[PrismaticCore]

(Original post by muddywaters51)
dont agree with government student loans or caps on university fees

So how do you expect people to fork out money for their University education? I know plenty of skilled and talented people who are going to University to study 'High-end' degrees who, if it weren't for Student Loan, would not be able to study and reach their potential.

[Carter78]

(Original post by OU Student)
How is it "high"?

Woah, hold your horses I was just asking an honest question to see if you had a link to your numbers. - I was curious, not accusative.

I found my own, which states that 10 million people are disabled in the UK. Another important figure is that the number of people with disabilities of working age is 6.9 million - or 19% of the working population.
Link: http://www.dlf.org.uk/content/key-facts

This seems to be staggering.

This figure must encompass a broad range of disabilities, from light learning difficulties to severe cerebral palsy. All of which can be judged on their own circumstances and abilities.

(Original post by OU Student)
CP can be so minor that the person has virtually no difficulty in walking. And yes, I have met a few people with CP of that nature. A neck injury can be severe. I was actually offered botox injections for mine, which aren't given out willy nilly.

True. In my experience, from having a severely disabled Sister and visiting her school over the past 18 years I have met a whole plethora of conditions. Some severe, some not. I also studied at university with people who despite having very slight cerebal palsy (which affected their walking to a minor degree), they never thought to register themselves as disabled and claim for benefits.

My view of the situation is to view disability as a sliding scale and base my moral approach to benefits upon it. There are individuals who are truly disabled in life (in almost every sense of the word), so I have a natural inflection when people say that neck injuries can count as a disability and thus claim money for it. These people really don't know how lucky they are compared to the severeness of disability that others must endure. (In this I do not count yourself, as you haven't stated whether or not you claimed disability benefit for your condition, so I won't make any presumptions on that point).

I also know people who were in severe pain in their feet because of the poor blood circulation in their feet due to diabetes. Their eye sight also suffered. Again they worked and never thought to claim benefits for their condition. Because they saw this as a moral transgression, considering that there are those who need 24 care for their condition and neither have the capacity (mental or physical) to take care of themselves.

[Carter78]

(Original post by OU Student)
Where has anyone said that? You have to be assessed and need medical evidence. it's not just a case of "I'm deaf" and then you get given benefits. Most people on disability benefits have long term disabilities. Many of which (including all mine bar 4) were present at birth.

Excluding the terminally ill, you're not automatically entitled to benefits. You have to prove that your disability is either severe enough that you can't work or means you have care and /or mobility needs.

Ahh the medical assessment. Don't worry my family has had our fair share of doctors and Occupational Therapists asking us what work my blind from birth CP sister (who cannot use her arms and legs) can do. You tend to laugh off these suggestions over time.

You're right, saying "I'm deaf" wouldn't entitle you to benefits. However I'm sure you could say "I'm in chronic back pain" and use doctor's notes and pain medication prescriptions to prove that.

I would love to quote figures, the only source I can find however is the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lcoholics.html

The Mail seems to quote the Department of Work and Pensions directly however with figures of "30,900 people with Asthma, 19,400 alcoholics/drug addicts and 128,300 people with unspecified back pain" as claiming disability allowances. I don't like to trust the Mail (which is a shoddy paper), but I'm on a lunch break and cannot find better figures at this second.

At the end of the day, chronic back pain can be prescribed against with the pain alleviated to the extent that the individual can do work of some kind. Severe CP cannot be medicated against.

[Carter78]

(Original post by ANARCHY__)
I don't understand how anecdotal evidence really constitutes the removal or replacement of legislation but I was neither for or against EMA so I'm unsure why you picked up on that.

I don't think, with how the framework of EMA was formed, we should be telling people how to spend the money. If, for example, the benefit scheme had a set directive (as does jobseeker's allowance), then it may be reasonable to be more prescriptive. Of course, if the scheme is being taken advantage of, then this needs to be addressed. But just because you spend your EMA on a bus pass and another reciepient on petrol makes no difference; all it indicates is poor financial management.

Your point, again, about diasbility allowance is highly anecdotal and merely conjecture. How can you possible expect to engage in a proper debate about the benefits system if all you mention are 'things you've seen' and 'people you've met'? Your statistic use, if you meant what was typed, is also neglible. What difference does it make if there are a 100 million or 1 million on disability allowance?

