Disabled dad told he is fit to work TWO WEEKS before death

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:56 pm

First topic message reminder :

Diabetic David O'Mar, of Cardiff, was lying in a hospital bed with pneumonia when the DWP made its decision

A disabled dad died two weeks after being judged fit for work as he lay in hospital with pneumonia

Diabetic David O’Mar was stripped of his disability benefits in April after a work capability assessment for Iain Duncan Smith’s hated Department for Work and Pensions.

His daughter Alexandra believes he is one of the growing number of victims of brutal government policies.

She is calling on officials at the DWP – as well as Prime Minister David Cameron – to make good on their pledge to reveal how many deaths are linked to cuts.

David, 58, was bed-bound in hospital on the date of a tribunal to decide whether he should carry on getting disability benefits or was well enough to look for a job.

Despite family pleas to reschedule, the court ruled the former radio DJ fit for work.

He died of pneumonia on April 29.

Alexandra told the Sunday People.: “It definitely affected him. I think it’s disgusting they stopped somebody’s benefits who genuinely needed them.”

She is demanding the release of government statistics showing how many people have died within six weeks of being ruled fit for work and losing their benefits.

Mr Duncan Smith once claimed the figures did not even exist.

But in a climbdown this week, Mr Cameron told MPs that the data is “being prepared for publication as we speak”.

A string of deaths are feared to have been caused by cuts. Stephanie Bottrill, 53, of Solihull, West Midlands, killed herself in May 2013 and left a note blaming the bedroom tax.

She was worried about paying an extra £20 a week to stay in her home.

Diabetic David Clapson, 59, died of a lack of insulin after his Jobseeker’s Allowance was axed over a missed appointment.

The ex-soldier had just £3.44 in his bank and could not afford electricity to power the fridge where he kept vital doses.

As the Government prepares a further £12billion a year in welfare cuts, campaigners fear there are many more victims – including David O’Mar.

Before he fell ill the dad-of-three, of Cardiff, had a £400 bill from the council for unpaid rent after his housing benefit was cut.

He attended a job centre in March for a work capability test, which found he had “limited” ability to work and he had his £100-a-week Employment Support Allowance stopped from April 1.

David appealed but caught pneumonia shortly afterwards and was admitted to Llandough hospital, Cardiff.

He only found out the date of his appeal when his daughter went to pick up things from his flat and found a summons.

Shop worker Alexandra, 26, called the court and was
told to write requesting a postponement, which she did.

She said: “I explained the situation and he’d had notes from the doctors about his condition.

“But then I received a letter saying it wasn’t a good enough reason.

“My dad said: ‘Fine, wheel me into court on my bed then’. He had a great sense of humour. But it was hard to see him suffer with this on top.”

Later that week he had the letter saying his disability benefit had been cut.

David was well enough to return home for a few days and his mum Margaret Moore, 78, travelled from Somerset, where she lives with her partner, to care for him. Mrs Moore was optimistic he would recover in time for his 59th birthday on July 19.

But she said: “He couldn’t walk. He couldn’t see. He was in a terrible state.

“By the end of the week he was back in hospital then he just deteriorated. How was he supposed to work? Something has got to change for people like David.”

Divorced David was nicknamed Dai Poland because he once ran a radio station in the east European country.

When he returned to Wales in 2003 he worked as a football talent scout for Derby County and Burton Albion.

He also threw himself into charity work, collecting hundreds of football shirts to send to orphanages in Moldova and Ukraine for Christmas in 2012.

Alexandra added: “He had a great life, travelling around and helping kids.

“But I would still like some answers from the courts and the judge. Why did they think he could do anything? He could barely walk. I don’t want that to happen to anybody else.”

A DWP spokesman said: “Our thoughts are with Mr O’Mar’s family. It’s wrong to suggest a causal link between the death of an individual and their benefit claim.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/disabled-dad-told-fit-work-6093870#ICID=sharebar_twitter

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:19 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:

if the "treatment" stood a chance of killing me most certainly I would refuse it...as I said my condition WONT kill me

Well not everything is about you, is it Victor? If I didn't take the medication, I would be unable to work now.

