My mobility issues aren't helped by my weight but my disability is not caused by my weight
My weight gain was caused by my disability
It's up to them, they are entitled to that money regardless if they spend it on their disability or 10 takeaways a week
Quite frankly it's none of your business
I bet some of you families money goes on more than just your disabilities!
I was wondering how they talk about a working mans club, where someone allegedly drinks £45 worth of beer while they are in there?
They must have been in there for some time to see that, or perhaps they were just taking notes while his disabled wife and child sat at home.
I was wondering how they talk about a working mans club, where someone allegedly drinks £45 worth of beer while they are in there?
They must have been in there for some time to see that, or perhaps they were just taking notes while his disabled wife and child sat at home.
Takes a pretty sad person to be sat in a pub tottimng up the drinks someone's having
If that holiday benefits your son then why not? There is no restriction on how the money is spent, my God it's hard enough to get disability benefits as it is without others criticising how that money is spent.
On that subject what do you spend your benefits on? Are you open to the same criticism...how about itemising what your income is spent on...
Maybe the OP's problem is that he thinksthat others are judging him? I can't see a problem with people using their benefits to go on holiday. You can get deals with one of the newspapers where a holiday costs £20 I think. I have my dogs though so I stay at home.
Maybe the OP's problem is that he thinksthat others are judging him? I can't see a problem with people using their benefits to go on holiday. You can get deals with one of the newspapers where a holiday costs £20 I think. I have my dogs though so I stay at home.
OP sounds very bitter...I can't understand people looking at what others may have. I don't have a problem how much someone, in poor health, spends ...quality of life and all that.
Sometimes people have nothing to go home for. Maybe that's why they eat out or have a few drinks in a pub. Loneliness can be a terrible thing. And also not everone is fat from food...meds can make you gain weight and thyroid problems and a ton of other things...it not always about the food. Oh and be careful cause Karma's a bitch.
Why do we need legislation to cover what should be considered common courtesy? How bizarre that some people need to be told under what circumstances we should be considerate to another human being who might be struggling with a physical or mental health issue.
I was wondering how they talk about a working mans club, where someone allegedly drinks £45 worth of beer while they are in there?
They must have been in there for some time to see that, or perhaps they were just taking notes while his disabled wife and child sat at home.
I wonder who funds the OPs boozing. After all he says all the DLA money is spent 'correctly' and he has claims to be a house husband whilst his wife works so does that mean he spends his wife's hard earnings on booze?
Takes a pretty sad person to be sat in a pub tottimng up the drinks someone's having
I wasn't totting anything up. The guy told us himself. He was practically bragging about how he had this allowance to help him stay off the booze but instead used it to pay for drinking.
Totally agree with the above - it's no-one's business except the claimants.
I think seeing as it's public funds and welfare money that is being dished out here, we all have a right to question it when people are claiming money to help with their disability that's totally self inflicted by eating/drinking/drugs or smoking too much etc and then that person goes and spends that money to eat/drink/smoke themselves to death.
I'm all up for giving money to help someone who is willing to help themselves but I don't see why the public should fund someone's eating/smoking/drinking addiction and be given benefits just so they can squander it on the one thing that the money is there to help them get over. Some of these people have little intentions of ever helping themselves. Why should the taxpayer keep funding them? Why should the NHS keep paying to treat people who refuse to stop eating, drinking, smoking etc.
I think seeing as it's public funds and welfare money that is being dished out here, we all have a right to question it when people are claiming money to help with their disability that's totally self inflicted by eating/drinking/drugs or smoking too much etc and then that person goes and spends that money to eat/drink/smoke themselves to death.
I'm all up for giving money to help someone who is willing to help themselves but I don't see why the public should fund someone's eating/smoking/drinking addiction and be given benefits just so they can squander it on the one thing that the money is there to help them get over. Some of these people have little intentions of ever helping themselves. Why should the taxpayer keep funding them? Why should the NHS keep paying to treat people who refuse to stop eating, drinking, smoking etc.
