Osborne looks to slash benefits bill

OptionARMAGEDDON

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.

Sorry, have mates who can testify to being born without use of limbs. Or, developed spinal injuries due to cancer in early life.

OptionARMAGEDDON

RenovationMan wrote: »

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?

Your damn right they shouldnt. But thats my view and one that I accept isnt going to be widely accepted.

ILW

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 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.

A clean living type like yourself is more likely to spend 10 or so years in a care home in old age costing thousands per week than the fat, heavy drinking smoker who will most likely drop dead before getting to claim their pension. The costs probably average out quite evenly.

RenovationMan

OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »

Your damn right they shouldnt. But thats my view and one that I accept isnt going to be widely accepted.

What you're basically saying is that people who are born with disabilities are OK to receive benefits, except those with aspergers, autism or other illness that you don't really know too much about but think is mild. People who are amputees and paraplegic are also OK unless they brought the injury on themselves as in the next paragraph:

Anyone who chooses to smoke or drink shouldn't get any sort of benefit or health assistance, but those who choose other risky lifestyle choices are allowed to receive state assistance. Anyone who eats too much salt are also barred from state medical assistance.

Am I right so far?

RenovationMan

OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »

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.

I'm not arguing, I am just trying to discover your criteria. It seems to me that your new criteria would result in a very large rulebook, would require many more civil servants to administer it, would need more input from doctors to determine whether a disability was 'self-administered', more investigators to gather proof that a disability was 'self-admistered' and would actually be far, far more expensive to run than the current system.

In reality, what you are really saying is that you just don't want to pay taxes in order for other people to benefit from your money. Aren't you? Go on, be honest, that's it isn't it?

OptionARMAGEDDON

No, I am happy to pay taxes. What I am not happy is for that money to be squandered on cases where a little tough love wouldnt be the wrong choice. Unfortunately, as we have cowards in power, we will continue to fritter away cash on social lost causes when the cash should be going directly on investment to grow this country. The welfare budget (along with parts of the NHS budget) are a national disgrace. The chinese rightly pointed this out in my eyes. There IS plenty of cash to go around, but not when we pander to liberals at the cost to common sense. If someone can walk but screams and bites in public, sorry, that doesnt entitle them or their carer to a free car. In fact, there are potential valid questions about whether those individuals should even be out and about if it stresses them so much.

One of the biggest mistakes the last conservative government made was care in the community when actually a national scheme of care would be more appropriate and actually far less costly to the nation in terms of care if assisted by family members in state institutions. The vast majority of disabled people I know hate to be labelled disabled, lead independent, active lives and expect to be treated like equals, as they should. A system of benefits which demeans those values by getting free stuff if you whine loudest doesnt tie in with the values that the vast majority of disabled people try to get across.

And I am sorry, there are far too many "syndromes" out there that can be better explained through upbringing rather than medical condition. I am not talking about aspergers/autism here, but other "disorders" that seem to flit in and out of trend depending on who seems to be able to make cash from them at the time. It seems alcoholism and drug abuse have become part of this too. As to salt, if your doctor tells you that you are fat, need to lose weight and have high blood pressure, yet you refuse to heed his advice and 10 years down the line develop type II diabetes, tough luck. You were warned and were too thick to heed advice. Its called evolution.

Going4TheDream

dori2o wrote: »

The reason why it's a new car is to keep servicing/repairs costs down, plus there's no MOT on a car for it's first 3 years.

As for why they have a right to a car, have you ever thought how a disabled person gets around. How they do their shopping, how they get to appointments, some of which are many, many miles away (my Dad has to travel 135 miles to visit one of his specialists).

It allows those who have drouble getting out the ability to do so without being reliant on another person.

As for the idea of a 'disabled persons transport scheme' or funded taxi's. It's likely that the companies who tender to run such schemes would charge more than the amount that is paid towards the motabilty scheme.

What if someone, on the spur of the moment decided to go out, just to get out of the house. Would the transport be available for 'spur of the moment' outings, or would you need to book days in advance.

Despite what many of the bigots on this forum believe, disabled people have the same rights everyone else has in this country. Unfortunately they don't have the same freedoms that the able bodied enjoy and take for granted.

Motability is a great (if somewhat expensive) scheme and should be protected at all costs.

I agree with most of what you have said however one of the bigger issues is that many who qualify for a car are not well enough to drive it and able body members of their extended family most often not living at the same address essentially are being funded rather large expensive cars on the back of the person in need who then use 99% of the time for personal use and then may go out and pick up the rightful beneficiary of the car once a week to 'take them out' or drop their shopping off etc......surely this is not what the scheme was intended for?

bradburm

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 ?

People aren't just subsisting at the moment though, are they? Cigarettes and mobile phones certainly shouldn't be components of the saftey net.

bradburm

OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »

No, I am happy to pay taxes. What I am not happy is for that money to be squandered on cases where a little tough love wouldnt be the wrong choice.

Exactly my viewpoint.

RenovationMan

OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »

And I am sorry, there are far too many "syndromes" out there that can be better explained through upbringing rather than medical condition. I am not talking about aspergers/autism here, but other "disorders" that seem to flit in and out of trend depending on who seems to be able to make cash from them at the time.

Which syndromes currently result in a mobility car that you feel shouldn't?