Because you would be a total psycho freak....instead of just a bit of one?

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:19 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well not everything is about you, is it Victor? If I didn't take the medication, I would be unable to work now.
hold on i thought you didn`t give out personal information ?

I said I don't talk about family stuff.

I'm not going into huge detail am I? Victor may well hope that I suffer an adverse effect and die from this drug he looks down on so much.

by eddie Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:19 pm

I'm trying to read back and understand what rags means?
That if some people refuse treatments for certain illnesses then they shouldn't receive any benefit??

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:20 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
Er what about it

Generally, you are not allowed to work while you are getting Employment and Support Allowance because of an illness or disability.

You may be able to do some types of work and within certain limits. This is called 'Permitted Work' and it allows you to test your own capacity for doing some work and perhaps gain new skills.

You must check that the work you want to do is allowed under the Permitted Work rules. You should discuss this with your Employment Service Adviser in your local Social Security or Jobs and Benefits office.

sorry what`s your point ?

The point is that some people can do permitted work whilst on ESA, hence my question.

butt Thats not what you asked is it
you asked what`s stopping people claiming then working (i provided that information)
your question did not include a caveat

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:21 pm

eddie wrote:I'm trying to read back and understand what rags means?
That if some people refuse treatments for certain illnesses then they shouldn't receive any benefit??

Well the article I posted was about things like depression. Depression is treatable, and the drugs are reasonably safe, so why should someone not be required to try treatment? It also could mean things like counselling too - not drug related.

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:21 pm

eddie wrote:I'm trying to read back and understand what rags means?
That if some people refuse treatments for certain illnesses then they shouldn't receive any benefit??

basically....yep

so where do we draw the line....

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:21 pm

eddie wrote:I'm trying to read back and understand what rags means?
That if some people refuse treatments for certain illnesses then they shouldn't receive any benefit??

In a word, Yes.

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:21 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The point is that some people can do permitted work whilst on ESA, hence my question.
butt Tats not what you asked is it
you asked what`s stopping people claiming then working (i provided that information)
your question did not include a caveat

That's because of the "permitted work" thing. If the permitted work thing comes later on - when the assessment is complete, then my question is answered.

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:22 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:I'm trying to read back and understand what rags means?
That if some people refuse treatments for certain illnesses then they shouldn't receive any benefit??

Well the article I posted was about things like depression. Depression is treatable, and the drugs are reasonably safe, so why should someone not be required to try treatment? It also could mean things like counselling too - not drug related.

if you pass it into law for one ...it will be applied to all....

AND will go on to include experimental work too, nothing is sufficiently evil for tories to baulk at.

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:24 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
hold on i thought you didn`t give out personal information ?

I said I don't talk about family stuff.

I'm not going into huge detail am I? Victor may well hope that I suffer an adverse effect and die from this drug he looks down on so much.

well how old are you that`s not a huge detail is it ?

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:25 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
hold on i thought you didn`t give out personal information ?

I said I don't talk about family stuff.

I'm not going into huge detail am I? Victor may well hope that I suffer an adverse effect and die from this drug he looks down on so much.

I said when or if....

and.....i think I know considerably more than YOU about this drug (if its what I'm thinking) and I am WELL aware of the risks it poses...and NOT just direct risks either....

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:25 pm

eddie wrote:I'm trying to read back and understand what rags means?
That if some people refuse treatments for certain illnesses then they shouldn't receive any benefit??

Here's the article again eddie.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10964125/Tories-discuss-stripping-benefits-claimants-who-refuse-treatment-for-depression.html

“We know that depression and anxiety are treatable conditions. Cognitive behavioural therapies work and they get people stable again but you can’t mandate people to take that treatment,” the source said.

“But there are loads of people who claim ESA who undergo no treatment whatsoever. It is bizarre. This is a real problem because we want people to get better.

To my mind, if someone refuses some kind of treatment for depression, they can't be that depressed - just my opinion.

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:26 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
butt Tats not what you asked is it
you asked what`s stopping people claiming then working (i provided that information)
your question did not include a caveat

That's because of the "permitted work" thing. If the permitted work thing comes later on - when the assessment is complete, then my question is answered.