Strange how you have changed your tune over people having the right to quesition how people spend their benefits, not long ago you were making very plain that how it was nothing to do with anyone else http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1931771&highlight= . Or does that only apply to YOUR friends ?
Strange how you have changed your tune over people having the right to quesition how people spend their benefits, not long ago you were making very plain that how it was nothing to do with anyone else http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1931771&highlight= . Or does that only apply to YOUR friends ?
That was a different matter altogether. People ARE free to spend their money on what they like but I don't see why obese people should keep getting money so they can keep stuffing their faces when they refuse to help themselves. It's not the same thing at all. I'm talking about a situation that is mostly self inflicted.
Do you think someone who smokes who refuses to quit should keep getting treated at our expense? Should he be entitled to claim disability for a self inflicted condition of which he has no intentions of giving up? Should alcoholics be allowed to keep getting liver transplants when they wont stop drinking?
That was a different matter altogether. People ARE free to spend their money on what they like but I don't see why fat people should keep getting money so they can keep stuffing their faces when they refuse to help themselves. It's not the same thing.
But has thier disabilty caused them to gain weight, so many things you dont know,,
Wizard-so long as you are getting what you're entitled to, why worry so much? There will always be those who play the system, that will never change. Of course it's annoying and unfair on the genuine claimants, but you can only control what you do and take responsibility for that.
Seems to me that people with obesity are an easy target, as it's a visible condition and one which people feel entitled to make an assumption about the person, when it is far more complicated.
This is like that Simpsons episode where Homer deliberately gains weight to get on disability allowance. It would be funnier if it weren't reflected as a sad indictment of modern Western society, because even Homer continued working - albeit at home - whereas this thread is questioning benefits for jobless people who happen to have got themselves morbidly obese. Sucks that they not only contribute the least, but they require more resources in terms of NHS care.
That was a different matter altogether. People ARE free to spend their money on what they like but I don't see why obese people should keep getting money so they can keep stuffing their faces when they refuse to help themselves. It's not the same thing at all. I'm talking about a situation that is mostly self inflicted.
Do you think someone who smokes who refuses to quit should keep getting treated at our expense? Should he be entitled to claim disability for a self inflicted condition of which he has no intentions of giving up? Should alcoholics be allowed to keep getting liver transplants when they wont stop drinking?
Yet you are a smoker yourself, and you have admitted to being a heavy drinker who drinks to much and spends most nights in the pub, yet you will still being treated on the NHS. From 6 days ago 've been drinking too much recently and it's starting to become a problem but I'm finding it hard to think of stuff to do in the evenings that doesn't involve going to the pub and thought perhaps you could help give me some ideas of things to do to avoid being around the booze.
I wake up in the morning with all best intentions of not having a drink that day but come the evening I'm realty ratty if I can't go out. I have started to drink more and more and think I'm borderline of becoming dependent on going out for a drink. I just hate staying in looking at the same 4 walls especially when I've been stuck in all day looking after my little one and doing housework.
So you'd have no issue with us taking my sons DLA money and blowing it on a family holiday then?
Funny how DS members have double standards when it suits them. I bet if someone had posted about someone on disability benefits spending all day boozing it up in the pub whilst they (the tax payer) was out at work working hard to provide for their family I'm dead sure most of you wouldn't take the same, "it's their money to do with as they like' attitude.
DLA money is given to the claimant so they spend it on help towards their disability. That is why they are awarded it because they presumably need more help than someone who isn't disabled. It's NOT given to them so they can go out and booze it/smoke it/eat it away etc. That is NOT why it was awarded to them.
If these people are not using their disability benefits in order to better their lives then presumably they don't need them. That money isn't their to top up their beer and cigarette tokens or to subsidiae their next holiday.
what betters someone`s life is entirely personal, using it for a family holiday is perfectly acceptable, it is enriching his life. people underestimate the value of what you might call "treats" in improving the health and confidence and lives of people with disabilities and sicknesses.
If this was a smoker people would say it's self inflicted so how do you feel about it when it comes to people who can't stand or get out of breath because they eat too much?
