or dependents). 

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ODSP Fireside" group.
To change email delivery, nickname or unsubscribe from this group visit:
 
Http://groups.google.ca/group/odspfireside/subscribe?hl=en
 
To post to this group via email, send email to odspfi...@googlegroups.com
 
 

[abrowne]

SW,

I don't believe they care if it costs more money to do things this way, it will be better for them in the 

future to look for further cuts against the disabled and say the deficit made them do it, when we all

know this deficit issue is a straw man issue to begin with and has nothing to do with us.

A

---

From: SW <stormwon...@gmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, April 1, 2013 1:36:31 AM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 49663 ] Re: Potential ramification of changes to ODSP ...... A $469.00 cut.

Thank you Goldielover--that's what I thought. Just because one person is thinking this is a good idea does not mean everyone will jump on the SAR bandwagon--they are trying to get rid of poverty--this will most likely cause a huge surge/outcry to those who are disabled and thus, cause them more problems. what I'd like to know is why they feel they need to change? Won't that cost more money?

[ROBERT ALDRED]

Angela is correct.   In the race to the bottom we have to be sacraficed.  

Robert



On Mon 01/04/13 1:49 AM , abrowne browne...@yahoo.com sent:

SW,

I don't believe they care if it costs more money to do things this way, it will be better for them in the 

future to look for further cuts against the disabled and say the deficit made them do it, when we all

know this deficit issue is a straw man issue to begin with and has nothing to do with us.

A

---

From: SW

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2013 1:36:31 AM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 49663 ] Re: Potential ramification of changes to ODSP ...... A $469.00 cut.

Thank you Goldielover--that's what I thought. Just because one person is thinking this is a good idea does not mean everyone will jump on the SAR bandwagon--they are trying to get rid of poverty--this will most likely cause a huge surge/outcry to those who are disabled and thus, cause them more problems. what I'd like to know is why they feel they need to change? Won't that cost more money?

--

[VICKY SWERBRICK]

so you believe the elimination of the special diet if i didnt have that there would be no food on my table i need that diet to help to fuel my kidney transplant and where you go get free food there is nothing good there and other people need that special diet because of there health problems .i suppose that you dont need of the diet because you can eat normal food there is a lot of peaple that cant eat normal food
 

---

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 05:10:18 -0700
From: fio...@hotmail.com
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 49666 ] Re: Potential ramification of changes to ODSP ...... A $469.00 cut.

I think they are trying to be more "efficient" with the money they spend.  Yes, the system could be streamlined a bit, but I don't agree with the way they are doing it.  I don't agree the two programs should be merged.  I do feel they could be run out of the same offices - just by different departments.  I don't feel ODSP should be downloaded to the municipalities - I feel OW should be uploaded to the province.  Gets rid of any regional inequalities that way, and possibly saves the province some cash on administration costs that are currently being duplicated.  Some here may think this is heresy, but I actually agree with the elimination of the special diet allowance - as long as it is accompanied by a raise in the rates that will help people buy food.  That saves administration costs, and also takes a bit of a load off the healthcare system as well, as right now people have to go to overburdened doctors just to have forms filled out, which the doctor then bills OHIP for.  I agree that employment supports should be improved for both OW and ODSP, as there are plenty of people on ODSP who want to work, and are capable of at least part time work.  I disagree that an OW style participation agreement should be brought in for ODSP recipients as well - the stress caused by that will be too much for many people, so make it voluntary. 

What I am interested in hearing more of in the current report is the talk about a disability benefit eventually being entirely outside the social assistance system.  I'm wondering if this would be more like OAS, where income but not assets are the qualification. 

On Monday, April 1, 2013 1:36:31 AM UTC-4, SW wrote:

Thank you Goldielover--that's what I thought. Just because one person is thinking this is a good idea does not mean everyone will jump on the SAR bandwagon--they are trying to get rid of poverty--this will most likely cause a huge surge/outcry to those who are disabled and thus, cause them more problems. what I'd like to know is why they feel they need to change? Won't that cost more money?

[ROBERT ALDRED]

It looks to me like the idea of eliminating the special diet is not just a money saving proposal but it also says that people who are disabled are no different to people who work.    The less distinctions there are the less people who are disabled will seem to need more help.   Or so it could be.