No it apply`s in the assessment phase as well

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:26 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I said I don't talk about family stuff.

I'm not going into huge detail am I? Victor may well hope that I suffer an adverse effect and die from this drug he looks down on so much.

I said when or if....

and.....i think I know considerably more than YOU about this drug (if its what I'm thinking) and I am WELL aware of the risks it poses...and NOT just direct risks either....

Of course you do - you know so much more than anyone else on all subjects.

That was sarcasm by the way.

Do you really think I haven't done my homework on a drug I'm taking?

by eddie Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:26 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:I'm trying to read back and understand what rags means?
That if some people refuse treatments for certain illnesses then they shouldn't receive any benefit??

Well the article I posted was about things like depression. Depression is treatable, and the drugs are reasonably safe, so why should someone not be required to try treatment? It also could mean things like counselling too - not drug related.

Hmm well depression is a very personal and temperamental thing. Some drugs are not suitable for some people and won't work, most of them take up to six weeks to even begin to work and then there's the dosage....and you'd have to have a mighty understanding employer who'd be prepared to let you have time off when the drugs didn't work and needed adjusting thereby taking another six weeks....

And so on.

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:26 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

That's because of the "permitted work" thing. If the permitted work thing comes later on - when the assessment is complete, then my question is answered.
no it apples in the assessment phase as well

So my question still stands.

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:27 pm

Drugs for depression down't have side effects? What planet is Rags living on!

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:28 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well the article I posted was about things like depression. Depression is treatable, and the drugs are reasonably safe, so why should someone not be required to try treatment? It also could mean things like counselling too - not drug related.

Hmm well depression is a very personal and temperamental thing. Some drugs are not suitable for some people and won't work, most of them take up to six weeks to even begin to work and then there's the dosage....and you'd have to have a mighty understanding employer who'd be prepared to let you have time off when the drugs didn't work and needed adjusting thereby taking another six weeks....

And so on.

Well if they haven't even tried treatment, how do they know it won't work?

You're talking about sick leave from work. If someone is off sick with depression anyway, what difference would that make to the employer?

I simply don't understand your point.

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:28 pm

Misleading story.
He died of pneumonia which had nothing to do with his disability benefits being stopped.
This is a healdine winner because people see he died of pneumonia and then make an incorrect claim based on why his benefits were stopped. All I saw in the article was that he was a diabetic.
There is no link here to a stop on his benefits and his death.

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:28 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
no it applies in the assessment phase as well

So my question still stands.

Er No? it was answered twice now i think

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:29 pm

Well I'm enjoying all these excuses I'm hearing. I really do think that some of you would rather be ill than try treatment.

by Tommy Monk Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:29 pm

The job centre already enforce compliance on people to not take drugs or drink if that is causing their problems...

Why would anyone else want to suffer and not work when they could take a harmless course of medication or have a little bit of minor surgery to put a problem right!?

There are thousands of people waiting for a bit of treatment and can't get it soon enough!!!

Should an alcoholic junkie be able to keep claiming ESA and blaming the addiction for the problems while refusing a rehab treatment...!?

Of course not!!!

And currently they are not able to do this!!!!!

What is wrong with you people that you have to deliberately misrepresent a perfectly valid point to get any traction on an argument...???

It's just straw man shit and you lot are quite frankly showing how pathetic you Are with your usual load of old bollocks!!!

lol!

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:29 pm

Coping With Side Effects of Depression Treatment

If you are being treated for moderate to severe depression, a doctor or psychiatrist has probably prescribed an antidepressant medication for you. When they work properly, they help to relieve symptoms and, along with other approaches such as talk therapy, are an important part of treatment.

One way antidepressants work is by altering the balance of certain chemicals in your brain. And, as with all medicines, this change can cause side effects. Some, like jitteriness, weird dreams, dry mouth, and diarrhea typically go away after a week or two -- if they don’t, it’s probably best to switch to another drug. Others, like decreased sexual desire, may last longer.

Not everyone has the same side effects. And a particular antidepressant doesn’t cause the same side effects in all people. Many things, including your genetic makeup or existing health conditions, can affect the way you respond to taking an antidepressant.

