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.
(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.
- 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.
Last edited by Carter78; 30-05-2012 at 11:53.
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.
(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.
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.
Last edited by Carter78; 30-05-2012 at 14:29.