How do we stand on people with major disabilites getting disabled living allowance? I'd say 'for', wouldn't you? No one on earth is suggesting that fat people should get special allowances for being fat, just that people with severe disabilities should get assistance with the extra expenses they incur.
Do you feel they deserve to be able to claim disability benefits or get priority seating on transport because of their weight issues or do you think 'why should they be entitled to extras/benefits just because they can't stop eating or control their weight?'
Priority seating is not a right. In my experience, it is rarely claimed by anyone; if someone is clearly struggling to stand, a kind person might offer them a seat.
I guess you have some people who have a genuine genetic problem but a lot may be self inflicted through over eating.
And you have absolutely no way of telling the difference, so where does that leave you? It's not a genuine distinction anyway. The majority of us have our adult weight determined mainly by our genetic heritage.
What's your thoughts? Would you give up a seat on a bus for example for someone who is obese and couldn't stand if you suspected it may be their own doing?
No, obviously I would never give up my seat to someone who couldn't stand. How awful if I gave up my seat and the person turned out not to have a nice named medical problem! At the very least I would insist on a full genotype print out first so I could scrutinize it. I am sure we all would.
I don't have the ideal answer but maybe it would be better if that money was spent on rehabilitation rather than giving them a regular monthly payment/lump sum so that can carry on fueling their addiction, habit etc.
For someone who claims that two members of his household have DLA, you seem to have a very bizarre take on it. DLA is not for rehabilitation, and could not possibly fund it. It is for essential extra care and support, as you must know.
Instead of paying that money direct to the service user so they can piss it up the wall, could they not pay it into some kind of budget/fund which they can draw on to pay for help/care which directly helps their problem?
Yes, I guess so. Return to the days when home carers were free. I'm pretty sure the reason the government changed the system was that they found it more expensive though.
But how do you feel about people who claim disability because of ailments caused by their constant eating, smoking, drinking or drug abuse? Like people with COPD or mobility issues etc? Should we keep giving them privileges and benefits if they refuse to help themselves or should we hold that money back so they are only able to use it for treatment which helps them get over their problem?
Funding for care and support is not a 'privilege', don't be silly. Heaven knows, DLA is hard enough to get. As part of my job, I have filled out numerous applications, and over half of them are refused. The days when all you had to show were that you could not do the shopping seem long gone. Now it is all "Can you dress yourself?" And if you can dress yourself, you don't get it. And of course you have to provide yards of supporting documentation. As far as I am concerned, if someone cannot dress themselves, or get themselves to the toilet, I am happy that they should have money towards carers. The alternative is surely inhumane.
How about we allocate those funds to a pot of money that can only be spent on rehabilitation rather than hand it out so they can spend it on their addiction.
You seem obsessed with these people with severe disabilities who mysteriously manage with no help.
In other words it's like having the money but you have to justify what you're spending it on before you're allowed to have it. And instead of that money going direct to the service user it goes direct to the person or organisation that's there to help them. That way they can't just have a monthly handout and just piss it up the wall so to speak.
Are you suggesting this for your own family members? Or just for other people, who may have drunk, smoked or eaten in their lives?
support themselves on a life on benefits playing the constant victim.
I am genuinely amazed that someone whose wife and son are on DLA would take such a savagely judgemental attitude to it. How do they feel about being jeered at for their 'life on benefits' and the fact that they are 'playing the constant victim'?
How do we stand on people with major disabilites getting disabled living allowance? I'd say 'for', wouldn't you? No one on earth is suggesting that fat people should get special allowances for being fat, just that people with severe disabilities should get assistance with the extra expenses they incur.
Priority seating is not a right. In my experience, it is rarely claimed by anyone; if someone is clearly struggling to stand, a kind person might offer them a seat.
And you have absolutely no way of telling the difference, so where does that leave you? It's not a genuine distinction anyway. The majority of us have our adult weight determined mainly by our genetic heritage.
