NDIA: on confluence and variation (1 of n)

i booked a NDIS plan update review today. unbeknownst to me (later i found out from the news), it was International Disability Day – which just showed the level of engagement i had. i’d take it as a sign if i were so inclined. while i, by and large, have had a ‘technically positive’ experience with the NDIS (as i can now afford ‘stuff’ as most were out-of-pocket expenses), i had ‘mixed’ encounters with the agency. And while it is said that the majority of cases are ‘good”, it is vital to understand and empathise with the frustration others have had navigating a ‘complex’ and ‘convoluted’ system (i consider myself reasonably clever but it was only with the help of a support co-ordinator that i finally understood some parts). the question then becomes: how can we minimise (although ideally, from my ‘experience, it’s unlikely we eliminate) these issues that contribute towards negative encounters?

while it can be ‘easy’ to appoint ‘villainy’ to certain individuals (granted, it’s ‘difficult’ to detach from this emotion when you’re involved in certain circumstances – myself included), it can be more productive to try and address ‘systemic’ issues. there’s still ‘a heap’ (i believe that’s the technical term for it) i need to learn about ‘disability’ (my own lived experience aside). for example, i think i know the ‘basics’ of the social model but would benefit from a ‘deeper’ understanding. i would like to learn more about ‘disability’ (as i’m just ‘wired’ that way) but would greatly appreciate the time and effort to share things with me not just so i can benefit personally but spread the lessons others need to know as well. i also learned about Kurt Fearnley’s podcast about the NDIS (“A Nation Changed”) today so i will check it out (despite not really big on those).

i’d like to know if my thought process is ‘sound’. case in point, i’ve always thought that the concept behind the NDIS can be related to the concept of “compassionate” capitalism practised by some Nordic countries. i might be jaded but ‘altruism’ is only ‘good’ at the start and difficult to sustain. instead, it can be more pragmatic to consider the psychological tenet of WIIFM (What’s In It For Me?). how can we ‘incentivise’ individuals to act to achieve a desired outcome? i think most people ‘stop’ at just looking at it as compassion (purely a cost), when we can also sell it as a ‘boost’ economically. most ‘actively’ spend their budgets. the majority of these are service providers – most of which are small businesses. my thinking is that most allocations will be spent and ‘flow’ back into the economy – i think this is an opportunity that Australia can leverage. is that too over-simplistic?