Growing Together

Copy and Paste all the Following text into ChatGPT:

*

STEP 1: MY VALUES (answer these questions)

1. Institutionalized disability services may seem cheaper upfront because they centralize resources and standardize care, but what are the hidden costs—socially, emotionally, and financially?                                                                                                                                          (Compare that to the Enabling Good Lives (EGL) approach, which invests in independence, inclusion, and quality of life.)
   Which system truly costs more in the long run—one that supports people to thrive in their communities, or one that limits choice and creates dependency?
   
   ➡️

2. Think about a time when you or a loved one received support that made a huge difference. What was it about that support that worked so well? Now, what would have happened if the decision had been based purely on the cheapest option?
   ➡️

STEP 2: MY EXPERIENCE (answer this question)

3. What’s the most frustrating thing you’ve heard when trying to access support? How did it make you feel about the system?
4. Do you have any other insights or experiences that could help shape a better solution?
   ➡️

STEP 3: GENERATE MY RESPONSE (press enter) 

"I am responding to the New Zealand government's consultation on disability support services. The question I am answering is: ‘Do you agree or disagree that the cost of the support or service funded through flexible funding should not be more expensive than other ways to get that support? Why or why not?’ Make sure you answer this question.

Act as my friendly human rights defender and craft an attention-grabbing opening that immediately draws the reader in. My response must be strong on rights, self-determination, and ensuring disabled people and their whānau have full control over their lives.

Key Principles to Embed:

✅ Ground my response in the Enabling Good Lives (EGL) principles, UNCRPD, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and Whānau Ora.
✅ Challenge the idea that cost should override the right to individualized, high-quality, and effective support.
✅ Explain that prioritizing short-term cost savings may lead to long-term harm, including:

• Greater dependence on more expensive, crisis-driven responses.
• Loss of community inclusion, leading to social isolation.
• Increased institutionalization, which goes against the UNCRPD’s right to live independently in the community.
  ✅ Push for a funding model that prioritizes outcomes, inclusion, and self-determination rather than purely financial considerations.
  ✅ Argue that disabled people should not have to justify their right to the best possible support, when non-disabled society creates many of the barriers they experience.
  ✅ Call for transparency in how "cost-effectiveness" is measured, ensuring that:
• It considers the true cost of restricting flexible, person-led support, including the risk of forced reliance on institutional settings, increased healthcare costs, and higher mortality rates.
• Disabled people are not forced into lower-quality supports just because they are cheaper in the short term.
• It accounts for long-term sustainability, preventing cost-cutting measures that create higher expenses in the future.
  ✅ Provide clear, actionable recommendations on how to ensure funding decisions are person-centered and not purely budget-driven, reinforcing the principles of EGL, the UNCRPD, and Te Tiriti.

Now, based on my answers, create a strong and persuasive response that:

1️⃣ Starts with an engaging, bold opening that immediately establishes the need for change.
2️⃣ Introduces my values and experiences, grounding my response in personal reality.
3️⃣ Challenges the idea that cost should be the primary driver of disability support funding decisions, highlighting how this contradicts the principles of self-determination and inclusion.
4️⃣ Explains how focusing on cost over effectiveness creates a system where:

• Disabled people are forced into unsuitable or lower-quality services.
• Culturally appropriate, community-led, and personalized supports become unavailable.
• Institutionalization becomes a more likely outcome because community-based options are deemed ‘too expensive.’
  5️⃣ Pushes for a funding model that prioritizes:
• Person-centered outcomes over financial savings.
• Support models that enable people to live as full citizens in the community.
• Investments in sustainable, long-term supports rather than short-term cost-cutting.
  6️⃣ Calls for full transparency in how "cost-effectiveness" is determined, ensuring that:
• Funding decisions do not prioritize short-term savings at the expense of long-term sustainability.
• The real costs of institutionalization, social isolation, and healthcare dependency are accounted for.
• Disabled people are not forced into low-cost, unsuitable options just to fit a budget.
  7️⃣ Aligns with EGL core principles, ensuring that:
• Self-determination is respected, allowing disabled people to choose supports that best meet their needs.
• Ordinary life outcomes are prioritized, ensuring funding decisions enable people to participate fully in society.
• Mana is enhanced, ensuring disabled people are not treated as passive recipients of whatever is cheapest.
• Easy-to-use funding models are implemented, preventing excessive bureaucracy in accessing quality supports.
  8️⃣ Proposes practical, evidence-based solutions, such as:
• A funding model that evaluates effectiveness first, cost second, ensuring that disabled people receive the best possible support, not just the cheapest option.
• Flexible funding approaches that allow for individualized supports, even if they are not the lowest-cost option.
• Investment in preventative and early intervention supports, reducing long-term costs by ensuring disabled people can live independently and avoid crisis situations.
  9️⃣ Challenges any assumption that financial constraints should limit self-determination, reinforcing that human rights must take priority over cost-saving measures.
  🔟 Ends with a compelling summary that reinforces the key message and calls for urgent reform.

Use clear, direct, and persuasive language to make this response as strong as possible, ensuring that it highlights the need for a funding system that recognizes disabled people as full citizens with the right to access the best possible support—not just the cheapest option, which risks increasing institutionalization and long-term costs.*