On Mon 01/04/13 5:53 PM , VICKY SWERBRICK vick...@bell.net sent:

[abrowne]

SW,

If it goes to the municipalities, be prepared to have your cheques put on hold, suspended or cut off or down,

for any spurious or even NO reason at all,and there will be nobody to over see this, as the Ombudsman has

not right of oversight of municipal decisions.  I have seen people lose their housing because of these tricks

and nothing happens to these workers that do this kind of thing, and with the loss of start up, I can only

see more people living on the streets.

A

---

From: SW <stormwon...@gmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2013 10:41:48 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 49674 ] Re: Potential ramification of changes to ODSP ...... A $469.00 cut.

Goldie--I think that what's going on is that there is poor communication within these social programs, period. Whether it be OW or ODSP, the workers have an impossible task with what they are given. I have one worker out of my years of excellent workers who has caused me grief and I wish that worker no ill will, but have requested a change in worker. (3 times errors on her part meant my money was not deposited on time). What it seems is that workers are over worked, thus things get lost.

Not sure how it would work if a municipality has to take on the disabled---how that would vary from municipality to municipality etc. I am grateful for what I have, but people seem to think we're rolling in money. I am lucky I can work part time--for my sanity as well as some extra income, but transportation is always an issue.

[abrowne]

Goldie,

The problem with their elimination of the special diet is that people who do have medical

conditions requiring higher priced food (e.g. low or no salt, no gluten, etc.) will now have

to pay for it out of their basic, which as you know is mostly taken up by rent or housing

related costs.  I know a fellow who had less than $100 left per month after his housing

related costs, he ended up in hospital, had both legs amputated, almost died and now

takes in dialysis 5 days a week.  Not only did we get him the full $250 but we also got

him incontinence supplies, transportation among other things, which now leaves him

with at least more money to eat with.  Until the government starts ordering landlords to

keep their rents within the shelter allotments allowable, the special diet needs to stay.

Because my husband and I are on totally opposite diets, it costs us over $1,000.00 a

month for food on average.  There's a lot of food neither of us can eat, and most of the

food we can't eat is what is usually delivered by food banks, so we can't go there either.

Because I don't see them giving us a realistic raise at any time soon, I would argue to keep

the special diet until we get at least a 60% raise which is as likely as Stephen Harper 

joining the NDP party or leading the Liberals in the next election.

Angela

---

From: Goldielover <fio...@hotmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2013 10:47:46 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 49671 ] Re: Potential ramification of changes to ODSP ...... A $469.00 cut.

Please note that I said I support the elimination of the special diet PROVIDED it is replaced by an INCREASE in the regular rates.  The special diet as it is right now takes up a fair bit of administrative time, both on the part of the workers, as well as the doctors and the OHIP system.  To me it just makes more sense to roll it into the regular benefit. 

I actually do qualify on a couple of counts for extra from the special diet allowance.  However, I've not bothered to apply for it as all the paperwork just isn't worth it for me - not for the pittance I would qualify for, anyways.  I can and do work part time, so am not in quite as desperate need as others here might be.  But for those who are in tighter financial circumstances, surely it makes sense not to have to spend time and money just to get the paperwork filled out, and possibly having to go through the appeals system, but to have it as part of the regular monthly money without having having to ask.   Same for medical transportation (which I do receive).  Give all recipients a transportation allowance as part of the regular benefits - one that can be used for job hunting and shopping needs - not just tied to doctor's appointments. 

I

On Monday, April 1, 2013 5:53:06 PM UTC-4, vick...@bell.net wrote:

so you believe the elimination of the special diet if i didnt have that there would be no food on my table i need that diet to help to fuel my kidney transplant and where you go get free food there is nothing good there and other people need that special diet because of there health problems .i suppose that you dont need of the diet because you can eat normal food there is a lot of peaple that cant eat normal food
 

---

[abrowne]

Goldie,

Without the special diet allowance, my family will have about $1900 a month total for FOUR

people!  My housing costs, including mortgage, taxes, interest, utilities and insurance is over

$1,700 a month.  Until they double this amount, I will not agree to a cut for special diet.

I doubt the government will ever be in the business of telling landlords to lower our rents

PLUS utilities, etc. to fit within the amount allotted for shelter.  Because my husband and I

are on opposite diets, we spend over $1,000 a month on food alone.  Transportation is

off the charts because we have poor public transit where we are and basically, if you don't,

can't or do not have the money for a vehicle to drive, you don't work - period.  

