Benefit changes yay or nay?

[Top_gun]

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.

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.

ETA:

As for NEETS, this is a complicated issue and a whole range of environmental factors comes into play such as family breakdowns, peer pressure, etc. I'm afraid the simplistic right wing policies of the Tories are not enough to resolve them.

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).

According to the World Health Organisation, mental health is set to be the leading cause of disability in the western world within the near future.

There is research that prescriptive drugs such as SSRIs are no better than taking a placebo but I'm certain drug companies will disagree just to protect their profits.

I'm afraid the free market policies isn't suitable for everyone.

[TheAnimus]

There is research that prescriptive drugs such as SSRIs are no better than taking a placebo but I'm certain drug companies will disagree just to protect their profits.

Citation Needed? Ultimately there are plenty that don't work for lots of people, we don't really understand how they work doesn't help matters. At the end of the day who cares, plenty of people they work for, its not outright yes or no, its mental health. Even setting a leg isn't a simple matter, despite the obvious ease of understanding and visualising the problem.

I'm afraid the free market policies isn't suitable for everyone.

Which are the better policies? Mental health is a tricky one, NICE for instance cut off counselling for most people after ~2 years, because if they don't get better by then, then they don't get better at all is their data. However they fail to take in to account the costs of their getting worse. Such state socialist policies tend to fail worse due to the inherent top down management of such things. It would be interesting to know which systems around the world you consider better?

[melon]

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?

my solution is next year

m

[TheAnimus]

my solution is next year

Don't get the joke?

[melon]

Don't get the joke?

Referendum next year

As for your man Cameron , well lets hope you dont end up disabled and and object to his cutting costs.

A survey by Inclusion London found that the general public believe that between 50% and 70% of disability claims are fraudulent. The reality is that the fraud rate for disability benefits is 0.5%. [Inclusion London]

m

[wasabi]

pls ignore - double-posting

[wasabi]

.[/URL]


A survey by Inclusion London found that the general public believe that between 50% and 70% of disability claims are fraudulent. The reality is that the fraud rate for disability benefits is 0.5%. [Inclusion London]
m

I'm sure Inclusion London wouldn't make up BS figues that support their purpose of existence.... no, never.

[TheAnimus]

Referendum next year

As for your man Cameron , well lets hope you dont end up disabled and and object to his cutting costs.

Referendum on what? Or do you mean the election in 2 years time?

I wouldn't object at all, its painful, but obviously required. The difference is you appear to think we can just keep on putting money in for it, where would you like it from? You've still not awnsered that question.

Until then I think more and more your a very self-centered, self-entitled person, because you didn't luck out on the genetic health lottery, everyone else owes you something? Meanwhile, we shouldn't be helping people who are actually starving. Strange attitude.

[melon]

Referendum on what? Or do you mean the election in 2 years time?

I wouldn't object at all, its painful, but obviously required. The difference is you appear to think we can just keep on putting money in for it, where would you like it from? You've still not awnsered that question.

Until then I think more and more your a very self-centered, self-entitled person, because you didn't luck out on the genetic health lottery, everyone else owes you something? Meanwhile, we shouldn't be helping people who are actually starving. Strange attitude.

Independence..

havent answered as hands are 2 buggered ..

there are people starving in the uk, why should someone not born here with no family history or vestment get priority over people whose family fought in wars and contributed etc ?

Think what you like.

Overseas Charity really helped those rape victims , eh ?

m

[TheAnimus]

Independence..

EU referendum isn't promised until 2017?

there are people starving in the uk, why should someone not born here with no family history or vestment get priority over people whose family fought in wars and contributed etc ?

They don't, they are treated as humans, as equals. It's something we've fought for some time to uphold to a degree. civis romanus sum

Overseas Charity really helped those rape victims , eh ?

Promoting physical barrier contraception is a bad thing now? And helped those rape victims. WTF. That isn't mentioned there at all.