No, obviously I would never give up my seat to someone who couldn't stand. How awful if I gave up my seat and the person turned out not to have a nice named medical problem! At the very least I would insist on a full genotype print out first so I could scrutinize it. I am sure we all would.
For someone who claims that two members of his household have DLA, you seem to have a very bizarre take on it. DLA is not for rehabilitation, and could not possibly fund it. It is for essential extra care and support, as you must know.
Yes, I guess so. Return to the days when home carers were free. I'm pretty sure the reason the government changed the system was that they found it more expensive though.
No.
Funding for care and support is not a 'privilege', don't be silly. Heaven knows, DLA is hard enough to get. As part of my job, I have filled out numerous applications, and over half of them are refused. The days when all you had to show were that you could not do the shopping seem long gone. Now it is all "Can you dress yourself?" And if you can dress yourself, you don't get it. And of course you have to provide yards of supporting documentation. As far as I am concerned, if someone cannot dress themselves, or get themselves to the toilet, I am happy that they should have money towards carers. The alternative is surely inhumane.
You seem obsessed with these people with severe disabilities who mysteriously manage with no help.
Are you suggesting this for your own family members? Or just for other people, who may have drunk, smoked or eaten in their lives?
I am genuinely amazed that someone whose wife and son are on DLA would take such a savagely judgemental attitude to it. How do they feel about being jeered at for their 'life on benefits' and the fact that they are 'playing the constant victim'?
Many a keen young athlete has turned into a disappointed chub when they find that they can no longer run, cycle or even walk much.
No, obviously they should die painfully in a gutter. Why should those of us who are perfect pay taxes to help those who are not?
Excellent response
Can I just add that I do get really really fed up with seeing expressions like 'getting our money' - as if every person with disabilities has never contributed to society and somehow sits outside of a vague 'us' who pay for 'them'. It isn't of course true and perhaps those who persist in this mindset should remember that people with disabilities (and fat people too) are actually part of 'us' and may have paid more into the common purse than their detractors have.
Yet you are a smoker yourself, and you have admitted to being a heavy drinker who drinks to much and spends most nights in the pub.(snip)
Yes but the difference is I don't claim disability benefits to help me with self inflicted smoking or drinking related illnesses and then use that money to carry on smoking and drinking. Plus I am not being treated by the NHS for such but if I was I would expect to have to pay for my own treatment seeing as it's totally my own fault.
Yet there are many obese people who are like that because they simply refuse to change to a healthier lifestyle. People aren't born obese. They get like that mostly through overeating and not exercising enough so it's mostly self inflicted and despite having major life threatening health problems related to their weight they continue to keep stuffing crap in the mouth all day. How is that even trying to help yourself?
I'm not against giving people benefits if it aids their situation or even helps them out of their situation altogether but should we really keep giving these people handouts so they can use it to carry on eating themselves to death when it's all self inflicted? How much of a burden does this put on society and the NHS?
Should a person that is obese be legally classed as "disabled"? - If they meet the definition under the Equality Act (ie they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities) then of course they should.
Simply being obese would not be enough on its own to meet the above criteria. It would only apply to the most serious cases.
Also, it must be remembered that meeting the legal definition of disability under the Equality Act is not in itself relevant to eligibility for incapacity and disability benefits. Under DLA less than 1 in 3 people of working age who meet the definition under the Equality Act qualified for even the lowest rate. Under PIP it will be less than 1 in 4. It is only the most serious illnesses and disabilities that meet the very tough eligibility criteria.
As for the anecdotal "evidence" in the op, I don't doubt that there are a few claimants who don't help themselves but it is often the case that morbidly obese people have mental health issues. Rather than being spiteful towards these people I would rather show some compassion. The provision of mental health services in this country is very poor so the people who need help often do not get it. That is something that needs to be addressed but it would involve spending money before seeing any significant savings, which is something that our clueless politicians can never seem to grasp or implement.
It's all very well saying I should show some compassion but to put it another way, how would you feel if someone came to you and asked for money because they needed help with losing weight because they had problems due to being obese and the minute you hand them a tenner they walk straight across the road to the chip shop and spend it on a fish supper.
Now, would you keep giving them money or would you say no chance not doing that again because they didn't use on what I gave it them for?
A lady from where I live was getting disability because she was obese then eventually went on a diet and lost all the weight so they stop her disability. She was then in the local paper saying how the benefit office is out of order and now she will put the weight back on because she isn't receiving disability now and cant pay for her special diet food.
Comments
They must have been in there for some time to see that, or perhaps they were just taking notes while his disabled wife and child sat at home.
I'd ban them!
Takes a pretty sad person to be sat in a pub tottimng up the drinks someone's having
Maybe the OP's problem is that he thinksthat others are judging him? I can't see a problem with people using their benefits to go on holiday. You can get deals with one of the newspapers where a holiday costs £20 I think. I have my dogs though so I stay at home.
OP sounds very bitter...I can't understand people looking at what others may have. I don't have a problem how much someone, in poor health, spends ...quality of life and all that.
But the thing is though disabilities costs are so much more than just meds and adaptations and care costs
For instance someone going to a pub, they might be going to see mates
Someone living on fast food and takeaways might not be able to physically cook
No one knows anyone's personal situation completely so it's stupid to judge them for what they spend THEIR money on
I wonder who funds the OPs boozing. After all he says all the DLA money is spent 'correctly' and he has claims to be a house husband whilst his wife works so does that mean he spends his wife's hard earnings on booze?
I wasn't totting anything up. The guy told us himself. He was practically bragging about how he had this allowance to help him stay off the booze but instead used it to pay for drinking.
I think seeing as it's public funds and welfare money that is being dished out here, we all have a right to question it when people are claiming money to help with their disability that's totally self inflicted by eating/drinking/drugs or smoking too much etc and then that person goes and spends that money to eat/drink/smoke themselves to death.
I'm all up for giving money to help someone who is willing to help themselves but I don't see why the public should fund someone's eating/smoking/drinking addiction and be given benefits just so they can squander it on the one thing that the money is there to help them get over. Some of these people have little intentions of ever helping themselves. Why should the taxpayer keep funding them? Why should the NHS keep paying to treat people who refuse to stop eating, drinking, smoking etc.
Strange how you have changed your tune over people having the right to quesition how people spend their benefits, not long ago you were making very plain that how it was nothing to do with anyone else http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1931771&highlight= . Or does that only apply to YOUR friends ?
That was a different matter altogether. People ARE free to spend their money on what they like but I don't see why obese people should keep getting money so they can keep stuffing their faces when they refuse to help themselves. It's not the same thing at all. I'm talking about a situation that is mostly self inflicted.
Do you think someone who smokes who refuses to quit should keep getting treated at our expense? Should he be entitled to claim disability for a self inflicted condition of which he has no intentions of giving up? Should alcoholics be allowed to keep getting liver transplants when they wont stop drinking?
But has thier disabilty caused them to gain weight, so many things you dont know,,
Seems to me that people with obesity are an easy target, as it's a visible condition and one which people feel entitled to make an assumption about the person, when it is far more complicated.
Yet you are a smoker yourself, and you have admitted to being a heavy drinker who drinks to much and spends most nights in the pub, yet you will still being treated on the NHS. From 6 days ago 've been drinking too much recently and it's starting to become a problem but I'm finding it hard to think of stuff to do in the evenings that doesn't involve going to the pub and thought perhaps you could help give me some ideas of things to do to avoid being around the booze.
I wake up in the morning with all best intentions of not having a drink that day but come the evening I'm realty ratty if I can't go out. I have started to drink more and more and think I'm borderline of becoming dependent on going out for a drink. I just hate staying in looking at the same 4 walls especially when I've been stuck in all day looking after my little one and doing housework.
what betters someone`s life is entirely personal, using it for a family holiday is perfectly acceptable, it is enriching his life. people underestimate the value of what you might call "treats" in improving the health and confidence and lives of people with disabilities and sicknesses.
