"but I'm answering posts which say to chop the whole structure down and abandon any assistance to those who need it."
Well don't quote my posts when you are talking about that, because it's not what I've suggested.
"yet autism is only one category"
Yes, but from memory the article I linked stated autism makes up 40%-50% of children receiving NDIS support. It's clearly one of the major issues needing addressing. It also begs the question whether other mild disabilities are being treated the same way, pushed onto the NDIS when they shouldn't be.
"particularly if the parents are anxious that their child is 'special' or fear worse"
Right, but a parent being worried shouldn't automatically mean a child qualifies for NDIS.
"yet "profoundly" disabled is in what used to be called a 'vegetative state'. virtually zero connection with those outside their own brains."
That's the terminology Shorten used, and what the NDIS was supposedly set up for. Allowing mildly affected kids into the system is what causes multi-billion dollar blow outs.
"imo you need to look beyond the headlines in such media"
The article is from the SMH & directly quoted specialists in the field + Shorten. It's not sensationalist to question why 11% of young boys are in a scheme designed to support severely disabled people. It's part of the reason something projected to cost $25Bn this year is costing $45Bn.
IMO you need to be able to accept that questioning the scheme in it's current form doesn't mean questioning support for people with disabilities altogether.