Again, I'm sure there are people who have and continue to defraud the benefits system. I'm still a little puzzled as to why you quoted me. I am calling for a complete overhaul of the benefits system to make it more streamlined. There will always be people looking to cheat the system. The issue is how to minimise this as quickly and effectively as possible.

Anecdotal evidence should not be used to discredit the idea of what the EMA provides - i.e financial help to those low-income teenagers who want to study A-Levels. The actions of the individuals (such as the people I went to school with) discredit the system. However, you hit the nail on the head. There is much more opportunity for the EMA to be abused because there is no one checking up on where the money goes. Whereas constant checks and balances are made for unemployment benefits etc.

- I only quoted you because your mention of the EMA inspired my response. You stimulated debate, that is a good thing

I believe both myself and OUStudent are guilty of bringing anecdotal evidence into the debate about disability benefits, but I hope my previous two posts explain to some extent my passion for the subject. Especially my moral position on why a drug addict, or someone with back pain can be classed as disabled. Technically they can, but I feel there is a sliding scale to disability and I (personally) would never class myself as disabled if I had chronic back pain compared to a severely disabled person who must endure so much more suffering. This is my personal view, yet I hope you understand it is not borne out of a right-wing knee jerk approach to the subject or some such thing.

As ever, I once again state, each case is different and we should not make any blanket judgments upon ALL people who claim disability benefits.

[JMB92]

I never received EMA myself but almost everyone I knew that did abused the system. For example, rather than spending the EMA they received on things for their education (such as books, pens, paper etc.) they would spend it on alcohol, new clothes, computer games and in some cases drugs.

In my personal opinion I think it should be scrapped as it encourages dependence on the state from a young age, however, if it is to remain I would propose that rather than giving a student £30 a week which they can spend on what they like they should be given a) a bus pass to cover transport to and from college/sixth form (if it is needed, some people would live within walking distance of their college/sixth form so this would not be necessary) and b) Waterstones/WH Smiths etc. vouchers for books, pens and other equipment they may need.

Even though I would rather the whole system was assigned to the dustbin of history I feel these proposals would make the system fairer and would ensure the EMA they receive goes towards the purpose it was set up for.

[hajinator]

(Original post by Origami Bullets)
I'm sure it's nice to be so young, naive and comfortably off that you and your family have never been in the position of having no choice but to claim benefits.

95% of people on benefits - particularly at the moment when there are far more people out of work than there are jobs - want to get [back] into work as quickly as possible, but have no alternative to claiming benefits if they wish to keep a roof over their heads and feed their children.

My family was on benefits for that exact reason.

[Like a BAWS]

Anyone see on Daybreak this morning about that family with 10 children, getting £50k a year when neither of the parents even work?

I find that pretty disgusting. Everyone has a right to have children, but why should the taxpayer have to pay for this? I personally know a woman myself who doesn't work, doesn't have a husband and has 7 kids which gives her a fortune in child benefits. I suggest child allowance for 2 or 3 children max, and any more after that you should pay for yourself.

[ANARCHY__]

(Original post by Carter78)
Anecdotal evidence should not be used to discredit the idea of what the EMA provides - i.e financial help to those low-income teenagers who want to study A-Levels. The actions of the individuals (such as the people I went to school with) discredit the system. However, you hit the nail on the head. There is much more opportunity for the EMA to be abused because there is no one checking up on where the money goes. Whereas constant checks and balances are made for unemployment benefits etc.

- I only quoted you because your mention of the EMA inspired my response. You stimulated debate, that is a good thing

I believe both myself and OUStudent are guilty of bringing anecdotal evidence into the debate about disability benefits, but I hope my previous two posts explain to some extent my passion for the subject. Especially my moral position on why a drug addict, or someone with back pain can be classed as disabled. Technically they can, but I feel there is a sliding scale to disability and I (personally) would never class myself as disabled if I had chronic back pain compared to a severely disabled person who must endure so much more suffering. This is my personal view, yet I hope you understand it is not borne out of a right-wing knee jerk approach to the subject or some such thing.

As ever, I once again state, each case is different and we should not make any blanket judgments upon ALL people who claim disability benefits.

I agree that individuals can indeed discredit a system but I do not see this as grounds to change the legislation. It just seems to me very weak minded of the Tories to do away with the EMA (whether it should or shouldn't be done away with) simply because they relied on anecdotal, it seems, evidence and a populist groundswell from the back benches.

