do drinkers and drug takers get top pay in dla

winterwhite11

i heard that drinkers and drug takers get top dla benefit, i wondered how much they get a week if it is true and why would they be given all this extra money just to drink and drug it away.

System

depends if they care or mobility needs...

jennie-jack

are you asking seriously or to start an arguement?

they would only get dla if they qualify with care or mobility needs that coincide with the rates of dla.

rotoguys

winterwhite11 wrote: »

i heard that drinkers and drug takers get top dla benefit, i wondered how much they get a week if it is true and why would they be given all this extra money just to drink and drug it away.

Anybody with care needs and/or mobility issues would be awarded DLA. The causes of those needs could range from cancer to drug and alcohol abuse.

The maximum that can be awarded is currently £125.00 per week on top of any other benfits and receiving DLA could give rise to further benefit entitlemnt elsewhere.

Max DLA + ESA Support Group = minimum £225.00 a week.

winterwhite11

no, not trying to start arguement. i just wondered.
i don,t like reading people on here cannot get dla for their child etc..but people who chose to make themselves ill get free money.
i don,t like to see anyone suffer but it also just don,t seem right.
can,t they make the drink drugs go into clinic to try to help them get better.

copa_feela

winterwhite11 wrote: »

no, not trying to start arguement. i just wondered.
i don,t like reading people on here cannot get dla for their child etc..but people who chose to make themselves ill get free money.
i don,t like to see anyone suffer but it also just don,t seem right.
can,t they make the drink drugs go into clinic to try to help them get better.

You are very naive. Few people choose to become addicted to something so destructive, in the same way that few people choose to overeat and develop obesity related health conditions, or choose to have sex and become infected with HIV.

If you think that "the drink drugs" should simply go to a clinic to get better, where do you suggest that the funding comes from? Few get the help that they need within the NHS, and there is no more funding available to them.

Mark148

copa_feela wrote: »

You are very naive. Few people choose to become addicted to something so destructive, in the same way that few people choose to overeat and develop obesity related health conditions, or choose to have sex and become infected with HIV.

If you think that "the drink drugs" should simply go to a clinic to get better, where do you suggest that the funding comes from? Few get the help that they need within the NHS, and there is no more funding available to them.

And you're to LIBERAL and PINK, if people voluntarily choose to take drugs and drink beyond a reasonable level to which they become addicts then yes I believe they deserve an 'element' of support.

They DO NOT deserve to then live of DLA and other benefits for an eternity. This is tax payers money and a line has to be drawn somewhere in the sand. All those deserving cases to the left (Cancer, MS etc) and all those non deserving to the right (drug addicts, alcoholics etc).

I would rather see money go to pensioners and social care programmes such as day centres etc than to alcoholics and druggies.

skipsmum

Mark148 wrote: »

All those deserving cases to the left (Cancer, MS etc) and all those non deserving to the right (drug addicts, alcoholics etc).

I would rather see money go to pensioners and social care programmes such as day centres etc than to alcoholics and druggies.

What about all those drug addicts and alcoholics who were failed by society as children and turned to drink and drugs to block out abuse?
It is never a black and white situation.

WhiteHorse

copa_feela wrote: »

Few people choose to become addicted to something so destructive, in the same way that few people choose to overeat and develop obesity related health conditions, or choose to have sex and become infected with HIV.

Stop it. You're slaying me.

Mark148

We can't live a life and make excuses for everything in our past having a detrimental impact on our life now and in the future. Yes it may be hard however it does not mean that as a society we should financially pay the bill to fully support all people throughout life. By all means give assistance when and where required but as an alcoholic or drug addicts then this should only be a short term financial assistance. After that then you are financially on your own, why should I and the rest of the UK tax payers fund these people throughout life.

You have to draw a line somewhere and that is where mine would be. I can't stand professional spongers who have never contributed to society and all they do is take. If it was up to me and after a certain period of time to better their circumstances they would be out on their ear with nothing other than a cardboard box to live from with no other financial support. The system owes you NOTHING unless you have fairly contributed throughout your adult life or you have legitimate grounds for support.

If this country is too liberal and pink then it will NEVER improve and we will always be in this financial mire of a stuation we find ourselves in now. Here endeth my soap box moment )

rotoguys

Mark148 wrote: »

And you're to LIBERAL and PINK, if people voluntarily choose to take drugs and drink beyond a reasonable level to which they become addicts then yes I believe they deserve an 'element' of support.

They DO NOT deserve to then live of DLA and other benefits for an eternity. This is tax payers money and a line has to be drawn somewhere in the sand. All those deserving cases to the left (Cancer, MS etc) and all those non deserving to the right (drug addicts, alcoholics etc).

I would rather see money go to pensioners and social care programmes such as day centres etc than to alcoholics and druggies.

But then what about those in the middle. Those that because of drinking especially in their youth and later years that aren't 'addicts' yet have caused irrepairable damage to their organs such as Liver or Pancreas that arises later on in life?

I say that because I fall into that category. I used to drink heavilly until I was 35, then I stopped and became the 'occasional drinker at social events' Now at 58, I live with a knackered Pancreas that is more than likely to develop into Pancreatic Cancer.

You could say that that was self inflicted.

Should I be entitled to the DLA I get because of the many complications that have arisen such as not being able to walk very far? I continue to smoke and know that in doing so, it will cause still more complications - heart attack, stroke etc.