It’s important to keep track of side effects and discuss them with your doctor. Together, you and your doctor can safely manage your antidepressants so they work with minimal side effects.

Common Side Effects of Antidepressants

Antidepressants can sometimes cause a wide range of unpleasant side effects, including:

nausea
increased appetite and weight gain
loss of sexual desire and other sexual problems, such as erectile dysfunction and decreased orgasm
fatigue and drowsiness
insomnia
dry mouth
blurred vision
constipation
dizziness
agitation
irritability
anxiety

http://www.webmd.com/depression/features/coping-with-side-effects-of-depression-treatment

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:30 pm

Cuchulain wrote:Misleading story.
He died of pneumonia which had nothing to do with his disability benefits being stopped.
This is a healdine winner because people see he died of pneumonia and then make an incorrect claim based on why his benefits were stopped. All I saw in the article was that he was a diabetic.
There is no link here to a stop on his benefits and his death.

Yes, as usual there's not enough information. There's no information on what type of diabetes it is, or whether it was related to the pneumonia.

The same chap was unemployed in 2010 and planning to walk to Poland apparently.

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:31 pm

Do people realise that not all people on medication have all the side effects which have been reported?

Some people might not have any at all.

by eddie Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:31 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well the article I posted was about things like depression. Depression is treatable, and the drugs are reasonably safe, so why should someone not be required to try treatment? It also could mean things like counselling too - not drug related.

Hmm well depression is a very personal and temperamental thing. Some drugs are not suitable for some people and won't work, most of them take up to six weeks to even begin to work and then there's the dosage....and you'd have to have a mighty understanding employer who'd be prepared to let you have time off when the drugs didn't work and needed adjusting thereby taking another six weeks....

And so on.

Well if they haven't even tried treatment, how do they know it won't work?

You're talking about sick leave from work. If someone is off sick with depression anyway, what difference would that make to the employer?

I simply don't understand your point.

I'm saying that if someone gets diagnosed with depression they cannot immediately return to work and therefore could lose their job which would be why the person would require benefits.

Also there are some very adverse side effects to some drugs and people may not want to take them.

Isn't it a person's choice if they take drugs or not?

Would you have a problem with someone taking alternative meds? Would they still be able to claim benefitsor dies it have to be shown that they're taking the meds prescribed by a consultant?

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:33 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The job centre already enforce compliance on people to not take drugs or drink if that is causing their problems...

Why would anyone else want to suffer and not work when they could take a harmless course of medication or have a little bit of minor surgery to put a problem right!?

There are thousands of people waiting for a bit of treatment and can't get it soon enough!!!

Should an alcoholic junkie be able to keep claiming ESA and blaming the addiction for the problems while refusing a rehab treatment...!?

Of course not!!!

And currently they are not able to do this!!!!!

What is wrong with you people that you have to deliberately misrepresent a perfectly valid point to get any traction on an argument...???

It's just straw man shit and you lot are quite frankly showing how pathetic you Are with your usual load of old bollocks!!!

This is the question Tommy. What I'm seeing here is a huge barrage of excuses for people to stay ill enough to stay on benefits. It really does seem that some people here would actually make themselves ill enough to claim benefits rather than seek treatment.

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:34 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:

I said when or if....

and.....i think I know considerably more than YOU about this drug (if its what I'm thinking) and I am WELL aware of the risks it poses...and NOT just direct risks either....

Of course you do - you know so much more than anyone else on all subjects.

That was sarcasm by the way.

Do you really think I haven't done my homework on a drug I'm taking?

in which case, unless you are so bad without it you are condemned to a wheel chair, I'd consider redoing your homework.....

Oh and I DO know a hell of a lot more about many more subjects than most on here.....see, I didnt just pay attention at school.....I developed a life long passion for enquiry and learning

and sarcasm doesnt suit you ragga...you are too dumb...are you blond by any chance?

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:35 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well if they haven't even tried treatment, how do they know it won't work?

You're talking about sick leave from work. If someone is off sick with depression anyway, what difference would that make to the employer?

I simply don't understand your point.

I'm saying that if someone gets diagnosed with depression they cannot immediately return to work and therefore could lose their job which would be why the person would require benefits.