I'm even more of the opinion you feel that you are the centre of the world and other people should have their belongings forcibly removed to service you with a growing and better life style. I honestly don't think you've suffered any hardship at all, your views about support start and end with you. Sure people often misconstrue financial prudence as a lack of care, but you are reading as just obscene.

Your also citing the daily mail which lets be honest when it comes to coverage of tax payer spending has many more critical articles regarding DLA than it does foreign aid. How would you feel if I started citing their stories about scroungers, implying everyone in receipt of DLA is one.

Instead your entire complaints come down to having some medicals. You suggest we don't help people who aren't born here, seriously?! I wasn't born here, my girl friend wasn't born here, my business partner wasn't born here, my main client wasn't born here. Between just us four people we must have contributed about £1.5M in tax revenue. How perverse would it sound if I said we should only give that money to people who were born in the same village as me, or whose parents fought on the same sides in the same wars.

To suggest such things are xenophobic, protectionist or at very best petty.

Before I thought ATOS and the like were a bureaucratic nightmare, akin to the worst of HMRC style rules and regs. Now I think we've got a bigger problem, a bunch of people, I've no idea how big, but the shameless nature of your posts make me fear, these people who contribute nothing and consume horrifically more than the median, demanding their lifestyle never be questioned or changed.

Meanwhile, regular working folk are facing a lost decade, will be finding they have a much lower quality of life economically than their parents, but never mind, can't have some people who are disabled not afford Sky or a new car.

Everything that is a consumption comes at the expense of something else, capitalism promises to improve things through efficiency; the same way that 95% of us no longer work on farms yet don't starve. To use a biology metaphor he who is in no way symbiotic, purely parasitic, regardless of the moral justification for their situation must be mindful of the health of the host organism and what might harm it. This is what we are going through now. You've not debated figures, you've not suggested alternatives to the growth in the care costs. The host can not continue that support.

Live in rural India as a low caste and tell me we shouldn't be funding basic sex ed. Most of it, after all, is a mess that we as a nation profited from before we ran off.

[TooNice]

Hmm, mental issues is a tricky one. I am not even sure at what point should it be considered an illness. Note that I am not saying that it should not be, merely where to draw a line.

Taking the provided case earlier, loosing one's sense of smell / taste is undoubtedly a disability. But it seems that the more impactful aspect is the whole "it destroys who you are [..]" aspect of it.

To me, that is more of an mental issue. Someone with that as sole disability (I do not know what else you suffer from if anything) would be physically be capable of work, but mentally incapable. Perhaps like someone who suffers a lot of stress. One needs to be physically disabled to feel helpless / desperate etc. Nor do I think that the absence of physical disability mean a lesser magnitude of mental suffering. Case to the point, there are plenty of physically able people who have felt sufficiently to "self-euthanise".

Yet there are also disabled who have decided to face life head-on, regardless despite of their difficulties (e.g. Stephen Hawking, para-Olympians, this gentleman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MJ-NeXRcEk , and more who do not make the news). Not everyone will be as successful, and some may suffer from conditions that prevents them from doing anything.. including feeding themselves let alone using a computer. But it's clear that people have different thresholds of pain, be it physical or mental.

The problem is, how can people know (or indeed why should / can people trust) that someone else is in as much pain as they say they are AND, at what point do you suggest that they get their acts together, and at what point do you accept that they are a lost cause? Is this something that even medical professional can assess accurately (I have my doubt)?

[flearider]

it's a good thing .. stops the young uns spitting out kids so they don't have to work or those that can't be bothered ..i know a few ..
and you should not get anything unless you have been here for 5 yrs working ..we give to much away to those just comming over here for just that reason ..
myself i'd be evern harsher .. but then i've always worked in any job i could find never high paid .. but been abled to support my family

[sammyc]

I'm even more of the opinion you feel that you are the centre of the world and other people should have their belongings forcibly removed to service you with a growing and better life style.

No-one has mentioned anything suggestive of a 'growing and better' lifestyle being the goal

I honestly don't think you've suffered any hardship at all

On what do you base that opinion?

