do drinkers and drug takers get top pay in dla

Mark148

Whilst you undertook these activities in your youth I take it you were working and paying your taxes thereby contributing towards the system hence your entitlement to it now. There are many arguments for and against the funding of treatment under the NHS for those with illnesses derived from drink etc. The tax levied on alcohol and tobacco should be used to assist in the funding of treating those who need it.

If you haven't contributed to the tax system and use the benefits you receive too continue to fund drink and drugs then in my book the only entitlement you would receive would be the fresh air that you breath.

It may be harsh however that is my stance, if you don't or haven't contributed or don't have extenuating circumstances then you wouldn't receive a penny.

*Chattie*

rotoguys wrote: »

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.

pst you forgot the diabetes 1 to add to your ails, you know I'm surprised you are still alive I do hope your excellent lawyer has your will sewn up tight incase the government get back any of your vast benefits amounts.

rotoguys

Mark148 wrote: »

Whilst you undertook these activities in your youth I take it you were working and paying your taxes thereby contributing towards the system hence your entitlement to it now. There are many arguments for and against the funding of treatment under the NHS for those with illnesses derived from drink etc. The tax levied on alcohol and tobacco should be used to assist in the funding of treating those who need it.

Paying taxes then has no bearing on what is happening now. There is no pot that has my name on it.
Yes I paid taxes, probably some years well above the gross annual wage! My net income between 1989 and 1996 was £1300 per week!

If you haven't contributed to the tax system and use the benefits you receive too continue to fund drink and drugs then in my book the only entitlement you would receive would be the fresh air that you breath.

It may be harsh however that is my stance, if you don't or haven't contributed or don't have extenuating circumstances then you wouldn't receive a penny.

So you would agree that the USA type of welfare system should be operative here in the UK where you only get out a % of what you have paid in.
Maybe that is the reason that the USA now has 'tent towns' much akin to the third world.

rotoguys

*Chattie* wrote: »

pst you forgot the diabetes 1 to add to your ails, you know I'm surprised you are still alive I do hope your excellent lawyer has your will sewn up tight incase the government get back any of your vast benefits amounts.

Brittle Diabetes is one of the 'normal' accepted complications. That in itself is quite easy to control and I do not consider myself as being disabled if that was my only problem. Diabetes is not a disability, the complications of it may be, but the disease itself still allows one to live a normal life.

The benefits we now get are all backed up with evidence so there will never be a time when the government might want to claw them back - unlike quite a few on this site who see being ill as being disabled!

Yes thankyou we have. All of our family wealth, including the considerable amount that I will inherit when my father passes away, is and will be tied up nicely in both a Dicretionary Trust for me and a Discretionary Family Trust for our children and grandchildren.

moose1982

rotoguys wrote: »

Diabetes is not a disability

Yes it is Andy, sorry but it is. It should be especially noted if it is in regards to employment or similar because a diabetic is covered by the Equality Act 2010.

rotoguys

moose1982 wrote: »

Yes it is Andy, sorry but it is. It should be especially noted if it is in regards to employment or similar because a diabetic is covered by the Equality Act 2010.

It is clear that you are referring to my post - but where does this guy Andy come into the equation?

Never mind, probably a slip up on your part.

Being covered by the EA is certainly not the same as being a disability that is recognised by the DWP when awarding disability benefits for an adult. For a child (up to 16) it could possibly be.
I was type 1 when I started my last job and type 1 when I left. My employer had no idea that I was diabetic! You are not obliged to inform them.
My control was carried out at lunch time in private.


You seriously need to look up what the DWP determine what a disability is.

If you discount any complications that arise out of being a diabetic, and just look at the disease itself - you would NOT be entitled to any level of DLA and it would not even be recognised as being a condition that you would be awarded ESA for.

The only reason it is covered by EA is that it is a disease that requires constant and regular attention, time for which must be allowed for by the employer. Much the same as for being pregnant when needing time off for scans, hospital appointments etc.

To even suggest that it is a disability in its own right is clearly an insult to those who are truly disabled by other means.