Benefit changes yay or nay?

[melon]

Why is YOUR individual happiness MY problem?

Take the whole group dynamic out of it - there is no such thing as the government's money - it is MY money you're taking. Which I have to work for, hard.

Your argument is you have an unconditional right to take large chunks of my money, which involves hard graft and time on my part and not some theoretical entity, because you are ill?

show me once where I said that ?

Im am talking about functioning ( which involves a lot of things ) and the impact of having that threatened and made worse because of it not being recognised or assessed properly by ATOS.


m

[wasabi]

show me once where I said that ?

Im am talking about functioning ( which involves a lot of things ) and the impact of having that threatened and made worse because of it not being recognised or assessed properly by ATOS.


m

So the possibly-disabled should get my money unquestioned to make them feel better? Free house / free car / free money / no work seems like a good incentive to lie / exaggerate to me.

[melon]

So the possibly-disabled should get my money unquestioned to make them feel better? Free house / free car / free money / no work seems like a good incentive to lie / exaggerate to me.

Possibly disabled ?

What do you mean ?

If there is medical proof why do ATOS even need to do the tests , do you think someone unqualified should get to ignore the same history and methods doctors having been using to diagnose people to this day ?

How about we just dimiss your work experience and degree and make you work where we want and then ignore any appeal you make ( in spite of you continually winning it maybe 2-3 times ) and despite evidence to prove your more qualified ?

m

[wasabi]

Are they the only people eligible to vote then?

Wrong question. What entitles them to vote?

[TheAnimus]

Your words not mine , never once said I was entitled or should get more ( though you comparison of work and disability as apple n oranges betrays your own lack of understanding or "experience" )

The subtext of likening having to justify your free income, to slavery.

Anyone who makes that, would by my defintion be behaving as someone who is entitled or at very best ignorant.

sammys which apparently you choose to ignore , namely the added stress of having a system that punishes by having to appeal all the time , or worry about having to to extra activities when you cant even cope with normal ones .

I've not ignored it at all, I've said its a mess! Its probably not fit for purpose and probably costing a lot more money than it should. However we need something like that.

Sammy gave numerous examples , but you just cant relate to it ( understandably ) because youve never been in that position or gone through the "grind " so you have Zero idea of the emotional / physical / social / mental impact- unless its through money.

You have little idea of my life, my upbringing and my childhood, I'd suggest you keep that in mind.

Does that sound fair ?

It's not about fair, life isn't fair, illness is never fair or just. I'd suggest getting over that.

And what if you couldnt drive and had to tolerate public transport / bad tempered bus drivers and passengers being awkward with you and refusing to help all the time , or kids and any one else ?

Realise it could be a lot worse than that, and that it is going to be in the near future. Quite simply we will be seeing a reduction in the number of people who can afford to drive. Public transport subsidies in areas of sparse population are likely to suffer more. If your worried about the hardship of public transport, I respectfully suggest you have a bit of a reality check.

What you going do , if you depend on them - or some god dam carer whose borderline rude and cant stand you , that you have to put up with ?

Slip them some MDMA in their tea. Seriously how can changes to evaluation of benefits be linked to the staffing issues? If anything decreasing the claimants should allow for a better service.

Or if you want love .. but soon find out nobody goes for disabled folk unless its part of their job description ?

So the government should be spending more money on DLA? Soliciting is illegal in the UK. I get the point, you've been delt a crap hand, but it doesn't change the macro economic status does it?

Would you really trade your current life / health unconditionally for all that , just to spend yours days with no health or job security and continually having to babysit your every movement forever for fear of getting worse ?

It's not about swapping, its about a fact of reality. Where do you suggest the money should come from? Or should it simply be a first in, last out system? Capped at £13bn we just don't take any more on. Because ultimately this is what its about, we can't afford that at the moment, and its been growing ahead of inflation. Then when linked to GDP its even more worrying. How do you suggest plugging that gap? Most people are weary of a general taxation increase. What is the solution?

You can't say that just because something is 'bad' there has to be some magic solution. It matters not. We've had an esculating care bill which we couldn't afford to allow growing. We certainly can't afford it in this current economic climate. What is your solution?

If you would your more Etonian than your letting on. ( Is that why your pro Tory I wonder ? .. )

I'll give you a hint, I have had only state schooling.

Chavs are lot more than poverty , they are group or subculture of anti social troublemakers and cheats who knock up your single mothers , so yes I'll discriminate them and use derogatory term because I have no respect for them.

Right, they are the undeserving poor then.

[TheAnimus]

How about we just dimiss your work experience and degree and make you work where we want and then ignore any appeal you make ( in spite of you continually winning it maybe 2-3 times ) and despite evidence to prove your more qualified ?

Last time I applied for a job that is exactly what they did.

My degree is a peice of paper that says I swapped £15k of debt for three years of fun.

We then spent 3 rounds of questions, challanges, stressful scenarios to validate them. That was then combined with a 90 day probationary period. They still tossed one guy out 180 days later.

