Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: That old can of worms, state benefits...

  1. #1

    Default That old can of worms, state benefits...

    I'm quite actively discussing this in another forum (consumer related, not DL), but was wondering what the perspective of people here is...

    Basically, someone has been quite persistant in maintaining that as i'm claiming various state benefits at the moment (in relation to being disabled, unemployed, and paying for housing) that i'm merely refusing to work, a suggestion that I find highly irritating.

    I tried to explain that being epileptic (thus not being able to drive) and relying on a wheelchair to get around *can* have an impact on your ability to work, but *not* that I didn't or don't want to work. I'd love a job, and I would start tommorow if I could.

    The person's response was that I was just crying out for pity (which I blatantly dismissed, pity is merely a reaction of unaffected persons to satisfy their own sense of humanity, in my opinion - and it certainly doesn't help me) and was making excuses, together with crying out how bad my life was.

    --

    Anyway, I appreciate it's difficult to perhaps form a perspective without the whole discussion but I am trying not to drag people into what is quite a bitter discussion, almost an argument; with that in mind, what is your opinion on the state of the benefit system? [Of the UK, I can't speak for the US or anywhere else]

    I agree that it is abused, and that some are milking it for more than they are entitled to, but surely it serves a purpose - or should those without the means just go away and die?

    I'm curious as to what people think on this issue, so please do tell :-)

    [Note: I placed this in "mature topics" as opposed to "off-topic" as I appreciate it's likely to be, let's say, controversial!]

  2. #2

    Default

    I'm from the US, so I am sure there are differences, but I will try to keep it more generic and hopefully in doing so make it more broadly applicable.

    As far as collecting state benefits, if you are truly unable to work then I think it is fair to collect disability. However, while I understand it might be hard for a disabled individual to find work, especially in this economy, I think that anyone taking benefits from the state should at least be required to actively search for appropriate work, its amazing sometimes how much a disabled individual can do if they actually try.

    The other side of that is the "disabled people" who really do abuse the system, we get them as chronic vistors in the Emergency Department (or A&E across the ocean) who make regular visits in order to support their case that their disability is truly disabling. Though of course some of these people suffer from a unique form of disability, it is only present when they think a healthcare provider is watching, and as soon as they think they arent being watched they undergo a miraculus recovery. Of course the other giveaway is that these people tend to be allergic to every non-narcotic pain medication and the only narctic that works is "that one that begins with d... dila..... "which of course they don't know the name of, and of course in the US we have to keep treating them everytime they come in and working them up for problems because even a habitual drug seeker will die of something, and at times it seems like a large amount of these people are on some state benefit program.

    Also, the other problem with this aspect of people abusing state benefit programs is they learn which complaints get fast attention and long work ups, for example, if you come into an ED and complain of chest pain, you will be quickly bought back and evaluated, and we could end up providing them with thousands of dollars worth of treatments, of which they will pay for none of it (this is really only applicable in the US since we don't have any sort of NHS). Of course the hospital still has to pay its bills, so their inability to pay for treatment which they use as an excuse to stay on the disability rolls ends up the responsible citizen even more money.

    So basically the short summery of all that is: For people who are legitimately disabled, government benefits are a reasonable solution as long as they are actively seeking employment to the level they are capable.

    However we need to take a stronger stance to ensure that the people relieving disability are truly disabled and aren't using certain medical conditions to fake a disability and cost everyone more by abusing the system.

  3. #3

    Default

    I think state benefits are good, but more should be done to stop people abusing it.

    I knew somebody who lived off benefits (unemployment) and I think got help paying for their council house, I'm not sure. But this guy really just didn't work because he was lazy, and when he really needed cash he'd just sell drugs or do the odd job (cash in hand stuff).
    But the worst thing was there's was no motivation to work at all. He was better off NOT working than he was working, because if he had a job he'd lose benefits and have to pay more, and so would be working and have less money!
    That doesn't make sense to me at all... Getting a job isn't in some people's best interests if they don't mind breaking the law a bit...

    So yeah, the government needs to be stricter! I don't really care if the people who can't be arsed "go away and die", but that's not really a feasible option... unless you murdered everybody who committed benefit fraud. But then there's bound to be people who would object to that.

  4. #4
    EmeraldsAndLime

    Default

    State benefits are good for legitimate cases, however down here there is a rampant problem of system abuse.

    Basically (I'm not entirely sure of the criteria here), but if you're out of work you can apply for a fortnightly welfare assistance - "the dole" - to help you through a time of unemployment. However, two big problems arise from this:

    1. People just become lazy and live of this welfare, without actively seeking employment, nor wanting to actually have a job. These people in local terms are called "dole bludgers", which in itself is a should be a fairly self-explanatory term - someone who abuses the system and is just generally a lazy prick, a bum. More often than not these are the people who you see drinking shit beer, wearing shit clothing, pump out babies for the hell of it and waste their welfare on gambling - pretty much the American equivalent of white trash, the "bogan".

