We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Osborne looks to slash benefits bill
Comments
-
The one with Aspergers is the one who does not receive DLA.
And why would the Aspergers be ignored, it does cause care needs over and above those experienced in 'normal' people, depending of course on the severity of the condition. For example, he is not safe to be out and about on his own, he has no sense of danger, has appalling short term memory, poor social skills, poor life skills etc.
These are all needs which need to be addressed and yes, do cost extra money for therapies, equipment etc.
Do you actually know what it is like to have a child with ASD?
No I dont, and I am sure its difficult, but I still cant see why you should be entitled to a free car just down to asd. I have no issue with state support, home care, but winging a free car as a choice over that is in my view, utterly wrong.0 -
OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »
That just proves how hard it is to even get DLA, let alone higher care and low mobility. Putting together a 300+ page appeal document and going to a tribunal is not 'easy'.
As far as your other moan about alcoholics. They don't get DLA for being an alcoholic, they get it if they have physical problems caused by alcoholism.
Just like if someone was a smoker and had to have their legs amputated.
Are you saying that the reason behind people's disabilities should be taken into account to determine whether society helps them?0 -
Yes, absolutely. There is something called responsibility that most people in this country seem to have forgotten. You cripple yourself with tabs, booze or drugs, the effects of all are well publicised by national health bodies and expensive ad campaigns, and you shouldnt get an additional penny from the state. Its easy to bleat on about excuse this and excuse that, but at some stage, we need to take responsibility.
Throwing cash and benefits at people who have screwed up their lives hardly sends a message to the following generation does it? And it absolutely bl00dy should.0 -
OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »Yes, absolutely. There is something called responsibility that most people in this country seem to have forgotten. You cripple yourself with tabs, booze or drugs, the effects of all are well publicised by national health bodies and expensive ad campaigns, and you shouldnt get an additional penny from the state. Its easy to bleat on about excuse this and excuse that, but at some stage, we need to take responsibility.
Throwing cash and benefits at people who have screwed up their lives hardly sends a message to the following generation does it? And it absolutely bl00dy should.
What if you cripple yourself because you were rock climbing, bungy jumping, paragliding, parachuting, water skiing, skiing or some other sport that you chose to partake in?0 -
OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »No I dont, and I am sure its difficult, but I still cant see why you should be entitled to a free car just down to asd. I have no issue with state support, home care, but winging a free car as a choice over that is in my view, utterly wrong.
But as said, it is not a given that a child with ASD will receive high rate mobility DLA, some don't receive DLA at all!
Youngest (who does receive DLA), gets LRM (and HRC)...which means no access to a car.
And if you speak to parents of children with an ASD, you will know why in some cases, DLA HRM is received.We made it! All three boys have graduated, it's been hard work but it shows there is a possibility of a chance of normal (ish) life after a diagnosis (or two) of ASD. It's not been the easiest route but I am so glad I ignored everything and everyone and did my own therapies with them.
Eldests' EDS diagnosis 4.5.10, mine 13.1.11 eekk - now having fun and games as a wheelchair user.0 -
Thats different! How can someone who destroys their liver with alcohol, or lungs or heart with smoking, be compared to someone doing an activity which in most cases, will prolong their life through exercise!
Look, its quite simple. If the pot of cash is only so deep, the priority has to be those who are born with serious disablements (and I am talking about paraplegics, amputees and those needing round the clock care) should be the priority. At the same time, the state has an equal duty of care in my view to the taxpayer, who ultimately funds these schemes. Its not a limitless plot and a common sense approach has to be tacked onto much of this. That unfurtunately for some, includes looking at entitlements such as free cars! (albeit to the sacrifice of DLA as mentioned above).
I do have to ask this, if purchasing a new car was less costly than their DLA allowance, why are so many getting onto the motability scheme and not funding it through their DLA? Or, is it, like I suspect, because they can now afford an executive car (Vauxhall insignia) instead of the ford fiesta they would have had instead if the scheme didnt exist?0 -
OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »Thats different! How can someone who destroys their liver with alcohol, or lungs or heart with smoking, be compared to someone doing an activity which in most cases, will prolong their life through exercise!
Why is it different? You said people have to take responsibility for their own actions. The risks from those sorts of sports (plus others such as Rugby and motor sports) are well documented and so, using your own criteria, people who make the decision to do those sports should take responsibility if things go wrong, surely?
If people hurt themselves while having fun, why should we pick up the tab?OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »Look, its quite simple. If the pot of cash is only so deep, the priority has to be those who are born with serious disablements (and I am talking about paraplegics, amputees and those needing round the clock care) should be the priority.
People aren't born as amputees or paraplegics they become that way due to accidents, misadventures, illnesses, etc. which brings us back to my point above.0 -
if I go out and play footie or rugger twice a week, the AVERAGE long term cost to the state will be negative. IE, the health benefits and subsequent cost to the NHS farm far outweigh the very minor risks to life, limb and possibly a DLA claim. Compare this to some slob who drinks a bottle of wine each night or smokes 20 a day, or even, eats far more than their RDA for salt, fat and calories. These life choices are currently costing the NHS and subesquently ME big bucks! And its not statistically insignificant. If you are a lifelong heavy smoker or drinker IT WILL negatively affect your health (and cost to me).
Not only are they at increased risk of cancers, heart disorders and organ failure, it seems I am also expected to pick up their tab so they are entitled to drive themselves down the pub to feed their addiction!
Sorry, but I really cant believe you are arguing this. Tough love in many (most?) cases would reform the individual rather than this wishy washy approach that does little other than reinforce what they see as their behavioural "norms" and in most cases, compound the issue.0 -
Shakethedisease wrote: »Yes but those who work are receiving more income than the basic subsistence levels ( in general ) to live. Freezing JSA when inflation for food, electricty, gas bills etc are rising so high, not to mention rent levels rising at record rates when LHA is already being cut to the lowest 30% rates ?
A mistake. Blood out of a stone IMHO. Benefits should always be raised the basic level of subsistence taking inflation into account. Otherwise, well, people won't subsist will they ?
Why is this a basic right?
I have had a pay freeze for 3 years now (work in the private sector) AT 5% INLFATION I am considerably worse off, if I am taking the pinch then those on benefits should also take a hit.
When I was on JSA ( for 3 weeks until i found a job) I was sat around people talking about where they were going to buy their next hit from, not sure if Smack has followed inflation....
Those on benefits need to take a hit too as lie in the employed world is ironically just as tough to survive, having to pay rent, council tax etc takes its tole
0 -
OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »if I go out and play footie or rugger twice a week, the AVERAGE long term cost to the state will be negative. IE, the health benefits and subsequent cost to the NHS farm far outweigh some slob who drinks a bottle of wine each night or smokes 20 a day, or even, eats far more than their RDA for salt, fat and calories. These life choices are currently costing the NHS and subesquently ME big bucks!
Not only are they at increased risk of cancers, heart disorders and organ failure, it seems I am also expected to pick up their tab so they are entitled to drive themselves down the pub to feed their addiction!
Sorry, but I really cant believe you are arguing this. Tough love in many (most?) cases would reform the individual rather than this wishy washy approach that does little other than reinforce what they see as their behavioural "norms" and in most cases, compound the issue.
What if the rugby player gets a neck injury that turns him into a quadraplegic. Does he get a car in your criteria?
Are you now widening the discussion to say that anyone who drinks or smokes shouldn't be entitled to any state health care at all?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards