Options
Cameron: lose weight or lose £100 a week benefits
Cameron: lose weight or lose £100 a week benefits
The full cost to the economy of obesity, drug addicts and alcoholics will be assessed for the first time, David Cameron is to announce.
Overweight people could have benefits worth around £100 a week reduced or ended altogether if they refuse to lose weight, the Prime Minister will announce on Wednesday.
Is it right or wrong to reduce benefits to those lifestyles stop them working 161 votes
Right
50%
82 votes
Wrong
49%
79 votes
0
Comments
i guess you wont get the sort of reaction you wanted otherwise ...
The title of this thread was cut & pasted from the headline on the front page of the telegraph online and the quote is the first two paragraphs of the actual article.
so you admit you fell for clickbait instead of reading the whole article ?
Indeed when the article is read we see this --
Never trust newspaper headlines. In fact when one reads the article the 1800 obese people are a spit in the ocean when compared to the 90,000 with drink and drug addiction.
I never thought they would go so far. Chilling.
There's a little link towards the top of the page... Community Guidelines. There you'll find the following....
Community Guidelines - The Rules
2.0 - Copyright
Do not reproduce complete texts/images to which you do not own the copyright. When linking to articles elsewhere on the Internet, you can quote the first few lines and then provide a link to the content in full. If quoting other media, be sure to cite your source.
I read the whole article but only posted the headline and the start of the Telegraph online article as advised in Digital Spy's guidelines.
... and it's a review into whether people should lose benefits IF they refuse treatment to deal with the problems they have.
No, you just didn't read the article fully.
Try the Guardian
A full-scale review is to be launched into whether tens of thousands of obese people and those with drug and alcohol problems should be deprived of benefits unless they accept treatment.
A consultation paper launched on Wednesday for a review to be completed before the end of the year by Dame Carol Black admits strong ethical issues are at stake. But it also questions whether such people should continue to receive benefits if they refuse government-provided treatment.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/29/benefits-drugs-alcohol-obesity-refusing-treatment-review
Still "chilling"?
How about treating the cause instead of punishing them?
Um - this is to encourage them to go for treatment. Is nobody reading the story?
A full-scale review is to be launched into whether tens of thousands of obese people and those with drug and alcohol problems should be deprived of benefits unless they accept treatment.
This thread is a poll; Is it right or wrong to reduce benefits to those lifestyles stop them working.
Obesity 1,780
Alcohol Misuse 56,000
Drug Misuse 33,650
Medical condition is based on evidence provided at the start of the claim and may not represent a claimant’s most recent medical condition. Where someone has more than one diagnosis or disabling condition only the predominant one is used.
Who makes the decision as to if a psychological treatment is not working or the claimant is not engaging with the treatment. When does it amount to you will get better or we will stop your benefits rather than we will offer you help and you must accept.
Will they be expanding the idea of "denied benefits if they refuse medical treatment" to all medical conditions in the future? And will it apply to all medical treatment regardless of any risk or detrimental effect that medical treatment may entail for example surgery carries risks, drugs have side effects, coercion to undergo psychological therapies may carry the risk of causing some with mental health problems to become more unwell.
ESA already assess based on with treatment what could the claimant be imagined able to do. That is if they received a drug or a psychological therapy, etc. Even when those treatments have not been prescribed and are not being undertaken.
ESA already assess based on the use of medical aids even when the claimant does not have those aids and using those aids would be against medical advice, for example someone with mobility problems can be imagined to use a wheel chair despite not having a wheel chair and doing so being against medical advice.
Perhaps you should have used the wording "Is it right or wrong to reduce benefits to those who refuse treatment to address their lifestyles if they prevent them from working".
If a drug addict having undergone treatment is still unable to kick the habit and get work then I imagine many people would not wish to see benefits withdrawn from that person and them end up in dire straits. However if they refuse treatment I imagine many people will feel that is wrong and they should be trying to kick the habit so they may be able to get work.
The problem with that idea, with this government, is that there'll be little "encouragement" about it. If it's introduced, and i sincerely hope it isn't, it'll basically be a mandatory requirement that's punishable by the stripping of benefits.
People will be forced to seek treatment, but I imagine the places offering such treatment will be expected to cope with the upsurge in patients with no extra funding, or even reduced funding.
I suspect what will also happen is that there'll be an "unofficial" timetable drawn up for advisors to follow that will dictate how much progress the aforementioned addict will be expected to make and there'll be sanctions involved if this timetable isn't met.
It'll be similar to the official party line that there are no targets for sanctions where most people actually on the floor at the DWP will tell you that there are.
Yes, I get the story. What makes you think that people who choose to be drug addicts and alcoholics and don't already seek treatment will be more motivated to seek treatment? I think you have little idea of how things like this work (I'm speaking as an ex-alcoholic). Most people would take the financial hit, even if it means them becoming homeless, rather than seek treatment because they don't feel that they need treatment, and for most of them the drugs or alcohol is more valuable to them.
I think what people doubt is whether the "treatment" is sufficient in quantity/quality and whether it can be delivered in a timely fashion and be of sufficient duration and follow up to actually work.
Underlying a lot if not most "addictive" behaviours are actually deep rooted psychological and psychiatric and social issues which are expensive to treat and in short supply.
There are plenty of people who are not overweight or drug addicts and who are willing to accept treatment/indeed are desperate for mental health help who wait months and months for referral and treatment, which is often short term and reliant on drugs as sticking plaster/mask for addressing the issues and deficient in term of follow up/booster/top up treatment.
If we are able to offer a Rolls Royce service now we would be offering it to the people who ARE willing to accept it/succeeding with them and have room to spare for the take up of those being forced/encouraged there by withdrawal of benefit.
As it is I think most of us know what is on offer is an old model Ford Ka with 200K miles on the clock, no back seat and with bald tyres.
And even if there was a guarantee of the Rolls Royce tomorrow I'm pretty sure those waiting the queue would be thrilled to see the government shoving people to the front of the queue who don't even want to get in the car.
;-);-)
I did try for a longer question but you are limited to the number of characters in the question
The reality is, life has become too stressful for a big chunk of people in society. What with a shortage of jobs and hours to go around, the ever increasing cost of living, the ongoing problems with too many people living in this country with immigrants still coming in by the 1000's every week.
There is simply not enough jobs to around and many who end up in a position where they have no fight or hope left are, surprise surprise, going to turn to drink, drugs or develop an eating disorder whether its obesity or anorexia. Trying to get them help is one thing but dressing it up as help by removing benefits is only going to make these people's lives more hell, let alone the damage it causes their family and children.
Don't disagree but there appears to be no suggestion benefits will be reduced if whatever treatment that is available and is undertaken fails as it inevitably will for many.