In that sense, any system, whether it is criticised anecdotally or not, should be tightened to ensure that there is little room manouevre and that there are sufficient checks and balances to ensure there is not a significant minority or majority taking advantage.

I can understand why you are passionate about this issue based on your previous two posts. However, I believe legislation and the legal framework should be dealt with in as dispassionately a way as possible and I can understand that this may be difficult for you to do. All the same, I do not believe that any form of benefit scheme should be comparative (i.e. I will claim because I am in a pretty bad position compared to somebody else) but should be objective and individual in their assessment. I see that you agree with this which is why I am a little puzzled as to why you think it is undeserving that someone should claim benefits because they are not in the worst position (although I can see your point from an emotional perspective).

Unfortunately, the system as it is at present does not allow for the kind of benefit scheme that I would like but I believe it would be better to implement a rate - and therefore a culture - where benefits are not frowned upon but seen as a helping hand from the state in tough financial times.

[ANARCHY__]

(Original post by Like a BAWS)
Anyone see on Daybreak this morning about that family with 10 children, getting £50k a year when neither of the parents even work?

I find that pretty disgusting. Everyone has a right to have children, but why should the taxpayer have to pay for this? I personally know a woman myself who doesn't work, doesn't have a husband and has 7 kids which gives her a fortune in child benefits. I suggest child allowance for 2 or 3 children max, and any more after that you should pay for yourself.

How many families like this exist? You pulled a random figure out of the air to decide a cap on child benefit just because you're disgusted by one or two stories. Do you have any idea or any kind actual, hard evidence to suggest why we should be conservative with the benefits system or is this just based off your own political ideology? What happens to a middling family which makes enough money to scrape by but has 4 kids? Under your legislation, that 4th child wouldn't be addressed by the state and simply termed a family problem.

The family themselves admitted that the system allowed for these kind of loopholes. I am sure many people, when they are given the opportunity, take it. We have seen this at virtually every single level in society and I think it's a little trite to simply start targeting one strata because of a few anecdotal stories and because it is current news.

I'd be interested to see how well a family of 7 work on a £50,000 budget per annum.

[madders94]

(Original post by Origami Bullets)
And how much is that going to cost the taxpayer?!

I'd imagine it'd cost less than throwing a house and a load of money at them (not literally throwing, that would be unethical).

[OU Student]

(Original post by Carter78)
I found my own, which states that 10 million people are disabled in the UK.

I've heard that too.

I also studied at university with people who despite having very slight cerebal palsy (which affected their walking to a minor degree), they never thought to register themselves as disabled and claim for benefits.

There's only national registers for hearing and sight impairment now. Some councils have their own registers. Some with mild CP who can walk may not be entitled to benefits.

so I have a natural inflection when people say that neck injuries can count as a disability and thus claim money for it. These people really don't know how lucky they are compared to the severeness of disability that others must endure. (In this I do not count yourself, as you haven't stated whether or not you claimed disability benefit for your condition, so I won't make any presumptions on that point).

In my case, despite the pain being so bad that 5 years after the original injury, (I suffered the same injury 2 years ago too) I was told that my neck injury isn't that bad to claim benefits and that it should heal itself within a few weeks. My neurologist said he can feel parts of my neck where the muscles are tight.

I also know people who were in severe pain in their feet because of the poor blood circulation in their feet due to diabetes. Their eye sight also suffered. Again they worked and never thought to claim benefits for their condition.

For many disabilities, you're expected to be able to deal with it. So, the person with diabetes who has no other problems, they're expected to be able to administer their own insulin and other self care. Whereas, for the sight impaired, it would be a struggle.

Many don't claim benefits because they're either expected to be able to deal with their disabilities or they don't know what they can claim. There's around 50 different benefits out there.

At the end of the day, chronic back pain can be prescribed against with the pain alleviated to the extent that the individual can do work of some kind. Severe CP cannot be medicated against.

Some medication has awful side effects. One I was on, (which I shouldn't have been) made me feel really sick. I came off it after 2 weeks; as it did nothing for me.

[madders94]

Where does the statistic of benefit fraud costing the government £5bn come from?

[Origami Bullets]

(Original post by madders94)
I'd imagine it'd cost less than throwing a house and a load of money at them (not literally throwing, that would be unethical).