Instead your entire complaints come down to having some medicals.

The end result of which may well be having benefits withdrawn, as discussed.

Can't have some people who are disabled not afford Sky or a new car.

Again, what is the basis for this assessment of the disabled benefit claimant's lifestyle? Where are you deriving this picture from?

You've not debated figures, you've not suggested alternatives to the growth in the care costs.

Nor have you afaik, just a repetition of 'care costs cannot continue as things stand'. This we know.

Leaving aside for now the distasteful metaphor of host and parasite, can we hear your suggestion for an approach to change? Time to get down to brass tacks I think.

Let's say you address a hypothetical benefit claimant directly. 'Good morning Mr (or Mrs) Poorly. I'm afraid we cannot meet the current burden of society's care costs, therefore I suggest you..' what? Take a % cut in benefit? Come up with a cunning plan despite being the dependent & least able person in the equation (well it's your disability, you solve the problem of our not being able to support you?) Oblige society by bucking up and becoming x % less poorly? Stop coming the old soldier? Or at the very least be a lot more grateful (not sure how this saves any money).

You have said previously that if benefits are withdrawn no-one will starve or become homeless. What will they be subsisting on, exactly?

[Inceington]

For my two cents

I think that it is something a society should aspire to; the ability to look after its population, specifically those in need. That said, the fact that benefits and a job may afford the same lifestyle is probably not entirely sensible but rather than decrease benefits I think incentives should be given to raise the working wage. This is possible through a more industrial model of economics as opposed to the destructive model we seem to follow, which rewards quick gain at the expense of long term prospects and jobs. We have to give people something to work for, opportunities to strive to achieve rather than make life terribly difficult in the hope that a few may be able to drag themselves out of poverty. If it were really that easy I doubt millions if not billions would be starving around the world.

The idea of prescribed benefits I find interesting however. I do think that a system based upon giving a good, healthy standard of living through balanced varied meals etc rather than simply a monetary allowance could work. After all we pay plenty of benefits straight to the providers of the services. It may take away people's freedom to choose, but they would have all the necessities provided for, just not the luxuries. I think this is particularly important in making sure children get the needed provisions for a healthy upbringing. It is also better that people work for luxuries than to survive.


In response to what I understand of zerox's point...I don't think we can call ourselves civilized and create a climate where people die because they do not prosper in a capitalist world. Otherwise the same logic could be applied to surgical procedures to repair congenital heart defects in babies or any medical interventions for disability. A society should not tread down those who cannot achieve within it but rather ask itself why it is allowing a group of human beings, who at one point had as much potential as any of us, to falter.


Apologies I only read the first page so sorry if this is irrelevant or someone else has previously said something similar. Like i said, just my thoughts

[csgohan4]

Unfortunately Greed is what drives the world of which can take many forms, i.e providing bread for the family, extreme lifestyle luxuries. Benefits is a tough topic to cover and a fine balance must be struck, but the one size fits all policy just wont work nor do the government have the resources to go and assess everyone on a case by case basis.

I think generally humans are resistant to change and what they had yesterday suddenly being taken away from them without considering why and what the benefits are for is clear ignorance and will lead the U.K into deep depression/trouble if they had their way. For e.g I don't neccessary agree with the University fee hikes, but I also understand why as well being an unsustainable model for the current climate with Universities suffering under the previous system.

Everyone is in recession, benefit takers are not less or nor more than any of us. We all took paycuts, freezes, consumer price rises and pension changes e.t.c, everyone must do their bit and people complaining about this so strongly only reflects their selfishness and not realise that alot of people who work can't afford sky or that holiday to the Bahamas.

In regards to the Mental Health Issue, it is only going to get worse. Mental health funding is usually the first to have their funding cut and as a result waiting lists for mental health issues is only going to get longer.

[pp05]

Is part of the problem that more women are in the in the workforce today? Whose looking after the elderly? Whose looking after the children.

The way things are going children will be brought up by social care workers in the future.