I also did a freedom of information request to find out if anybody has been found for fraud

in getting the special diet or signing for it,and the total number is ZERO.  That is what the

public needs to hear, not murmurings and rumour mills from misinformed members of the

public, including government ministers such as the one that made this ridiculous claim to begin

with that prompted my FOI request.  The only doctor that has been suspected of anythingwas Dr. Rolande Wong, and he was not even charged with fraud.  If he is guilty of anything,

it might be professional misconduct, such as signing off for patients he had not known or

examined.  The vast majority of those that get the special diet supplement are usually very

sick and have medical issues, leaving the normal diet out of it.

I had to laugh about you comments about accident benefits specialists ... that is another

nightmare for another day ;-)

Angela

---

From: Goldielover <fio...@hotmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 12:00:30 AM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 49680 ] Re: Potential ramification of changes to ODSP ...... A $469.00 cut.

That's one reason why I'm advocating simplifying the system.  The workers really do have a lot on their plates with all the regulations - it must be just as confusing for them as it is for us.  When I was working as an adjuster years ago, I spent a (mercifully) short period of time handling Accident Benefit claims, which is in many ways very similar to what our workers have to do.  I can tell you I wouldn't have their job for all the tea in China.  

And with regards to your point about wondering how it would be if the municipalities took over ODSP - that is exactly why I feel the change should go the other way - OW to the province rather than ODSP to the municipalities.  Keeps things fairer for everyone that way.  

[ROBERT ALDRED]

The essential outcomes of the Liberal representatons on poverty issues in Ontario has in practice been much greater poverty.   They are helping us again.   In a time of phoney Austerity.  I cant help but think that this is about creating more poverty with less rights as usual.   The system worked at one time.   It recognized needs .   Put that back.   Raise the incomes by a few hundred dollars, put back the clothing and start-up features, open up tranportation by making it free for the disabled and people looking for work, have an annual clothing allowance and more.    When the needs of the poor are met I will believe this and any other politician that does that.   McGuity was going to save you from Harris and made it much worse.   Wynn is going to save us?   I need proof.

All of this fog and smoke has a purpose.   We will see what that purpose is.   I feel a Bay Street moment coming soon.

Why not just give people more money.   Why not let them keep their money when they work.   Why not put back the missing necessities.   How does minimum wage fit into this.   They have said they want harmonization with the minimum wage.   That is a crime.  What it needed is support for the needs of the disabled.   How are the two ever to be reconsiled without either raising the minimum wage by a few dollars per hour or keeping the Disabled and unemplyed down?    I think they have chosen the downside at our expense always.   Why would it change now?  



On Mon 01/04/13 10:46 PM , SW stormwon...@gmail.com sent:

Believe me, we would be contacting the UN long before this would ever be considered. Those on ODSP are living below poverty level. To cut us back even further would basically end many lives for many people, forcing unethical practices such as stealing and more unpaid rents and those depending on credit cards to survive.

We have power to be heard, and believe me, we will. If I have any say in it. The bottom line is that the Liberal party doesn't have the only say--the NDP are in there too and PC. NDP stood ground for us before they will again.

On Monday, April 1, 2013 12:59:33 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:

Angela is correct.   In the race to the bottom we have to be sacraficed.  

Robert



On Mon 01/04/13 1:49 AM , abrowne browne...@yahoo.com sent:

SW,

I don't believe they care if it costs more money to do things this way, it will be better for them in the 

future to look for further cuts against the disabled and say the deficit made them do it, when we all

know this deficit issue is a straw man issue to begin with and has nothing to do with us.

A

---

From: SW
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, April 1, 2013 1:36:31 AM

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 49663 ] Re: Potential ramification of changes to ODSP ...... A $469.00 cut.

Thank you Goldielover--that's what I thought. Just because one person is thinking this is a good idea does not mean everyone will jump on the SAR bandwagon--they are trying to get rid of poverty--this will most likely cause a huge surge/outcry to those who are disabled and thus, cause them more problems. what I'd like to know is why they feel they need to change? Won't that cost more money?

