Welfare reforms

ankspon

Heard this morning the Government lost a vote on welfare reforms regarding cancer patients going onto income related benefits from contribution based after 12 months,how long before they sneak it through?

colin13

unfortunalley,,this vote was in rhe lords,,if and when the government wish,,they can still pass the law through,,at least this gives the public knowledge,that they ain t getting there own way,,but will need to fight for there reforms,,inlesss they decide to use the parliment act

Oldernotwiser

I don't believe that cancer patients should be treated any differently from patients with other life threatening medical conditions, just because they have a more powerful lobbying force.

krisskross

My husband had surgery to remove cancer last year. Not all cancers are the same or carry the same life threatening risk. Very wrong in my opinion to lump all cancers together.

Le73Uq86Uv

They are more likely to agree to let cancer patients have it as they may be dead within the year anyway.

What about all the others who paid into the system, saved money and worked hard all their lves and can't get benifits because they have got to much money.

My advice is spend, spend, spend and enjoy it while you can, then you can get state help if you ever need it.

Oldernotwiser

Le73Uq86Uv wrote: »

They are more likely to agree to let cancer patients have it as they may be dead within the year anyway.
.

That's a silly thing to say and very unhelpful to anybody reading this who currently has cancer!

The vast majority of cancer patients live for many years and cure rates are rising all the time. There are plenty of other conditions that are as life threatening as most cancers.

Weary_soul

Next time you hear a government official try and justify them pushing through these terrible welfare reforms by saying they can't afford the expenditure just remember this.

"Top Tory Chris Grayling has claimed £104,183 of taxpayers’ money over six years for a London flat – even though he has a family home just 17 miles away from Westminster.

And neighbours of the Shadow Home Secretary say they “rarely, if ever” see him at the Westminster flat where his postbox is packed with unopened mail.

On the eve of becoming an MP in June 2001, Mr Grayling, 46, paid £127,000 for the one-bedroom flat in a six-storey block, which has views of Westminster Cathedral and is only a short stroll from the House of Commons.

But a local estate agent said the value of properties in the block had soared to between £210,000 and £330,000, despite the recession.

Our inquiry sparked claims from MPs last night that Mr Grayling would trouser a huge profit from the London property market, largely thanks to taxpayers’ c.ash..

Last night, campaigning Lib Dem MP Norman Baker attacked Mr Grayling’s use of taxpayers’ cash, saying: “MPs get this allowance to help carry out their duties. It is not intended to make a capital gain on property.”

The rest here...

http://ldv.org.uk/11617

Oldernotwiser

Totally irrelevant to the situation being discussed.

Weary_soul

Not imo no. I mean the government should look to themselves before telling others that they can't be helped when (unlike Grayling) they're in desperate need.

Rule by example and all that.

Prinzessilein

Le73Uq86Uv wrote: »

They are more likely to agree to let cancer patients have it as they may be dead within the year anyway.

What a stupid thing to say!

My heart goes out to those who have life-limiting conditions, and to all who have a loved one taken from them by cancer......but not all cancer means death within a year is likely......

Thank goodness noone thought this about 10 years ago (more or less) when I had a lump removed....I took one day off work to see my GP, the following week I had anopther day to see the consultant. I then took two days off work for the operation and later had another day off for a check-up with the consultant...5 days off work in total! No need for DLA (I claim it for other conditions - but this lumpectomy had no impact on my care/mobility needs) and no question of my dying within a year!

Thank goodness noone thought to tell my beloved mother this when she had her lump. Hers was more serious than mine. But they removed it and gave her therapy....not even a suggestion she might die within a year. No DLA (or as she is an OAP Attendance Allowance) was applied for as it was not needed!

Thank goodness noone mentioned it to my sister when the GP noticed a mole looking 'suspicious'. It turned out to be malignant and she was in hospital for all of two days to have it removed. No care/mobility issues so no DLA applied for. No mention of less than a year to live!

One 'typical' family with three reasons why cancer does not necessarily mean death with a year!

skibadee

As a person who was diagnosed with cancer 8yrs ago.....and thankfully still in remission I welcome this, but I do agree, there are other life limiting conditions which should be included.
I think the argument re., cancer paitents was the fact they were planning to limit benefit whilst paitents were recieving chemotherapy...which is a traumatic, but much needed treatment for some cancer paitents and leaves them temporarily ( hopefully temporarily ) unable to work whilst under-going it.
However I do think this act still needs lobbying to take into account other life limiting conditions as many of these appear to of been forgotten.

Le73Uq86Uv.........you obviously,....... thankully,... have no knowledge or understanding of cancer!!!!!!