fruitisbad Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 And what's wrong with that? As I said in another post. My observations suggest Medusa is on the Internet a lot, I simply asked why rather rather than spending your time moderating a forum can't you use that time for employment. Medusa explained perfectly why not. If asking questions like that is seen as me demanding they prove their "Worthiness to share oxygen." then I fear for yourselves, it must be hard even going outdoors sometimes and I genuinely do fear for the welfare state. If we're not going to identify the fraudsters and wasters for fear of upsetting the odd observer then the fraudsters will get away with it and ultimately there'll be that many claiming the system will simply break. But hey that's ok so long as we don't upset anyone by actually suggesting benefit claimants try other solutions. I also think you will find if you read on that I sympathised with Medusa's situation once explained. From an outsider it simply looks like she is fine because she's often on here. I think you make a good point, there is no harm in asking, and you are satisfied by the responses, however there are some people who going for these interviews is a huge deal, and for whom the whole ordeal could be detremental to their health. Surely if your GP has signed you off, someone who sees you on a regular basis, then you should take their word for it. How the government thinks they can assess someone through a 30 minute interview is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Unfortunately because of the way claimants are lumped together and demonised (scroungers ring any bells?) people with serious health issues and disabilities must feel ever more vulnerable. That is a possible reason why they try to share their experiences with those of us who are more fortunate in our health. I wouldn't volunteer to swap places with someone who is in constant pain, or who has a permanently limiting physical or mental condition or disability. Would you? I agree, people with serious health issues must be feeling very vulnerable at the moment. Maybe if there weren't so many people defrauding it, the benefit system perhaps wouldn't be under so much scrutiny. No I wouldn't wish to swap with Medusa. Exactly what point are you trying to make? If you read the whole thread you will find I welcome my taxes going towards helping people like Medusa live as comfortable a life as possible. Unfortunately, due to the system being abused, Medusa won't get that help. And yet people are complaining because we ask a few simple questions which Medusa answered in order to sort the fraudsters out from the genuine claimants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muldoon Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I agree, people with serious health issues must be feeling very vulnerable at the moment. Maybe if there weren't so many people defrauding it, the benefit system perhaps wouldn't be under so much scrutiny. No I wouldn't wish to swap with Medusa. Exactly what point are you trying to make? If you read the whole thread you will find I welcome my taxes going towards helping people like Medusa live as comfortable a life as possible. Unfortunately, due to the system being abused, Medusa won't get that help. And yet people are complaining because we ask a few simple questions which Medusa answered in order to sort the fraudsters out from the genuine claimants. Well said Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampster Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Again, have you read the whole thread? Medusa wasn't offended by the question? The question you have quoted out of context wasn't asked with regards to benefit. It was asked with regards to how often Medusa is on here. Yeah I have read the whole thread, whether medusa was offended or not I think it was pretty clear to all and sundry the implications of the weighted question you asked; brought about no doubt by a typical ingnorance of disability issues and the benefits that's disabled people are entitled to. Although, the more I read the less certain I am that you're not simply being obtuse for the sheer hell of it. Maybe if there weren't so many people defrauding it, the benefit system perhaps wouldn't be under so much scrutiny. This same mantra over and over.. As has been pointed out time and again DLA isn't being defrauded on massé far from it. The governement targets of cuts to DLA vastly outstrip both the accepted and (suggested maxiumum) levels of fraud for this particular benefit. I have no objection to targetting fraudsters, but that isn't what this particular change to the system is about. It's about cuts pure and simple.. and targetting the most vulnerable people in society whom are the least likely to actively be able to do anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Yeah I have read the whole thread, whether medusa was offended or not I think it was pretty clear to all and sundry the implications of the weighted question you asked; brought about no doubt by a typical ingnorance of disability issues and the benefits that's disabled people are entitled to. Although, the more I read the less certain I am that you're not simply being obtuse for the sheer hell of it. This same mantra over and over.. As has been pointed out time and again DLA isn't being defrauded on massé far from it. The governement targets of cuts to DLA vastly outstrip both the accepted and (suggested maxiumum) levels of fraud