Also there are some very adverse side effects to some drugs and people may not want to take them.

Isn't it a person's choice if they take drugs or not?

Would you have a problem with someone taking alternative meds? Would they still be able to claim benefitsor dies it have to be shown that they're taking the meds prescribed by a consultant?

If they were ill with depression, and didn't have treatment, they would still be off work though eddie. Someone with depression can work if they're having treatment and are well enough because of that treatment.

Why would you advise someone to not take treatment if they were so depressed that they could barely function?

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:36 pm

You vill do as Herr Rags says, you vill comply, you will not manage your illness in the way you think best, you vill be compliant to the State and lick boots and svallow, and you vill like it!

by eddie Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:36 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:The job centre already enforce compliance on people to not take drugs or drink if that is causing their problems...

Why would anyone else want to suffer and not work when they could take a harmless course of medication or have a little bit of minor surgery to put a problem right!?

There are thousands of people waiting for a bit of treatment and can't get it soon enough!!!

Should an alcoholic junkie be able to keep claiming ESA and blaming the addiction for the problems while refusing a rehab treatment...!?

Of course not!!!

And currently they are not able to do this!!!!!

What is wrong with you people that you have to deliberately misrepresent a perfectly valid point to get any traction on an argument...???

It's just straw man shit and you lot are quite frankly showing how pathetic you Are with your usual load of old bollocks!!!

This is the question Tommy. What I'm seeing here is a huge barrage of excuses for people to stay ill enough to stay on benefits. It really does seem that some people here would actually make themselves ill enough to claim benefits rather than seek treatment.

That's not fair.
I just don't know if it's right or moral to force someone to take medication? And if they don't want to - should they not be entitled to benefits?

It's a bit of a tough one rags.

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:37 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Of course you do - you know so much more than anyone else on all subjects.

That was sarcasm by the way.

Do you really think I haven't done my homework on a drug I'm taking?

in which case, unless you are so bad without it you are condemned to a wheel chair, I'd consider redoing your homework.....

Oh and I DO know a hell of a lot more about many more subjects than most on here.....see, I didnt just pay attention at school.....I developed a life long passion for enquiry and learning

and sarcasm doesnt suit you ragga...you are too dumb...are you blond by any chance?

As I told you - twice now - without that drug I would have had to give up work. Is that not enough for you?

You don't know more than me about what I have and the drug I'm taking, so get off your high horse - nasty bastard.

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:37 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:Misleading story.
He died of pneumonia which had nothing to do with his disability benefits being stopped.
This is a healdine winner because people see he died of pneumonia and then make an incorrect claim based on why his benefits were stopped. All I saw in the article was that he was a diabetic.
There is no link here to a stop on his benefits and his death.

Yes, as usual there's not enough information. There's no information on what type of diabetes it is, or whether it was related to the pneumonia.

The same chap was unemployed in 2010 and planning to walk to Poland apparently.

his daughter said in the piece : “He couldn’t walk. He couldn’t see. He was in a terrible state

Diabetes
And Pneumonia:Get theFacts
Did you know that a pneumococcal (new-mo-Koc-kal) shot (or pneumonia shot) can be a lifesaver if you have
diabetes? People with diabetes are about 3 times more likely to die with flu and pneumonia. Yet, only one third
of them ever get a simple, safe pneumonia shot. Pneumonia is a serious illness for anyone, but if you have
diabetes, you are more likely to be sicker longer, go to the hospital, or even die. One pneumonia shot can help
protect you against getting sick. Who Should Geto
ThePneumonia Shot
?A pneumonia shot is recommendedfor anyone aged 2 or older who, because of chronic health problems (such as diabetes) or age, has
a greater chance of getting and dying with pneumonia. Extra Protection A pneumonia shot can also protect you against other infections
caused by the same bacteria. Consider the risks everyone faces:
1 out of 20 adults who get pneumonia (a lung infection) dies
2 out of 10 adults who get infection of the blood (bacteremia) die
3 out of 10 adults who get infection of the covering of
the brain (meningitis) die About 10,000 people die each year because of these bacterial infections. A pneumonia shot, however, can
help protect you against getting these illnesses. In fact, it is about 60% effective in preventing the most serious
pneumonias, meningitis, bacteremia, and death.

http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/projects/pdfs/eng_facts.pdf

by Tommy Monk Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:37 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

The assessment stage, as KD called it, is just meaning the time it takes between you first making your claim and the time it takes to book you in to atos for a fit to work assessment...

