Terminally ill? Stop Malingering and Get a job!

[nerd]

Its typical of this system were the genuine sick people are victimised but the druggies and alkys are hardley ever thrown of the sick imho people with self inflicted conditions should not recieve sick benefit.

 

I understand why you might say that as an quick remark, the problem is that when you break it down a bit it cannot work. For example if all assistance for "self inflicted" problems were to stop, where would you draw the line?

Would you deny assistance to the paraplegic who was injured in a sporting accident?

Would you deny care to someone who had gone blind as a result of diabetes caused by poor diet?

Would you deny assistance to someone with lung cancer because they smoked for 20 years when they were younger?

Would you deny assistance to a woman who suffered a severe complication in pregancy that left her whellchair bound?

Would you deny assistance to the family who had a disabled child when the doctors picked up on the problem in early pregancy but they decided against the advised termination and had the baby anyway?

Would you deny support for a fireman left diasbled in the line of duty as he chose to be a fireman?

I mean where would you draw the line? I would say a reasonable percentage of debilitating health conditions are to some extent caused or excaerbated by peoples lifestyle, so who would be the arbiter?

[tat lister]

I understand why you might say that as an quick remark, the problem is that when you break it down a bit it cannot work. For example if all assistance for "self inflicted" problems were to stop, where would you draw the line?

Would you deny assistance to the paraplegic who was injured in a sporting accident?

Would you deny care to someone who had gone blind as a result of diabetes caused by poor diet?

Would you deny assistance to someone with lung cancer because they smoked for 20 years when they were younger?

Would you deny assistance to a woman who suffered a severe complication in pregancy that left her whellchair bound?

Would you deny assistance to the family who had a disabled child when the doctors picked up on the problem in early pregancy but they decided against the advised termination and had the baby anyway?

Would you deny support for a fireman left diasbled in the line of duty as he chose to be a fireman?

I mean where would you draw the line? I would say a reasonable percentage of debilitating health conditions are to some extent caused or excaerbated by peoples lifestyle, so who would be the arbiter?

All those mentioned with the exseption of smoking would get the full benefit of the system.Those that choose to pump themselfs up with drugs or drink them selfs to death would get nothing.Was all this benefit paid out 30 years ago to drinkers and druggies??

[Cyclone]

So your definition of self inflicted is actually limited to drinking and smoking and doesn't include the majority of other risky activities.

Horse riding is higher risk than taking ecstasy you know, so why exclude one and not the other?

[RasmusBart]

So your definition of self inflicted is actually limited to drinking and smoking and doesn't include the majority of other risky activities.

Horse riding is higher risk than taking ecstasy you know, so why exclude one and not the other?

 

doesnt that depend on the horses you frequent ?

[Localman]

thats disgusting people who are terminally with cancer and other illnesses are not fit to work, but probably have worked most of their lifes and not claimed anything and due to unforeseen circumstances now cannot work but may be forced to do. It just goes to show what a pathetic stupid system we have all the scrounger the druggies and winos get away with it stop their money then they will be forced to work. Just like all these immigrants we bring into our country asians and whatever breed its amazing they can get any benefit going probably by claiming under about 6 different names and nobody is intelligent enough to check this out amazing half of these people cannot speak english but can cheat the system, this is not insulting to any working person but it shows what amess this country is in.

 

It is silly generalisations like this that make no contribution to rational debate.

 

One of my brothers, an HGV driver died last week - the second to die from terminal cancer. They had both worked all their lives and, to the best of my knowledge, had never made any claims on the benefits' system previously.

 

Neither of them took the attitude that their terminal illnesses made them unfit for work. They both believed that they should continue to work as far as they were able. Both of them, in their final months, came to arrangements with their employers that if, because of their illness and its impacts, they couldn't do their normal work, they would do different work that they could do.

 

They both saw the glass as half-full and not half-empty. They both believed that everyone should be helped and assisted to make their contributions and that this was what an incapacity support system should be about.

[TeaFan]

thats disgusting people who are terminally with cancer and other illnesses are not fit to work, but probably have worked most of their lifes and not claimed anything and due to unforeseen circumstances now cannot work but may be forced to do. It just goes to show what a pathetic stupid system we have all the scrounger the druggies and winos get away with it stop their money then they will be forced to work. Just like all these immigrants we bring into our country asians and whatever breed its amazing they can get any benefit going probably by claiming under about 6 different names and nobody is intelligent enough to check this out amazing half of these people cannot speak english but can cheat the system, this is not insulting to any working person but it shows what amess this country is in.

 

Well done, you made up a load of stuff to get angry about. If you want to have an incoherent, ill-informed rant (are you drunk?), start a thread of your own to do it on.

[nerd]

It is silly generalisations like this that make no contribution to rational debate.

 

One of my brothers, an HGV driver died last week - the second to die from terminal cancer. They had both worked all their lives and, to the best of my knowledge, had never made any claims on the benefits' system previously.

 

Neither of them took the attitude that their terminal illnesses made them unfit for work. They both believed that they should continue to work as far as they were able. Both of them, in their final months, came to arrangements with their employers that if, because of their illness and its impacts, they couldn't do their normal work, they would do different work that they could do.

 

They both saw the glass as half-full and not half-empty. They both believed that everyone should be helped and assisted to make their contributions and that this was what an incapacity support system should be about.

 

Firstly, I am sorry for your loss, that must be hard for you.

 

I do think though that it depends on the illness as to whether or not one can work. For some people continuing to work is what they wish to do, and they are able to do it. In other cases that simply isnt an option. I lost my father to cancer last year. He had a brain tumour and was not able to work as he lost his facutlies, his senses, his mobility. For a time at the beginning he wished to work and managed to do a few things but after a very short period this was no longer possible.

One of the horrible things that happened, was that when he was first diagnosed he was only given 3 months to live, and so was fasttracked for disability benefits. When he defied the odds and lived longer than the 6 months "deadline" for terminal illness benefits claims his benefits were suspended. He said it felt like the powers that be were saying "well, arent you dead yet??". They were resinstated luckily but it was a nasty shock to receive the letters saying t was being suspended and investigated and caused unnecessary upset.

I don;t know if this response from the benefits people is normal?

[nerd]

All those mentioned with the exseption of smoking would get the full benefit of the system.Those that choose to pump themselfs up with drugs or drink them selfs to death would get nothing.Was all this benefit paid out 30 years ago to drinkers and druggies??

 

I don't know what was paid out to people 30 years ago as I am only in my twenties.

Your argument though is ridiculous. How would you prove whether or not someone had taken a drink or been a smoker years or decades ago, or whether that was the causative factor?

I also would be pretty certain that in the case of drink and drug problems any benefit paid will most likely be for the underlying health problem that has led to the drink or drug problem.

And why take a stance against drinkers and smokers who pay more in tax than the average person (assuming the average person in a teetotal non smoker which I doubt) and not against other activities that are equally dangerous? If you wish to be so hardline against drink and drugs then why not against food and obesity related illness?

[Rupert_Baehr]

Life itself is, after all, a sexually transmitted disease.

[happyhippy]

Had this thread been about someone caught fiddling benefit, it would probably have had about 200 replies so far. I think the people in this country are in denial about the disability benefits system. They've swallowed the media propaganda that a large percentage of claimants are swinging it, and don't want to acknowledge that genuinely ill and disabled people are getting treated dreadfully by the government.

 

In fairness, from professional experience, a huge number who attempt to claim are trying to swing it. The important thing to remember is that the vast majority of those do not succeed.