I guess the metaphore isn't what you wanted. But the issue is that Drs just diagnose and list health conditions, they at no point in standard medical training study work place suitability for illnesses.

[TheAnimus]

Wrong question. What entitles them to vote?

The fact they are adult humans is the standard legal definition.

[wasabi]

The fact they are adult humans is the standard legal definition.

Then by the same definition they should be paying taxes too.

[kalniel]

Then by the same definition they should be paying taxes too.

They do pay the tax they are legally required to pay.

[sammyc]

Why is YOUR individual happiness my problem?

..Your argument is you have an unconditional right to take large chunks of my money, which involves hard graft and time on my part and not some theoretical entity, because you are ill?

No, I'd say his 'argument' is that he & many others have no alternative than to take your money, despite the fact that he would very likely prefer to tell you what to do with it & go & earn his own, as you are doing. Or do you have an alternative? If you think happiness comes into it anywhere you have a very hazy notion of longterm illness.

No-one asks to be ill and very, very few people LIKE being reliant. Quite the reverse. No-one is arguing whatsoever with the facts of there being an unsustainable welfare bill and that the money has to come from somewhere. However there is a very big difference between perception of the benefits system & the reality of it, it seems. Perception here says people 'want' handouts, for illnesses they are clearly suspected of exaggerating at best and making up at worst, being unwilling to concede to the slightest condition, and basically loafing around complaining about being asked to attend the odd medical. The genuinely sick & incapable understand the pressures on the benefits system the same as anyone else, and would be out of the whole setup like a shot given the chance, if only to be free of the whole unpleasant rigmarole. Everyone gets that money is tight and cuts need to be made, but there is a big, big difference between trying to implement that fairly - trying to cut down on fraudulent claims, tightening criteria and so forth - and the current system.

If attending medicals and being flexible about looking into the possibilities of being helped back into work where possible were all that was involved, few would grumble. That isn't what is actually happening, where you have the genuinely sick being doubted and unfairly found fit for work.

I really do not understand the hostility and the tarring-with-the-same-brush mentality; using the phrase 'possibly disabled' is extremely telling of an attitude that apparently damns the majority to be lumped in with a very few who exploit the system.

My axe to grind here is not an economic one, it is not political, it is simply one of attitude. To have a little humanity & acknowledge that the benefits system is not a walk in the park, to recognise that it is putting people under genuine & often disastrous pressure, is not going to derail any of the broader issues.

[Willzzz]

I really do not understand the hostility and the tarring-with-the-same-brush mentality; using the phrase 'possibly disabled' is extremely telling of an attitude that apparently damns the majority to be lumped in with a very few who exploit the system.

Is it really very few though?

Why is that despite advances in public health and healthcare that numbers of disabled people have risen?
One suspects that people with similar conditions in the past simply got on with it and made the best of life, rather than using a minor condition as an excuse to give up.

[Top_gun]

Is it really very few though?

Why is that despite advances in public health and healthcare that numbers of disabled people have risen?
One suspects that people with similar conditions in the past simply got on with it and made the best of life, rather than using a minor condition as an excuse to give up.

That was an argument thrown in by the Tory government of the nineties if I recall. What they failed factor in are increasing rates of mental health which are probably caused by their neo-liberalism policies.

[pp05]

If we want unity then part of that deal requires the strong to give to less strong party. It is just the way of civilized societies. The government knows the older generation know all about benefits and entitlements, taking it off them means losing votes. Young generation however don't. Setting their expectations is the challenge.

[TheAnimus]

That was an argument thrown in by the Tory government of the nineties if I recall. What they failed factor in are increasing rates of mental health which are probably caused by their neo-liberalism policies.

I thought mental health cases were decreasing, due to the fact it's no longer a faux pas to say I need help.

Also combined with advances in pharmacology, a older guy I once worked with had a terrible episode when his wife left him, with his new born baby (it ment the world to him). A couple of attempted suicides later he was on one of the newer SSRIs, within about a month of being on those he was working again, almost enjoying life.

I'm not suggesting its easy, and you can compare on datum point like that, but we have made huge advances in the last 30 years, both medically and as a society towards the mentally ill or mentally disabled.

[kalniel]

It's a bit of both. The decreased stigma means more people are getting help for mental health, but that's also means that reporting increases as well.

[TheAnimus]

I was meaning mental health issues forcing people to become a NEET.

It used to be a lot more common for people to drop out of university due to mental health problems that it is now, I was talking to one of my old lecturers about it not so long ago when she had a gifted but troubled student she hoped I could help, she was reflecting that when she studied many decades ago now you were punished for showing any sign of mental weakness, no help was given at all.

I think it depends what you mean by a mental health issue. Economically its only really an issue if you are un-able to function, most commonly prescribed drugs are relatively cheap.

I do think that for serious cases care in the community has failed thou, but that's another thread. (Thou I suppose it is a health care services billing issue).