You get same money as JSA straight away and then if you pass the assessment then your money goes up to the higher rate of ESA and you can also claim other benefits if qualify.

You can do a few hours work on JSA, don't know how many, but you will lose money out of your overall claim to compensate for earnings...

If You Are on ESA then you won't be fit for work, unless assessed as being so, and won't want to work... and if you Are fit to work any hours then you shouldn't be on ESA... although I think that you can be in a ESA assisted work group thing after being assessed whereby you Are assisted to do a little bit of work to support your want to do work and also to help you start getting back into the routine of work when you may be on The mend so to speak... If that makes sense?

So after the assessment stage, if you're found fit to work, they don't make you pay the money back? Is that because it's almost the same as JSA anyway?

Your medical professionals have found you unfit to work, the atos basic health worker has found you possibly fit after seeing you walk about, answer questions, even getting to the assessment centre is part of The test... If You can travel across London ok to get there then you can't be that ill, is the way they see it...!!!

Then you have an appeal stage where you will need your doctor to fight your corner and most likely win.

Arse ache for everyone but weeds out loads of people who are swinging the lead a bit!!!

And of course they are unhappy about it when caught out... means they have to go to work when they don't want to!!!

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:38 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The job centre already enforce compliance on people to not take drugs or drink if that is causing their problems...

of course tommy you are too stupid to see the difference between taking something which harms deliberately for kicks etc and which stopping will help

and being forced to take a course of medication that MAY and I do say MAY , with varying degrees of certainty do you more harm than good?

Why would anyone else want to suffer and not work when they could take a harmless course of medication or have a little bit of minor surgery to put a problem right!?

There are thousands of people waiting for a bit of treatment and can't get it soon enough!!!

Should an alcoholic junkie be able to keep claiming ESA and blaming the addiction for the problems while refusing a rehab treatment...!?

Of course not!!!

And currently they are not able to do this!!!!!

What is wrong with you people that you have to deliberately misrepresent a perfectly valid point to get any traction on an argument...???

and YOU tell me...if this insanity was passed, what is to stop it being "expanded" to include enforced medication with new and novel drugs
the tories could convice you of anything ...becasue you have nothing between your ears to filter it out....

It's just straw man shit and you lot are quite frankly showing how pathetic you Are with your usual load of old bollocks!!!

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:38 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

This is the question Tommy. What I'm seeing here is a huge barrage of excuses for people to stay ill enough to stay on benefits. It really does seem that some people here would actually make themselves ill enough to claim benefits rather than seek treatment.

That's not fair.
I just don't know if it's right or moral to force someone to take medication? And if they don't want to - should they not be entitled to benefits?

It's a bit of a tough one rags.

It is fair. All I've seen are people saying why treatment should not be tried for one reason or another. Not one of you, apart from Tommy, has said it's worth trying.

I'll ask you again. If someone was so ill with depression that they could barely function, would you really advise them not to try treatment "in case" they got a side effect?

by eddie Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:40 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well if they haven't even tried treatment, how do they know it won't work?

You're talking about sick leave from work. If someone is off sick with depression anyway, what difference would that make to the employer?

I simply don't understand your point.

I'm saying that if someone gets diagnosed with depression they cannot immediately return to work and therefore could lose their job which would be why the person would require benefits.

Also there are some very adverse side effects to some drugs and people may not want to take them.

Isn't it a person's choice if they take drugs or not?

Would you have a problem with someone taking alternative meds? Would they still be able to claim benefitsor dies it have to be shown that they're taking the meds prescribed by a consultant?

If they were ill with depression, and didn't have treatment, they would still be off work though eddie. Someone with depression can work if they're having treatment and are well enough because of that treatment.

Why would you advise someone to not take treatment if they were so depressed that they could barely function?