Not when you consider that the previous poster was considering
a) housing them
b) cooking all their meals for them
c) providing support staff (v. v. expensive they are)
d) by implication, providing that which their child needs e.g. toys (I presume you agree that it isn't fair to penalise a child due to the circumstances of their birth, over which they had no control)

I don't see how that would work out cheaper than the current situation - low quality housing, a fairly small allowance (CB, CTC) for food, bills & other things that need to be bought, council tax benefit (although I doubt that they would be paying CT in the proposed option either), and childcare, if they are in education.

[Origami Bullets]

(Original post by Carter78)
At the end of the day, chronic back pain can be prescribed against with the pain alleviated to the extent that the individual can do work of some kind. Severe CP cannot be medicated against.

I have a chronic (life-long) back condition that - at one point - meant that I was lying in bed, on a morphine drip (not a long term option), and still in a lot of pain. I was also (pre-surgery) unable to walk more than a third of a mile whilst carrying a relatively light school bag without having to sit down, because the pain was so bad that I couldn't carry on. And I'm hardly the worst affected person in the world.

Don't underestimate how bad back pain can be. I know some people think of it as being some kind of licence to scrounge because it's difficult to rule out, but for those of us who actually have it, it can be severe, disabling and impossible to medicate adequately.

[Carter78]

(Original post by ANARCHY__)
I agree that individuals can indeed discredit a system but I do not see this as grounds to change the legislation. It just seems to me very weak minded of the Tories to do away with the EMA (whether it should or shouldn't be done away with) simply because they relied on anecdotal, it seems, evidence and a populist groundswell from the back benches.

In that sense, any system, whether it is criticised anecdotally or not, should be tightened to ensure that there is little room manouevre and that there are sufficient checks and balances to ensure there is not a significant minority or majority taking advantage.

I can understand why you are passionate about this issue based on your previous two posts. However, I believe legislation and the legal framework should be dealt with in as dispassionately a way as possible and I can understand that this may be difficult for you to do. All the same, I do not believe that any form of benefit scheme should be comparative (i.e. I will claim because I am in a pretty bad position compared to somebody else) but should be objective and individual in their assessment. I see that you agree with this which is why I am a little puzzled as to why you think it is undeserving that someone should claim benefits because they are not in the worst position (although I can see your point from an emotional perspective).

Unfortunately, the system as it is at present does not allow for the kind of benefit scheme that I would like but I believe it would be better to implement a rate - and therefore a culture - where benefits are not frowned upon but seen as a helping hand from the state in tough financial times.

I commend you for your very measured and intelligent response, I think you can see where I'm coming from on these issues.

I would also support an amendment of the EMA rather than scrapping the scheme. Perhaps 30 pounds in book vouchers each month to be spent on supplies for studying, rather than depositing 30 pounds into their bank accounts?

As to your point about whether or not it is deserving for an individual to claim disability benefit when there are many others in a worse position, I think I made it clear that this was a personal standard that I would live by. - I said I wouldn't ever think to claim disability benefit for chronic back pain and therefore not work. This is a code of conduct that I would aspire to live by considering the considerably worse hardship that others would face than I would be facing at the time. Of course, I am currently healthy and luckily do not suffer chronic back pain, therefore this is an aspiration of mine which I am unfortunately not required to test.

[Carter78]

(Original post by Origami Bullets)
I have a chronic (life-long) back condition that - at one point - meant that I was lying in bed, on a morphine drip (not a long term option), and still in a lot of pain. I was also (pre-surgery) unable to walk more than a third of a mile whilst carrying a relatively light school bag without having to sit down, because the pain was so bad that I couldn't carry on. And I'm hardly the worst affected person in the world.

Don't underestimate how bad back pain can be. I know some people think of it as being some kind of licence to scrounge because it's difficult to rule out, but for those of us who actually have it, it can be severe, disabling and impossible to medicate adequately.

I'm sorry that you feel that I am attacking you or your condition, I have every sympathy for others that suffer chronic back pain. Why wouldn't I? I'm a humanist. This however doesn't negate from my original point that whilst each case is unique, there are certain types of disability that completely render an individual incapable of working for their entire life, and there are other predicaments (such as yours) which don't.

Someone with back pain will not be bed-ridden the entirety of their lives, unlike someone with a severe disability. However being confined to bed, or not having the full scope of mobility can still mean that you can find some work. Compared to a severely brain damaged individual who cannot who does not have that mental capacity.