Priority seating is not a right. In my experience, it is rarely claimed by anyone; if someone is clearly struggling to stand, a kind person might offer them a seat.
And you have absolutely no way of telling the difference, so where does that leave you? It's not a genuine distinction anyway. The majority of us have our adult weight determined mainly by our genetic heritage.
No, obviously I would never give up my seat to someone who couldn't stand. How awful if I gave up my seat and the person turned out not to have a nice named medical problem! At the very least I would insist on a full genotype print out first so I could scrutinize it. I am sure we all would. For someone who claims that two members of his household have DLA, you seem to have a very bizarre take on it. DLA is not for rehabilitation, and could not possibly fund it. It is for essential extra care and support, as you must know.
Yes, I guess so. Return to the days when home carers were free. I'm pretty sure the reason the government changed the system was that they found it more expensive though. No. Funding for care and support is not a 'privilege', don't be silly. Heaven knows, DLA is hard enough to get. As part of my job, I have filled out numerous applications, and over half of them are refused. The days when all you had to show were that you could not do the shopping seem long gone. Now it is all "Can you dress yourself?" And if you can dress yourself, you don't get it. And of course you have to provide yards of supporting documentation. As far as I am concerned, if someone cannot dress themselves, or get themselves to the toilet, I am happy that they should have money towards carers. The alternative is surely inhumane.
You seem obsessed with these people with severe disabilities who mysteriously manage with no help. Are you suggesting this for your own family members? Or just for other people, who may have drunk, smoked or eaten in their lives?
I am genuinely amazed that someone whose wife and son are on DLA would take such a savagely judgemental attitude to it. How do they feel about being jeered at for their 'life on benefits' and the fact that they are 'playing the constant victim'?
Many a keen young athlete has turned into a disappointed chub when they find that they can no longer run, cycle or even walk much.
No, obviously they should die painfully in a gutter. Why should those of us who are perfect pay taxes to help those who are not?
Excellent response
Can I just add that I do get really really fed up with seeing expressions like 'getting our money' - as if every person with disabilities has never contributed to society and somehow sits outside of a vague 'us' who pay for 'them'. It isn't of course true and perhaps those who persist in this mindset should remember that people with disabilities (and fat people too) are actually part of 'us' and may have paid more into the common purse than their detractors have.
Yes but the difference is I don't claim disability benefits to help me with self inflicted smoking or drinking related illnesses and then use that money to carry on smoking and drinking. Plus I am not being treated by the NHS for such but if I was I would expect to have to pay for my own treatment seeing as it's totally my own fault.
Yet there are many obese people who are like that because they simply refuse to change to a healthier lifestyle. People aren't born obese. They get like that mostly through overeating and not exercising enough so it's mostly self inflicted and despite having major life threatening health problems related to their weight they continue to keep stuffing crap in the mouth all day. How is that even trying to help yourself?
I'm not against giving people benefits if it aids their situation or even helps them out of their situation altogether but should we really keep giving these people handouts so they can use it to carry on eating themselves to death when it's all self inflicted? How much of a burden does this put on society and the NHS?
Simply being obese would not be enough on its own to meet the above criteria. It would only apply to the most serious cases.
Also, it must be remembered that meeting the legal definition of disability under the Equality Act is not in itself relevant to eligibility for incapacity and disability benefits. Under DLA less than 1 in 3 people of working age who meet the definition under the Equality Act qualified for even the lowest rate. Under PIP it will be less than 1 in 4. It is only the most serious illnesses and disabilities that meet the very tough eligibility criteria.
As for the anecdotal "evidence" in the op, I don't doubt that there are a few claimants who don't help themselves but it is often the case that morbidly obese people have mental health issues. Rather than being spiteful towards these people I would rather show some compassion. The provision of mental health services in this country is very poor so the people who need help often do not get it. That is something that needs to be addressed but it would involve spending money before seeing any significant savings, which is something that our clueless politicians can never seem to grasp or implement.
Now, would you keep giving them money or would you say no chance not doing that again because they didn't use on what I gave it them for?