Hmmm well probably because I'm a bit of a believer in looking for alternative treatments rags if I'm honest. But that's my personal choice.
Shoutout I be able to choose that direction, if I ever find myself in that position?

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:40 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, as usual there's not enough information. There's no information on what type of diabetes it is, or whether it was related to the pneumonia.

The same chap was unemployed in 2010 and planning to walk to Poland apparently.
his daughter said in the piece : “He couldn’t walk. He couldn’t see. He was in a terrible state

Diabetes
And Pneumonia:Get theFacts
Did you know that a pneumococcal (new-mo-Koc-kal) shot (or pneumonia shot) can be a lifesaver if you have
diabetes? People with diabetes are about 3 times more likely to die with flu and pneumonia. Yet, only one third
of them ever get a simple, safe pneumonia shot. Pneumonia is a serious illness for anyone, but if you have
diabetes, you are more likely to be sicker longer, go to the hospital, or even die. One pneumonia shot can help
protect you against getting sick. Who Should Geto
ThePneumonia Shot
?A pneumonia shot is recommendedfor anyone aged 2 or older who, because of chronic health problems (such as diabetes) or age, has
a greater chance of getting and dying with pneumonia. Extra Protection A pneumonia shot can also protect you against other infections
caused by the same bacteria. Consider the risks everyone faces:
1 out of 20 adults who get pneumonia (a lung infection) dies
2 out of 10 adults who get infection of the blood (bacteremia) die
3 out of 10 adults who get infection of the covering of
the brain (meningitis) die About 10,000 people die each year because of these bacterial infections. A pneumonia shot, however, can
help protect you against getting these illnesses. In fact, it is about 60% effective in preventing the most serious
pneumonias, meningitis, bacteremia, and death.

http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/projects/pdfs/eng_facts.pdf

And didge said he worked in the NHS at one point, obviously not on the medical side. Who the hell doesn't know that ANY chronic disease leaves you prone to pneumonia etc.

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:40 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:

in which case, unless you are so bad without it you are condemned to a wheel chair, I'd consider redoing your homework.....

Oh and I DO know a hell of a lot more about many more subjects than most on here.....see, I didnt just pay attention at school.....I developed a life long passion for enquiry and learning

and sarcasm doesnt suit you ragga...you are too dumb...are you blond by any chance?

As I told you - twice now - without that drug I would have had to give up work. Is that not enough for you?

You don't know more than me about what I have and the drug I'm taking, so get off your high horse - nasty bastard.

I know you are a spoilt grasping fool.....

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:41 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Do people realise that not all people on medication have all the side effects which have been reported?

Some people might not have any at all.

name me a drug with no side affects

by eddie Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:41 pm

Vic there's no need to get personal.... She's a good poster and entitled to her opinion.

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:41 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, as usual there's not enough information. There's no information on what type of diabetes it is, or whether it was related to the pneumonia.

The same chap was unemployed in 2010 and planning to walk to Poland apparently.
his daughter said in the piece : “He couldn’t walk. He couldn’t see. He was in a terrible state

Diabetes
And Pneumonia:Get theFacts
Did you know that a pneumococcal (new-mo-Koc-kal) shot (or pneumonia shot) can be a lifesaver if you have
diabetes? People with diabetes are about 3 times more likely to die with flu and pneumonia. Yet, only one third
of them ever get a simple, safe pneumonia shot. Pneumonia is a serious illness for anyone, but if you have
diabetes, you are more likely to be sicker longer, go to the hospital, or even die. One pneumonia shot can help
protect you against getting sick. Who Should Geto
ThePneumonia Shot
?A pneumonia shot is recommendedfor anyone aged 2 or older who, because of chronic health problems (such as diabetes) or age, has
a greater chance of getting and dying with pneumonia. Extra Protection A pneumonia shot can also protect you against other infections
caused by the same bacteria. Consider the risks everyone faces:
1 out of 20 adults who get pneumonia (a lung infection) dies
2 out of 10 adults who get infection of the blood (bacteremia) die
3 out of 10 adults who get infection of the covering of
the brain (meningitis) die About 10,000 people die each year because of these bacterial infections. A pneumonia shot, however, can
help protect you against getting these illnesses. In fact, it is about 60% effective in preventing the most serious
pneumonias, meningitis, bacteremia, and death.

http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/projects/pdfs/eng_facts.pdf

Sory Korben that does not mean he was notfit for work based on his disabilities.
I am susceptible to pneumonia because I suffer from asthma. That does mean I am unfit for work.
This is a misleading story. He contracted pneumonia and sadly died.
What I have not seen anywhere on the story is what his disabilities were other than diabetes.