I fear I'm repeating myself here, so let's agree to disagree on this point.

[tpxvs]

..is jokes.

[Carter78]

(Original post by OU Student)
There's only national registers for hearing and sight impairment now. Some councils have their own registers. Some with mild CP who can walk may not be entitled to benefits.

THAT I didn't know - I've been out of the UK for quite a spell now. Sounds like another postcode lottery story. Quite shameful really. In my experience the state of support from the Council for the disabled can really depend on the quality of the Occupational Therapist assigned to you.

(Original post by OU Student)
In my case, despite the pain being so bad that 5 years after the original injury, (I suffered the same injury 2 years ago too) I was told that my neck injury isn't that bad to claim benefits and that it should heal itself within a few weeks. My neurologist said he can feel parts of my neck where the muscles are tight.

Tough call, my sympathies.

(Original post by OU Student)
For many disabilities, you're expected to be able to deal with it. So, the person with diabetes who has no other problems, they're expected to be able to administer their own insulin and other self care. Whereas, for the sight impaired, it would be a struggle.

Yeah the diabetes in itself wouldn't qualify them for disability benefits, but the side-effects of the condition obviously can, especially if they suffer sight problems. Again it can often depend on the mindset of the individual. The word "disability" carries unnecessary negative connotations and a certain sense of pride will stop many from claiming the associated benefits.

[Courtney05]

Benefits are seen as the easy way out for people who cannot be bothered to get off their lazy backsides and work.
I completely agree that there are some people who really need benefits, like those people searching for jobs, or those who are unable to work. But how can money be so easily given to the scroungers of society that have no intention of ever getting off of benefits as it provides for them so well?
I am not for a second saying that I dont think benefits should be given to people who are on hard times and are genuinely trying to better themselves, but the whole system needs an overhaul.
There are too many stories of people who are earning £50k in benefits with a huge house and high tech gadgets for their children. That doesnt give them any motivation to get themselves off benefits and it doesnt teach their children anything. Its a downward spiral in my honest opinion.

[ANARCHY__]

(Original post by Carter78)
I commend you for your very measured and intelligent response, I think you can see where I'm coming from on these issues.

I would also support an amendment of the EMA rather than scrapping the scheme. Perhaps 30 pounds in book vouchers each month to be spent on supplies for studying, rather than depositing 30 pounds into their bank accounts?

As to your point about whether or not it is deserving for an individual to claim disability benefit when there are many others in a worse position, I think I made it clear that this was a personal standard that I would live by. - I said I wouldn't ever think to claim disability benefit for chronic back pain and therefore not work. This is a code of conduct that I would aspire to live by considering the considerably worse hardship that others would face than I would be facing at the time. Of course, I am currently healthy and luckily do not suffer chronic back pain, therefore this is an aspiration of mine which I am unfortunately not required to test.

Thank you for your response. I'd like to say I'm glad you are able to also engage in this debate confidently and maturely. It is a shame that many users of TSR seem to hold extreme or misinformed opinions and fail to back many, if any, with fact.

I think the EMA should be amended. However, it may be worth setting up some kind of trust fund with all UK banks (thus allowing some kind of income for the state via the banking industry through kick backs) which allows an account to be set up, strictly for the EMA. The guaranteed customer base for the banks will provide incentive for competition among them, hopefully stimulating the economy somewhat, and the fact that the government is providing and encouraging these sorts of trusts means they will get some reward simply by providing the scheme (therefore all of the £30 is not 'spent' but given directly back to the government).

By having, say, a regional EMA monitor, it can quite easily be tracked to see whether a student is buying porn and PS3 games as opposed to books and bus passes. I believe it would be a little draconian to not allow at least some of this money to be set aside for personal savings and expenditure (why should the poorest not be able to afford some luxuries when the middle and upper classes recieve such without government aid?) but in the main, the money should be spent on education.

This allows for a tight regulation of expenditure from the student and a close relationship between schools if the EMA monitor is comprised of a number of representatives from the schools in the area.

To move on to disability. My apologies. I misread what you had said and believed you intended that to be come the standard for disability allowance. I think your stance on the issue is fine but I do believe more awareness should be given to people who don't claim benefits but are entitled to so that they can make an informed decision.