--

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ODSP Fireside" group.
To change email delivery, nickname or unsubscribe from this group visit:
 
Http://groups.google.ca/group/odspfireside/subscribe?hl=en
 
To post to this group via email, send email to odspfi...@googlegroups.com
 
 

[ROBERT ALDRED]

On the subject of the Special Diet.   How is the new system going to be any better than the old system.   The categories of allowance and the amounts have been said to be ideologically driven.   If this is so or even if history just repeats itself the amount will be decided to save money and not serve the disabled according to some.   I could make the argument that all people on Social Assistance need higher incomes to maintain their health at the very least.   Why was it applicable that all people with the special diet would receive $250.00 a month at one time and then they didnt..   What is driving the changes.   I would argue saving money.   How do we respect or believe in a system that lowers food allowances to save money.   Anyone should I think call it at least ineffective.   

Now we have a new proposal on the Special Diet allowance which has been in the past subject to finanical issues and not clearly a scientific approach to needs.   How do we see this new and improved change.   I do know the government does not like the Human Rights commission getting involved.   I know it wastes amazing amounts of money sending many many people to tribunals.   What is the benefit to the people.

How will it be determined what amount of money each person gets.   Will there be a flat rate in the new subsidy.  Will it be the continuation of the amounts now received.   How will this work.  

People on Social Assistance are being abused everyday.   One of those abuses is bad nutrition.   That is caused by many factors.   One is the open abuse of not having the Housing portion of the money received have any relationship to reality therefore eating into the rest of the assistance.

On the Food Allowance.  I think we should give everyone on Social Assistance of any kind $250.00 a month as a raise for food.    I think we should make the Shelter Amount to conform to whatever the real rent being paid is.  I think we should have the Auditor General of the province investigated and explain what he meant when he called us frauds.   These would be the first steps to honesty and integrity in the Social Services system.   On and by the way upload Workfare.  Do not download ODSP.

Robert



On Tue 02/04/13 12:00 AM , Goldielover fio...@hotmail.com sent:

That's one reason why I'm advocating simplifying the system.  The workers really do have a lot on their plates with all the regulations - it must be just as confusing for them as it is for us.  When I was working as an adjuster years ago, I spent a (mercifully) short period of time handling Accident Benefit claims, which is in many ways very similar to what our workers have to do.  I can tell you I wouldn't have their job for all the tea in China.  

And with regards to your point about wondering how it would be if the municipalities took over ODSP - that is exactly why I feel the change should go the other way - OW to the province rather than ODSP to the municipalities.  Keeps things fairer for everyone that way. 

And yes, I know the public seem to feel that we are rolling in dough.  One of the things that gets their goat more than anything else is the special diet allowance, just because it has been abused in the past, and it makes the news from time.  Get rid of it then, but roll it into the regular allowance.  That way it won't keep getting into the news every so often when some doctor or other gets caught signing off on a gazillion forms like it does now.  We really don't need that sort of bad publicity.

I live in Toronto, and at least transit is readily available, so I can get to physio appointments and my part time job reasonably easily.  Its expensive, though - almost $130.00 a month for a pass.  No discounts for the disabled like a few municipalities have.  Until recently, my job was very close to where I live, and I could walk there easily.  They've since moved, and now I'm commuting downtown.  That's a huge pain in the tail, but better than having no job at all.  Given my age and walking ability, I would not find it easy to find another.  That part time job makes all the difference to us.  I wouldn't say I'm rolling in dough, but with it we have enough for a basic but comfortable life in a nice market rent apartment, buying groceries at a regular grocery store.  Without it, I'd be watching every penny, living in a cheap, probably bed bug infested place, and may even have to resort to a food bank from time to time. 

I haven't had a really bad worker yet, although I've not been in the system that long.  I went on OW in Nov. 2010, and was accepted on my first application for ODSP in January 2012.  I'm happy as long as my cheque is deposited on time, and they leave me alone. 

And yes, the mental health system is in desperate need of reform for everyone - not just those on ODSP. 

On Monday, April 1, 2013 10:41:48 PM UTC-4, SW wrote:

Goldie--I think that what's going on is that there is poor communication within these social programs, period. Whether it be OW or ODSP, the workers have an impossible task with what they are given. I have one worker out of my years of excellent workers who has caused me grief and I wish that worker no ill will, but have requested a change in worker. (3 times errors on her part meant my money was not deposited on time). What it seems is that workers are over worked, thus things get lost.

Not sure how it would work if a municipality has to take on the disabled---how that would vary from municipality to municipality etc. I am grateful for what I have, but people seem to think we're rolling in money. I am lucky I can work part time--for my sanity as well as some extra income, but transportation is always an issue.

