In 1990 28,351 people were on a sickness benefit. Today there are 46,862.
51 percent have been on it for more than a year. In 1990 only 29 percent had been on it for more than a year. Today, more people are sick and they are sick for longer. Really.
RANZ Update
2 hours ago
6 comments:
The sickness benefit is the dumping ground of the long term unemployable. The number of "sick" people I know on sickness benefits sickens me. I sometimes wonder about dobbing them in. But what's the point? I trust karma will get them in the end.
Hi Linsday, thought this was an interesting stat and posted it on NewsToday: http://www.newstoday.co.nz/story/Sickness_Benefit_Stats
Apparently you do research.
Perhaps there needs to be consderation of the baby boomer bulge and age related illness. If age has an impact on health costs, it also has an impact on ability to work (lack of ability to provide timely health services).
Thus pressure on health services has an impact on the numbers on sickness (and ACC) benefits
Note this was always likely after we increased eligibility for super from 60 to 65 for women.
Then consider the greater illness rates amongst Maori and Polynesians - who are an increasing proportion of our population.
This is without considering left wing points like - the effect on health of long term unemployment through the 90's. The impact of which is made manifest, on those who are unfit for work when it is
finally available.
Thanks spc, all valid points. The demographic change is certainly a factor. The age of people on the sickness and invalid benefits reflects this. But some part of the ageing aspect is due to people staying on those benefits longer.
Advancing medical technology allows accident and illness victims to live longer.
Add also more people with mental health problems live in the community instead of institutions. In the early 70s only 10 percent of people were on sickness benefit for psychological or psychiatric. That has risen to 35 percent.
The question that interests me is how many people are on these benefits due to self-destructive behaviours. Supporting someone undergoing treatment for leukaemia is quite different to supporting someone who drinks too much to hold down a job.
Everybody knows there is a degree of genuine need out there but I don't believe the current numbers reflect it.
I briefly looked at this issue and found that it was harder to be put on the Invalids Benefit than the Sickness Benefit because of the certification needed by doctors for the Invalids Benefit. Yet of the two benefits the most dramatic increase has been in the Invalids Benefit which seems to refute the belief that people are abusing the benefits.
Personally I can't see how any government can cut benefits now that they are so entrenched. I have spoken to people on the DPB who consider the government owes them a living. I know of someone on the sickness benefit who earns twice my wage by legitimately having boarders and bernados children and doing some under the table work. Sure she has health problems but obviously she has found a job she can do even though she has health issues.
What I find more worrying is that beneficiaries are no longer grateful for government assistance but expect it and society has an increasingly accepting attitude to those who choose to stay on the benefits when they could work.
This blog doesn't have an enormous readership (yet:-))
Maybe 70 people coming here once or twice a day. 4 of us know at least one person on a sickness benefit who shouldn't be. Anybody know somebody who should?
Post a Comment