for this particular benefit. I have no objection to targetting fraudsters, but that isn't what this particular change to the system is about. It's about cuts pure and simple.. and targetting the most vulnerable people in society whom are the least likely to actively be able to do anything about it. Why are you just keeping the issue to DLA? Other users have stated that the statistics with regards to DLA fraud are somewhat skewed. It may not be in the titkle of the thread but I observe the "Benefits system" being abused. I do have a disability actually, I have severe visual impairment. One day I'm sure I will need the benefit system as I have done before. I don't want the benefit system to be destroyed. I want it to target the people who need it. Obtuse, where have I failed to grasp anything? I most certainly don't think I've been insensitive. Surely to be insensitive I must know what disabilities users have? It's about cuts pure and simple.. and targetting the most vulnerable people in society whom are the least likely to actively be able to do anything about it You're right it is about cuts. Why are those cuts needed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I agree, people with serious health issues must be feeling very vulnerable at the moment. Maybe if there weren't so many people defrauding it, the benefit system perhaps wouldn't be under so much scrutiny. No I wouldn't wish to swap with Medusa. Exactly what point are you trying to make? If you read the whole thread you will find I welcome my taxes going towards helping people like Medusa live as comfortable a life as possible. Unfortunately, due to the system being abused, Medusa won't get that help. And yet people are complaining because we ask a few simple questions which Medusa answered in order to sort the fraudsters out from the genuine claimants. I was merely trying to point out the reason why people feel the need to explain themselves. I'm not daft enough to think the benefits system isn't abused, of course it is. However DLA is probably the least abused part of the system. I actually did read the whole thread. However, perhaps I shouldn't have included the question 'would you?' in my response. Instead, I should have asked it separately of anyone not affected by serious illness or disability. Would anyone swap a decent quality of life just to get DLA? Unlike you, not everyone considers their taxes well spent in the support of others, however much they may need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Tony wouldnt wish ill health on anyone, i was making a point, anyone can find themselves unable to work due to disability at the drop of a hat, just because one person has managed to carry on regardless does not mean everyone can does it?. Unless you have the sufficient medical degree and full access to the persons medical history how can you judge weather they are worthy of it? I get sick to the back teeth of people judging (benefits aside) i am the parent of a child with a lifelong invisible disability the amounts of raised eyebrows and tuts i get when out and about is pathetic to say the least. As already stated DLA is not means tested those entitled to claim it, would get it regardless. I don't need a medical degree to know what’s wrong with someone when they tell people what is wrong with them in the pub, I also don’t need a medical degree to know they are fit for work when I see them working. I don’t need a medical degree to know that someone that claims to be an alcoholic is fit for work when I see them down the allotment working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cressida Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 Quote Tony Erikson:You're right it is about cuts. Why are those cuts needed? Maybe to use the money to wage war on Iran - who knows? All I know is that I read today we are 1trillion in debt now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Unfortunately because of the way claimants are lumped together and demonised (scroungers ring any bells?) people with serious health issues and disabilities must feel ever more vulnerable. That is a possible reason why they try to share their experiences with those of us who are more fortunate in our health. I wouldn't volunteer to swap places with someone who is in constant pain, or who has a permanently limiting physical or mental condition or disability. Would you? If I was a genuine claimant I would be condemning the work shy scroungers even more because it is they that would be causing me problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Instead, I should have asked it separately of anyone not affected by serious illness or disability. Would anyone swap a decent quality of life just to get DLA? . What if you never knew any different? Lifestyle is relative. I genuinely know someone who hasn't worked a day in their life but isn't in the slightest bit ill. This person knows exactly how to fiddle the medical assessment. I've seen it, the day of the assessment the person simply kept their bed head, dressed shabbily and stayed pretty vacant throughout the interview. Strangely, after 24 years of fraudulently claiming benefits this person now COPD and has been given a legitimate reason to claim. It was the happiest I've seen said person in a long time. By the way, said person still smokes yet happily uses the COPD to claim all they can. Look up my old posts, I started a thread on said person and partner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.