    2. People cheat the system, either by lying on the forms they have to fill out or by using aliases to get multiple payments. Both result in the person getting more money than they should, which if they get away with it for long enough can be in the hundreds-of-thousands of dollars. It is a serious offence here, and if they are caught they have to pay every cent back and have some charges laid against them.

    I honestly haven't seen the Australian government do much to prevent either of these cases from happening. Instead, to combat this, they've implemented a system whereby you "work for the dole". Basically, you get placed into a low-end sort of job and actually do a bit of work for your welfare payment. But that still doesn't stop people from cheating the system in the first place.

    Of course, all this hurts taxpayers and people who legitimately need welfare assistance, because the money always has to come from somewhere and people cheating the system doesn't make it fair at all to genuine cases. I'm sure there are quite a few preventative measures in place already, but obviously the system isn't perfect if people are still able to slip through.

  5. #5

    Default

    In Ontario, we have workfare. So you have to be looking for work or be in education to get benefits. Disability benefits are handled totally separately, so you can get them working or not depending on need. Anyways, the only real scam of the system is if you take the minimum amount of education possible then repeatedly fail, but I know of very few people that actually do this. I can't say I've ever seen much of the kind of white-trash welfare scamming scum that parts of America are rife with. If they do exist, then they must rarely leave their subsidized housing. But then, being on welfare here really is pretty crappy compared to having a job.

  6. #6

    Default

    There is no reason to go to extremes here. All citizens are entitled to state benefits. It is the right of all citizens to recieve government support.

  7. #7

    Default

    There's always going to be abuse of the system unfortunately... and I know where I live that often creates this stereotype that everybody on assistance is a lazy bum, which isn't true. It's just the usual case of a couple loud (and in this case quite lazy) people ruining it for the rest.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by sparkmaster View Post
    There is no reason to go to extremes here. All citizens are entitled to state benefits. It is the right of all citizens to recieve government support.
    That is a pretty broad statement to make, do people have a right for the government to support them when they make bad decisions? Do citizens who have scammed the system for years have a right to continued support? Should the government provide all the care for morbidly obese patients who make no attempt to correct their condition and spend days sitting in a couch/bed without moving? Does the government support habitual drug seekers visiting the ED(Emergency Department, really its not a room ) to try to get prescriptions? Does the government support people who choose not to work because they decide sitting at home is more important, especially if they can still get money? Does the government provide aid for individuals who claim they are too poor to see a PCP but still manage to afford satellite television, an SUV, and a large flat screen television? If we say it is a citizens RIGHT to recieve government support can we truly draw a line anywhere?


    Up to here I haven't really been country specific, but moving onto the US, our founders laid out a set of protections in the constitution, which for the most part consisted of things that the government can not do to you, maybe they had a good reason to not include "rights" such as government support.

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by bdb2004 View Post
    That is a pretty broad statement to make, do people have a right for the government to support them when they make bad decisions? Do citizens who have scammed the system for years have a right to continued support? Should the government provide all the care for morbidly obese patients who make no attempt to correct their condition and spend days sitting in a couch/bed without moving? Does the government support habitual drug seekers visiting the ED(Emergency Department, really its not a room ) to try to get prescriptions? Does the government support people who choose not to work because they decide sitting at home is more important, especially if they can still get money? Does the government provide aid for individuals who claim they are too poor to see a PCP but still manage to afford satellite television, an SUV, and a large flat screen television? If we say it is a citizens RIGHT to recieve government support can we truly draw a line anywhere?


    Up to here I haven't really been country specific, but moving onto the US, our founders laid out a set of protections in the constitution, which for the most part consisted of things that the government can not do to you, maybe they had a good reason to not include "rights" such as government support.

    No, we simply can't. The Government has a responsibility to all citizens for their care and welfare. No matter what the choices of the citizen are, the Government still has the responsibility to provide an adequate lifestyle.

    If we really wanted to quantify the responsibility of government, it should be to provide an average lifestyle to all citizens, regardless of choices.

  10. #10

    Default

    I think it depends on what you mean by adequate lifestyle. In the U.S., it would be minimal, as we have friends that are on full disability and medicare. As for you, it would depend on the extent of your disability. Did your seizures put you in the wheel chair? If so, I would say your epilepsy is extreme and you should be on disability.

    I will say this, that my wife is diabetic and has been in a wheel chair for three years because of a wound on the bottom of her foot which won't heal. She is also on dialysis, which we do ourselves at home, six nights a week. With all of this to deal with, she teachers junior high special ed students five days a week, all school year long. Medicare and our hospitalization insurance pays for the dialysis, as it costs close to $30,000 a month. That said, only you know the state of your health, and whether you can work or not. Obviously someone would have to drive you to work, however.

Similar Threads

  1. What State are you from? / Wish
    By Bambusa in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 16-Dec-2008, 17:39
  2. The State Of Play
    By Moo in forum News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 30-Aug-2008, 20:17
  3. Hi from Washington State
    By wetbabyjames in forum Greetings / Introductions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 29-Aug-2008, 01:54
  4. Hi from th Bluegrass state
    By DGrey1964 in forum Greetings / Introductions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 30-Jun-2008, 07:24

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.