I would like to see the government perhaps come up with a plan to better assist those who need it, rather than impose tighter restrictions on us. I also wish that psychologists were covered for those under ODSP and not just psychiatrists. 

[ROBERT ALDRED]

I would argue the government created the myths to isolate us and take our money.   We need an investigation into the Auditor General of Ontarios statement that the Special Diet Allowance is full of people defrauding Ontario.   The stats are Zero percent fraud.    He needs to be exposed as seemingly corrupt.  He may not be.  Maybe he cant read and is just another political appointee.  George Bush was president of the Untied States and he cant read.   We would see how he defends himself if we had a public forum on this.

To solve the problems of ODSP incomes we need to change the rent portion of the cheques to reflect real rents and mortgages. The rent portion should pay the real rent or mortgage.  With the open lie in practice that the shelter portion is appropriate to our needs they have created the food crisis for us.  We are paying the banks bills.   We should have our rent covered and then be able to get closer to eating properly.  

We have really bad health issues coming up in our population due to a lack of funding for people on Social Assistance.   We need now to address this issue to give all people on Social Assistance the full $250.00 allowed in the Special Diet program to restore the health of so many people on assistance in Ontario.    In the process of doing this we need to investigate the governments fraud of the people in underfunding.  We need to find out where our money went.    We need to involve the United Nations in the investigation.    These proposals would give us a start on restoring integrity to the Assistance system here.   We have work to do.

Robert



On Tue 02/04/13 1:33 PM , Kate kate....@gmail.com sent:

Because they don't trust us to spend the money as it fits us best. They think we'll spend anything extra they give us on cigarettes or beer or potato chips. Because they think they can think for us. I've never seen anything like this proven. It's just all assumptions on the public's part and politicians pander to it. And the special diet fiasco just fed into that image. We should never give up control on money that is rightfully ours.

[abrowne]

SW, municipalities is the city level of government.  Your city or region or

district social services administration board is not allowed to go into debt

for operating expenses.  For example, if the city gets a billion dollars a

year in income, it cannot run an operating deficit ... cannot spend more

than a billion in staffing, services, etc.  The city cannot borrow either to

cover the costs of increased numbers of people on OW and in the case of

any merger, ODSP.  They cannot borrow to increase staffing levels, etc.

unless they take the money from some other area in the budget, such as

long term care homes, public health administration, roads maintenance,

or other municipal departments. 

 

Theoretically, what can happen under any future government if the

programs are merged and brought to the municipalities are a very slippery

slope.  First the merger: 1.  Right now there are two programs.  Rightly or

wrongly, the public views recipients of OW as less deserving poor than

recipients of ODSP.  Most members (though not all) of the public do

understand that not all people on ODSP or with disabilities can work, so

they do support the idea that they should be supported or given help.

With a merger, there will be no more distinction in the eyes of the public

between OW (less "deserving" - while unfair this is HOW the public sees it),

and ODSP (more "deserving").  It will make ALL recipients under the

new program be seen as "less deserving" and particularly more so, if the

person is on for a very long period of time (e.g. persons with disabilities).

 

Perception is reality, unfortunately, because the public is not going to stop

hating the poor, regardless of how we try to "sell" their plight.  By putting

all poor under one umbrella, the public is not going to be convinced that

all are "deserving".  They will see all as "less deserving", especially those

with disabilities (as we are seeing in the UK with the spike of hate crime

against persons on disability benefits now being cut ... and this spike in

hate crime corresponds well with the timing of UK's own welfare reforms).

Over 70% of people with disabilities in the UK are assessed as able to

work, often based on a twenty minute interview and a checklist.  The rate

of successful appeals shows this work capacity assessment is not accurate,

but in many cases, can be downright dangerous.  Many have taken their

own lives, many have lost their housing, etc.  There is little public outcry

about this, simply because people with disabilities are no longer deemed

by the UK to be "deserving" and are in most cases, seen as able-bodied.

 

Next, being run by the municipalities.  Municipalities are not the best

places to operate social services.  First, they are inconsistent and differ

substantially across the province.  In some places, people can access a

good array of discretionary benefits.  In others, there is a preference for

certain people with certain needs.  In others, the municipality exercised

their "discretion" not to offer discretionary benefits, other than what might

be required by law (e.g. somebody has to bury someone without any assets

to bury themselves, aka Cemeteries Act).  Whether or not you get a

discretionary benefit depends on who is reviewing your case, not your

need of the specific benefit.  The municipality can conceivably only serve

blonde, blue eyed people on Mondays, and green eyed people on

Wednesdays, but if your eyes are brown, too bad ... and there is little

one can do about it.  Want to fight 440+ municipalities?

