The state benefits system mega-thread.

[Kursk]

War brings about status change whether or not it is appropriate I suppose. Your family nonetheless became participants in and contributors to the way of life of its host; they will be men used to 'putting in' to the system in the expectation of getting something out. The principle is just as valid today and we shouldn't encourage anyone to expect something for nothing imho especially newcomers.

[Osem]

We've done far too much of that, I believe - confering rights without responsibilities or expectations - allowing the majority of hardworking and decent people to be increasingly put upon in order to accommodate the wants and desires of a minority who contribute little or nothing to society and refuse to behave responsibly. Those who need help/support should get it. Those who choose to ride on the back of the system should be shown up for what they are and have concessions removed not added to. Those who come here to contribute to our society should be welcomed. Those who come here purely to abuse the system and even undermine their host society should never be given citizenship (or have it removed) and should be deported. We cannot soak up the world's needy or allow 'asylum' to continue to be a byword for economic migration. There will always be those undeserving who're able to exploit any system but right now ours is far too relaxed about the abuse it's being subjected to whether that be the hordes queueing up in Calais or those who come here under clearly false pretences and then cynically commence a systematic abuse of the asylum/welare system. Refuge, opportunity and welfare here should be earned and seen as a reward not as an entitlement to anyone who wants it.

[Chrysalis]

In regards to the private sickness insurance scheme, there is no surprise there.

A certain American health insurance company has long been having input into the sickness benefit assessments this country uses and have probably been lobbying for a while to take over the role from the DWP. So its just another idea to shift taxpayer money to private enterprises.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

So its just another idea to shift taxpayer money to private enterprises.

You are Jeremy Corbyn and I claim my £5.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Osem

We've done far too much of that, I believe - confering rights without responsibilities or expectations - allowing the majority of hardworking and decent people to be increasingly put upon in order to accommodate the wants and desires of a minority who contribute little or nothing to society and refuse to behave responsibly. Those who need help/support should get it. Those who choose to ride on the back of the system should be shown up for what they are and have concessions removed not added to. Those who come here to contribute to our society should be welcomed. Those who come here purely to abuse the system and even undermine their host society should never be given citizenship (or have it removed) and should be deported. We cannot soak up the world's needy or allow 'asylum' to continue to be a byword for economic migration. There will always be those undeserving who're able to exploit any system but right now ours is far too relaxed about the abuse it's being subjected to whether that be the hordes queueing up in Calais or those who come here under clearly false pretences and then cynically commence a systematic abuse of the asylum/welare system. Refuge, opportunity and welfare here should be earned and seen as a reward not as an entitlement to anyone who wants it.

I haven't heard one sensible person oppose the idea of those who can work should and that receipt of benefits should come with responsibility as there are those who feel they have a right to money no matter how irresponsibly they act. That doesn't mean the Tories program is achieving any of that beyond sound bites and too many with genuine medical problems both diagnosed and confirmed by medical professionals are getting hit whilst the worst abusers are managing to skate by yet again.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

I haven't heard one sensible person oppose the idea of those who can work should and that receipt of benefits should come with responsibility as there are those who feel they have a right to money no matter how irresponsibly they act. That doesn't mean the Tories program is achieving any of that beyond sound bites and too many with genuine medical problems both diagnosed and confirmed by medical professionals are getting hit whilst the worst abusers are managing to skate by yet again.

It is not whether you have or allege you, a particular medical problem, it is how it affects you. Often all a GP will do is repeat what the claimant had said.

Depression is the new "back pain". You only have the claimants word for it and often it is a matter of just "feeling down".

That's why I'm not on about mental health I agree it's a minefield I'm talking about chronic psychical problems like Parkinson's, arthritis, muscular dystrophy, ankylosing spondylitis and cystic fibrosis. People with chronic forms of all those conditions have been recently classed as fit for work with far more then just a GP to vouch for their condition. Their appeals for those lucky to have a date are in two years time and when they win as they will they will get sent back for reassessment and back on the merry go round we go. There are many good ideas in the world with lousy implementation and these so called reforms are a prime example. Cannot argue with the language or the base principle and if you don't bother to pay attention to the implementation alls good I guess but the reality is these reforms are totally missing the worst abusers of the system and are hitting non abusers.

Please don't give me the "few innocents will be hit" line as when dealing with chronic conditions an abundance of information and evidence is made available problem is many assessors are not doctors or even medical personnel they just went through the company's assessment training course. They don't want to admit they don't understand the information or know it at all so just give a mark regardless. I want reform, I want a system that is fair to both those who receive it and those whose contributions make it possible but this isn't it and everyone deserves better considering the sums of money involved are not small.

[nomadking]

And those conditions don't necessarily go from "0-60" overnight. They progress at slow speeds over several years. At the beginning might well be different from 10 years later.

From UK Parkinson's website

It's important to remember that everyone's experience of Parkinson's is different. Not everyone will experience all of these symptoms.
The order in which symptoms appear and the way symptoms progress also varies from person to person.

It may take a long time to get to this stage

The term 'advanced Parkinson's' usually refers to a time when your symptoms are more complex and have more of an effect on your day-to-day life. You may find that you're no longer able to do tasks such as washing and dressing without help from someone else, perhaps a carer.

Healthcare professionals often refer to different 'stages' of Parkinson's. These include:

• Early or diagnosis stage: the time when someone is first experiencing symptoms, being diagnosed and then coming to terms with this
• Maintenance stage: when symptoms are controlled, perhaps by medication
• Advanced stage: often called the 'complex phase'
• Palliative stage: providing relief from the symptoms, stress and pain of the condition

Everyone with Parkinson's is different and symptoms will progress at a different rate. It's nothing to do with your age or how long you've had Parkinson's.

Michael J Fox was still working in front of cameras more than 20 years after being diagnosed.

I guess you just glossed over the word chronic in relation to the progress of their conditions I mentioned it twice the second time denoting the progress of their condition. To be honest I should have known better then to come back here everyone says "they should get it if needed" but don't really believe that and don't really care how it's being implemented my mistake won't bother you again.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

I guess you just glossed over the word chronic in relation to the progress of their conditions I mentioned it twice the second time denoting the progress of their condition. To be honest I should have known better then to come back here everyone says "they should get it if needed" but don't really believe that and don't really care how it's being implemented my mistake won't bother you again.

Chronic means long term. It is DIFFERENT from acute. 20 years and still able to work in the case of Michael J Fox, does not suggest acute.

[Taf]

2 single mums near us have just been referred to slimming and keep fit classes to prepare them both for work. Both have a child each of around 5 years of age.

They appear to be trying for a second child each judging by the flow of different males they bring home recently.

Or maybe they are getting them to do some jobs around the house?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Taf

Or maybe they are getting them to do some jobs around the house?

In a manner of speaking

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Taf

2 single mums near us have just been referred to slimming and keep fit classes to prepare them both for work. Both have a child each of around 5 years of age.

They appear to be trying for a second child each judging by the flow of different males they bring home recently.

Or maybe they are getting them to do some jobs around the house?

I'm sure their decision has nothing whatsoever to do with continuing a life on benefits and a convenient reason for not working. Possibly they're just supplementing their meagre state income and paying any tax due of course...

Not a million miles from here we have a couple of large families in a HA owned development. I've lost count of how many kids they have between them but none of those who've left school appear to be working and most of them seem to have already followed their parents' example and wasted no time producing their own offspring. Given that they struggle to look after themselves their only ambition, if you can call it that, appears to be having kids to get benefits and ultimately more social housing. I wonder what their children will aspire to...

[Jimmy-J]

Why not just leave them to get on with their lives and we get on with ours?