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:42 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

If they were ill with depression, and didn't have treatment, they would still be off work though eddie. Someone with depression can work if they're having treatment and are well enough because of that treatment.

Why would you advise someone to not take treatment if they were so depressed that they could barely function?

Hmmm well probably because I'm a bit of a believer in looking for alternative treatments rags if I'm honest. But that's my personal choice.
Shoutout I be able to choose that direction, if I ever find myself in that position?

What if your "alternative" treatment didn't work eddie? Would you rather sit there looking at a friend who could not function or would you rather take them to the doctor and ask about treatment?

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:44 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Do people realise that not all people on medication have all the side effects which have been reported?

Some people might not have any at all.
name me a drug with no side affects

Potential side effects - there are none. However, as I said - which you clearly didn't read - not everyone gets the side effects. Some people get none at all, and some get very mild ones which are tolerable. It's to do with the risk/benefit ratio Korban.

by eddie Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:44 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

If they were ill with depression, and didn't have treatment, they would still be off work though eddie. Someone with depression can work if they're having treatment and are well enough because of that treatment.

Why would you advise someone to not take treatment if they were so depressed that they could barely function?

Hmmm well probably because I'm a bit of a believer in looking for alternative treatments rags if I'm honest. But that's my personal choice.
Shoutout I be able to choose that direction, if I ever find myself in that position?

What if your "alternative" treatment didn't work eddie? Would you rather sit there looking at a friend who could not function or would you rather take them to the doctor and ask about treatment?

Yes I would of course I would rags.
But if she refused for personal or whatever reasons, does that mean she shouldn't be entitled to benefits?

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:44 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

As I told you - twice now - without that drug I would have had to give up work. Is that not enough for you?

You don't know more than me about what I have and the drug I'm taking, so get off your high horse - nasty bastard.

I know you are a spoilt grasping fool.....

Fuck off, you nasty little weasel.

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:45 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So after the assessment stage, if you're found fit to work, they don't make you pay the money back? Is that because it's almost the same as JSA anyway?

Your medical professionals have found you unfit to work, the atos basic health worker has found you possibly fit after seeing you walk about, answer questions, even getting to the assessment centre is part of The test... If You can travel across London ok to get there then you can't be that ill, is the way they see it...!!!

Then you have an appeal stage where you will need your doctor to fight your corner and most likely win.

Arse ache for everyone but weeds out loads of people who are swinging the lead a bit!!!

And of course they are unhappy about it when caught out... means they have to go to work when they don't want to!!!

honestly your very stupid

how is a basic health worker more qualified that a medical professional

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:46 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

What if your "alternative" treatment didn't work eddie? Would you rather sit there looking at a friend who could not function or would you rather take them to the doctor and ask about treatment?

Yes I would of course I would rags.
But if she refused for personal or whatever reasons, does that mean she shouldn't be entitled to benefits?

I think it should be looked into - ie, her refusal to try treatment, yes. I can't imagine anyone who is that ill absolutely refusing to try something which may well make them feel a whole lot better.

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:46 pm

But you know...the idiots here (and there are two of em) are missing a central and important point

do they know exactly how LITTLE of the benefits bill is actually spent on sickness benfits...

Its minute in the telephone figure world of govt spending.....

of course i realise that in truth they despise the sick and disabled, the probaly bow to an effigy of Josef Mengele Rolling Eyes

by Guest Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:46 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
name me a drug with no side affects

Potential side effects - there are none. However, as I said - which you clearly didn't read - not everyone gets the side effects. Some people get none at all, and some get very mild ones which are tolerable. It's to do with the risk/benefit ratio Korban.

So Rags is taking the only drug in the world with no potential side effects, and of course we all believe her - not!

by Sponsored content