 

Also, many municipalities have been very punitive in their rule

enforcements.  I have consulted with as many OW recipients and

ODSP recipients (who were once on OW) as to whether or not they

had ever experienced cheque holds, suspensions, etc. while on OW

and virtually everybody had experienced this and sometimes every

single month, for an average of four times a year, many times disregarding

the fact that rent has to be paid.  If you get into that situation, will OW

convince your landlord and your landlord's bank to hold on the mortgage

payment until OW figures out what it is going to do?  I've seen them at

the Tribunal and yes, evictions have happened and many are still couch

surfing thanks to this kind of treatment.  Don't think people with disabilities

will be treated any different.  My ODSP appellants ALL went through this,

even though their application and in many cases, their disability issues

were known by and in many cases, even supported by the OW worker!

 

Right now, the municipalities have benefited from uploading of most of

the costs of OW and all of the costs for ODSP.  The municipality is only

paying for the administration of OW with some partial subsidy from the

province.  This funding arrangement is not legislated and can change any

minute with the stroke of a pen.  That means, the province can be uploading

everything today and then tomorrow, decide to start downloading more of

the costs and cut municipal transfers for ANY reason ... especially if a

province like Ontario starts feeling hard done by the feds and feels that

"important" programs like health care and education are crowding out other

programs that they "cannot afford".  So downloading to the municipalities

is an easy way to do this.

 

As I stated above, municipalities cannot run deficits or borrow money to

cover extra costs, say if we hit another recession and OW and ODSP

caseloads increase.  They have to rob Pete to pay Paul.  Guess what?

I am not stupid.  My region will not take from other budgets, such as

policing, roads, administration, public health and other "popular"

programs to pay more to "welfare" costs.  They will be villified in the

polls, nor would they agree to hike property taxes by double digits,

as they will also get villified in the polls.  So the province can force

deep cuts to OW and ODSP simply by cutting transfers to the

municipalities and letting the municipalities make the hard decisions,

and then we have to fight 440+ different governments instead of the

one, who will look blameless to the public similar to how Harper does

not seem to be taking the blame for cuts to health care (even though

his dirty work with transfers to the provinces is leading exactly to this).

 

Besides this very simple fact, municipalities do not have Ombudsman

oversight like the provincial government programs do.  Privacy laws

are different.  If the municipality contracts out some or all of its

programs to businesses and not for profits outside of the municipalities,

our privacy rights also disappear.  Not that non profits and businesses

will willy nilly breach confidentiality, etc., but there will be few if any

consequences if this happens.  No recourse is available to people whose

privacy has been breached, like it would directly under municipality or

even better at the provincial level.  Non profits may have "policies" for

confidentiality, etc., but they are not covered under privacy legislation,

except for their commercial activities covered by PIPEDA and any health

related information under PHIPA.  This is not income, family, children,

education or other personal information.

 

In summary, in either case, it is only bad news.  Interesting, when I spoke

of this to some of the municipal representatives at my meetings, they

somehow "have not thought about this" and were interested in learning

more.  I will continue trucking on this until it is a non issue.

A

From: SW <stormwon...@gmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 11:42:35 AM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 49684 ] Re: Potential ramification of changes to ODSP ...... A $469.00 cut.

Goldie---or anyone else, can you explain what municipalities are? I'm sorry I'm not that great with these terms. Is that where I live you mean? VS the province? So my area of residence would factor in another income that would be joint with the province (the proposal).

[abrowne]

Having any benefit program administered through the Ministry of Health

and Long Term Care will not be a cash benefit, and will likely only be

available in the form of Ensure or Boost by prescription or be available

only to those in long term care, nursing homes, hospitals, and such, and

not people living independently. The Ministry of Health and Long Term

Care is not going to suddenly be able to provide individual cash transfers,

as it only pays for services directly to service providers and employees,

not beneficiaries of programs.

Angela

From: ROBERT ALDRED <chrys...@primus.ca>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com; Goldielover <fio...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 1:16:47 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [odspfireside: 49685 ] Re: Potential ramification of changes to ODSP ...... A $469.00 cut.

