MSE News: George Osborne to make £10bn welfare cuts

Morlock

clemmatis wrote: »

But the interesting content/novel element in MissMoneypenny's



eludes me. I'd assumed the "thankers" were endorsing it.

Of course they were endorsing it. It was a personal attack but hints at a wider, general mindset of 'indignant, self-righteous taxpayer'.:A

clemmatis

Morlock wrote: »

Of course they were endorsing it. It was a personal attack but hints at a wider, general mindset of 'indignant, self-righteous taxpayer'.:A

So I thought. Not that you weren't rude! (It's perchance that I failed to take a swipe at you for saying "old"... .) But the attitude that informs MissMoneyPenny's attack stinks.

Princessdon, please read posts #632, 644, 663, 666, 714 and 715 again.

Morlock

princessdon wrote: »

I have read the thread and I wouldn't be too much worse off if I gave up work.

If I ever found myself on benefits (and NO ONE can say they won't) - I would always expect workers to be better off financially.

But you just stated that you are financially better off by working.

Morlock

clemmatis wrote: »

So I thought. Not that you weren't rude! (It's perchance that I failed to take a swipe at you for saying "old"... .)

I was, admittedly, rude, and apologise to those who were unintentionally insulted.

clemmatis wrote: »

But the attitude that informs MissMoneyPenny's attack stinks.

Her attitude always stinks in my opinion.

stroodes

Workers should always be better off and not by a little but more than a little than those that do not work or cannot work.

I also get annoyed by people that cannot tell the difference between loose and lose.

wattdallas

krisskross wrote: »

Was the intention of the drug for contraception in an 8 year old?

Did you really think that your 8 year old was being given medication for contraceptive purposes?

I apologise in advance but I am going to use my husband as an example.

He has injections/infusions weekly of cytotoxic (kill cells) drugs. Now the drugs he has are used as part of chemotherapy in the treatment of cancer.

It was just serendipity that cancer patients who also suffer the same disease as my husband noticed improvements in the symptoms of this other disease. Further tests and research were done and these cytotoxic drugs are now used for purposes other than treating cancer. So although my husband rather depends on these anti cancer drugs they would not, in his case, be describes as cancer treatment because they are not used for that purpose.

Another drug used for more than 1 problem is propanolol. This is a beta blocker and originally and is still used to control high blood pressure. I am prescribed this drug but I don't have high blood pressure. I have it to help with the panic attacks I get as the result of PTSD. This drug was sometimes used by snooker players as it stops shaky hands. I believe it is banned in that area now.

So if female hormones drugs are used it will not necessarily be for contraceptive purposes and should not be described as such.

If a nun is prescribed medication to relieve unpleasant menstrual symptoms she is hardly likely to call it contraception is she even if some of the components of the medication would have that effect as a side effect.

People need to be better educated about medication so they understand it.

Put it this way ,when i told family and close friends that she was having these injections itold them it was the same as contraception so they understood.

Yes people do need to be more educated but it was you who didnt know or understand that hormone therapy as you described it IS a contraception.

FBaby

It is a fact that many people on benefits have more disposable income than many full time workers but it is easier to ignore it by sticking to income as a whole rather than disposable income. It its this fact that is causing 'the feeling' because it is just wrong in every way. It is an insult and a deterrent to those who work hard and an incentive to those who don't. It is only the raising of this awareness that is resulting in more people having a very low opinion of benefits.

mazza111

There are many people worse off in benefits too. Having children seems to boost the disposable income part.

An under 25 who's too ill for work, who've had their own home, but not sick enough for DLA, would only have £56 to run their home. Which is abysmal in all honesty. The rate for unemployed is the same. So in theory, you these are people who could have been working for 9 years, then find themselves unemployed/sick and are given this. I really find it unfair on them. The £71 (i think this is the figure) is more than ample, but the £56 seems meager. Especially for those who have been in employment. Now let's take their HB away from them too. How on earth would they afford to pay their rent? Again, I think £56 is ample when someone is living with their parents.


No one should be better off out of work than in work. I was slightly better off in work, not by much though. I think this margin does need to increase.

It's the people who keep having kids every 5 years to stop them needing to go out to work that I have to wonder about.

It's the sick and disabled who have been targeted so far, now it's the under 25s.



BTW it was me who described contraceptives as contraceptives. Whether they are prescribed as contraceptives or not, it's still what they are imho. But that could just be me calling a spade a spade, just like beta blockers are betablockers, even though prescribed for something else, just as anti depressants are prescribed for something else, they are still anti depressants.


I think the blocking point here is, some people get too much on benefits. Some people just don't get enough. The under 25s who've been sensible enough not to go out and get pregnant, go out to work then find themselves out of work, are the ones who are penalised the most. The under 25s who have had a couple of babies already.... well, I'm pretty sure they get more than enough.

I'll reiterate again, I don't believe anyone should be better off on benefits. But I do believe we need to look after our sick and disabled. Not just because I have a daughter like this, but when I worked in sheltered housing, I seen a lot of people get abuse because they were disabled/benefit claimants. Granted, yes, my dd having this has highlighted a lot for me. Although maybe because it's more personal to me now I see it more often.

And yes, some people can work with disabilities, hats off to them, but those who can't shouldn't be penalised to chastised because they can't.

clemmatis

FBaby wrote: »

It is a fact that many people on benefits have more disposable income than many full time workers but it is easier to ignore it by sticking to income as a whole rather than disposable income. It its this fact that is causing 'the feeling'

The "feeling"? MissMoneypenny's feeling that benefit claimants (or people she thinks are benefit claimants) have less right to be rude than people like her (whoever she is)? Her feeling that she can threaten retaliation?

Originally_Posted_by_MissMoneypenny wrote:

That's not a clever thing to say to say to another poster, when they are one of the people who feeds, houses, clothes, etc, you. Have you ever heard the saying "Never bite the hand that feeds you"?

I'd think that stank even if it was Joseph Rowntree who'd said it.

krisskross

wattdallas wrote: »

Put it this way ,when i told family and close friends that she was having these injections itold them it was the same as contraception so they understood.

Why would they need to be told this ? Why would they not understand simply that your daughter was having hormone treatment for precocious puberty?

I think I understand rather more about medical stuff than you, apart from your obvious in depth knowledge of your daughter's illness. I see huge potential dangers in people describing drugs as something for what they are not intended. What if teens prescribed hormone therapy for menstruation problems are told it is contraception and become pregnant as a result of missing the odd dose as they haven't been given the full information required to use a drug for contraceptive purposes?

Sometimes people are too casual about drug use and terminology. I saw many accidental overdoses because people did not understand the usage of their prescribed medications.