[Bill Higgs]

Complaining to the UN will do no good at all, Harper showed how to thumb a nose at the UN,, dont think for a minute the Wynne is any different.

 

 

Bill

 

----- Original Message -----

From: SW

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 10:46 PM

Subject: Re: Re: [odspfireside: 49672 ] Re: Potential ramification of changes to ODSP ...... A $469.00 cut.

Believe me, we would be contacting the UN long before this would ever be considered. Those on ODSP are living below poverty level. To cut us back even further would basically end many lives for many people, forcing unethical practices such as stealing and more unpaid rents and those depending on credit cards to survive.

We have power to be heard, and believe me, we will. If I have any say in it. The bottom line is that the Liberal party doesn't have the only say--the NDP are in there too and PC. NDP stood ground for us before they will again.

On Monday, April 1, 2013 12:59:33 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:

[Bill Higgs]

One thing for certain, shelter llowanc should be raised to actuall amount being paid by the recipeint or at the least to the provincail average for a 1 bedroom or 2 bedroom apartment depending on the size of the benefit unit

 

Bill

[ROBERT ALDRED]

That was a one time complaint.   The idea is to constantly present complaints outlining Ontarios breaking of International Agreements.  The target audience would be the people of Ontario.

The United Nations is required to make comment on breaches if the presentations are formal.   We could make those formal compliants.   There is more than enough ammuniton here..   Expose them to death.

Robert



On Wed 03/04/13 12:41 AM , "Bill Higgs" bill...@xplornet.com sent:

Complaining to the UN will do no good at all, Harper showed how to thumb a nose at the UN,, dont think for a minute the Wynne is any different.

 

 

Bill

 

----- Original Message -----

From: SW

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 10:46 PM

Subject: Re: Re: [odspfireside: 49672 ] Re: Potential ramification of changes to ODSP ...... A $469.00 cut.

Believe me, we would be contacting the UN long before this would ever be considered. Those on ODSP are living below poverty level. To cut us back even further would basically end many lives for many people, forcing unethical practices such as stealing and more unpaid rents and those depending on credit cards to survive.

We have power to be heard, and believe me, we will. If I have any say in it. The bottom line is that the Liberal party doesn't have the only say--the NDP are in there too and PC. NDP stood ground for us before they will again.

On Monday, April 1, 2013 12:59:33 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:

Angela is correct.   In the race to the bottom we have to be sacraficed.  

Robert

[Ron Payne]

Billy

This is a realistic goal. Unfortunately it has flown under the radar.

The question is why! 

Ron Payne
Welfare legal
Hamilton, Ontario

*************************

[Ron Payne]

SW

Craig Foye fo...@lao.on.ca

Hamilton lawyer

Tell him you got his name from me.

He’s done it before.  (Right to an Adequate Standard of Living)

Ron Payne

Welfare Legal

Hamilton, Ontario

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:41 PM, SW <stormwon...@gmail.com> wrote:

Then lets contact the UN. Who would you contact to make a statement? Because I refuse to let bullies push me into a corner. If they want hardball, then let this get heard everywhere. That sort of pressure may make a very profound statement.

[Ron Payne]

SW

fo...@lao.on.ca

or look here  http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/A06E9E65-23B8-4447-BD1B-7C609C0D74C9/0/Nov12Item42.pdf

Ron

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:43 AM, SW <stormwon...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ron for some reason, the full email did not show. Can you write it out again? Thnx.

[abrowne]

Crystaline

There are people terrified of this prospect.  In the coalition's meetings, it seems there is

some sense of reconsideration on some of these matters, that there are various concerns

about some of these recommendations.  Put it one way, at a recent meeting I was at, a

highly placed government official did say "There are no groups marching on Queen's

Park demanding the WHOLE Social Assistance Reform report be implemented".

Angela

From: Crystaline Goddess <crystali...@gmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 11:39:24 AM
Subject: [odspfireside: 50039 ] Re: Potential ramification of changes to ODSP ...... A $469.00 cut.

I'm terrified of the proposed amalgamation of ODSP and OW. Unfortunately I have no fight left. I tried to fight when they where cutting the Community Start-Up and Maintenance Benefit, but they did it anyway. I even organized and held a rally. I'm still licking my wounds from that and have no energy left to try and save the entire ODSP program! If this goes through, I'm sure the suicide rate is going to skyrocket!