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

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Not only am I entitled to it, but I clearly do know what I'm talking about. I wouldn't just take a drug without knowing all the facts about it. Some do of course, but not me.

I seem to remember some on here in favour of enforced medication in America in the vaccine thread...!!!



Hypocrisy anyone!!!???

Raggamuffin wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:

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

Fuck off, you nasty little weasel.

Ahh...the REAL ragga comes out to play

Tommy Monk wrote:I seem to remember some on here in favour of enforced medication in America in the vaccine thread...!!!



Hypocrisy anyone!!!???

Ooooh yes. Who were those people Tommy?

victorismyhero wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuck off, you nasty little weasel.

Ahh...the REAL ragga comes out to play

That's right. If you behave like a twat to me, you'll get it back.

victorismyhero 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.

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

Fuck off, you thick, ignorant moron.

And if you cant see a difference then you truely ARE a bigger fool than I could possibly imagine

korban dallas wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


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

They're not you bell end!!!


That was the point I was making!!!

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.

Potential , Some people,not everyone,mild ones, tolerable

perhaps we should just weed out the ones who cant take certain drugs and dismiss them to a life of destitution and misery and remove there benefits

perhaps we could make them wear a star on there cloths while we are at it

Do you know what I see on this forum? A bunch of spoilt brats who bang on and on about their various medical conditions, and expect "empathy". I mention that I'm taking a drug, and suddenly they think it's great to mock me for it. What happened to that "empathy" they're so keen on?

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

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.

Potential , Some people,not everyone,mild ones, tolerable

perhaps we should just weed out the ones who cant take certain drugs and dismiss them to a life of destitution and misery and remove there benefits

perhaps we could make them wear a star on there cloths while we are at it

Potential side effects - as in drugs have potential side effects. However, not everyone gets them. You can look up any drug and see a huge list of potential side effects, but that doesn't mean that everyone on that drug will get them.

People won't know if they will get side effects until they try a drug, right?

Don't you know anything about medical issues?

unfortunately for a good number, those side effects are either life changing or fatal...

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Potential , Some people,not everyone,mild ones, tolerable

perhaps we should just weed out the ones who cant take certain drugs and dismiss them to a life of destitution and misery and remove there benefits

perhaps we could make them wear a star on there cloths while we are at it

Potential side effects - as in drugs have potential side effects. However, not everyone gets them. You can look up any drug and see a huge list of potential side effects, but that doesn't mean that everyone on that drug will get them.

People won't know if they will get side effects until they try a drug, right?

Don't you know anything about medical issues?

yes i do quite a lot actually do you ?

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Potential side effects - as in drugs have potential side effects. However, not everyone gets them. You can look up any drug and see a huge list of potential side effects, but that doesn't mean that everyone on that drug will get them.

People won't know if they will get side effects until they try a drug, right?

Don't you know anything about medical issues?

yes i do quite a lot actually do you ?

Yes I do.

victorismyhero wrote:unfortunately for a good number, those side effects are either life changing or fatal...

Well maybe the drug I'm taking will be fatal, and then you can sit there and mock.

The point is - if someone has a choice between being incapacitated and trying a drug which could make them better, which choice would most people make?

Theoretically, a person with mild depression maybe wouldn't really need any medication and wouldn't be unwell enough to justify claiming ESA either so bit of a moot point...


However, somebody with severe depression should at the very least be taking some medication or be in a psychiatric care unit.

Tommy Monk wrote:Theoretically, a person with mild depression maybe wouldn't really need any medication and wouldn't be unwell enough to justify claiming ESA either so bit of a moot point...


However, somebody with severe depression should at the very least be taking some medication or be in a psychiatric care unit.

Yes - if it was mild, then working might be the best thing for them. If it was severe, why would they refuse to try something which could help them? This talk of "side effects" is bullshit. If someone is so ill that they have no life anyway, they would try that treatment.

OK I have an idea.....

since clearly tommy and ragga think tis is such a good idea and that the benefits FAR outweigh any possible risk

then lets go for it...BUT

every person the govt forces onto these medications against their will MUST be insured BY the govt for £100,000 against that (NOTE) miniscule risk as they claim......

let them put their money where their mouth is.....

OH and the cause of death in any of these cases will be determined by a medical examiner from america who is NOT under the control of the govt with a medical examiner of the FAMILIES choice present.....

Tommy Monk wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
honestly your very stupid

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

They're not you bell end!!!


That was the point I was making!!!

well perhaps i misunderstood your previous comments because they seemed to suggest that being assesed as fit for work by Atos and having to then get more supporting evidence from your doctor was a good thing
regardless of the fact you have to get supporting evidence and support from your doctor in the first place anyway
but that is dismissed in by ATOS in a huge number of cases
so you against the current system then ?

Tommy Monk wrote:I seem to remember some on here in favour of enforced medication in America in the vaccine thread...!!!

Hypocrisy anyone!!!???

Now that's very true and a very good point!!

Raggamuffin wrote:Do you know what I see on this forum? A bunch of spoilt brats who bang on and on about their various medical conditions, and expect "empathy". I mention that I'm taking a drug, and suddenly they think it's great to mock me for it. What happened to that "empathy" they're so keen on?

Didn't mock you for taking the drug, Mocked you because you claim to be taking the only drug in the world with no side effects. And BTW, side effects might not show themselves for some time, like taking Vitamin D, very innocuous and getting hypercalcemia.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Do you know what I see on this forum? A bunch of spoilt brats who bang on and on about their various medical conditions, and expect "empathy". I mention that I'm taking a drug, and suddenly they think it's great to mock me for it. What happened to that "empathy" they're so keen on?

Didn't mock you for taking the drug,  Mocked you because you claim to be taking the only drug in the world with no side effects.  And BTW, side effects might not show themselves for some time, like taking Vitamin D, very innocuous and getting hypercalcemia.

I claimed nothing of the kind. Quote the post.

Oh and Sassy, you mock me and you'll get it back.

Raggamuffin wrote:The point is - if someone has a choice between being incapacitated and trying a drug which could make them better, which choice would most people make?

Of course you're right but the point is, it should be THEIR choice, should it not? And if they choose not to, then why should they have no money in the form of benefits?

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

Didn't mock you for taking the drug,  Mocked you because you claim to be taking the only drug in the world with no side effects.  And BTW, side effects might not show themselves for some time, like taking Vitamin D, very innocuous and getting hypercalcemia.

I claimed nothing of the kind. Quote the post.

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

Post by Raggamuffin Today at 10:44 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.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The point is - if someone has a choice between being incapacitated and trying a drug which could make them better, which choice would most people make?

Of course you're right but the point is, it should be THEIR choice, should it not? And if they choose not to, then why should they have no money in the form of benefits?

I would say that if they make the choice not to, they're not that ill in the first place, or they want to be ill.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I claimed nothing of the kind. Quote the post.

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

Post by Raggamuffin Today at 10:44 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.

Korban said "name me a drug with no side effects". I said "potential side effects - there are none", meaning that there are no drugs which don't have potential side effects.

Happy now?

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Do you know what I see on this forum? A bunch of spoilt brats who bang on and on about their various medical conditions, and expect "empathy". I mention that I'm taking a drug, and suddenly they think it's great to mock me for it. What happened to that "empathy" they're so keen on?

Didn't mock you for taking the drug,  Mocked you because you claim to be taking the only drug in the world with no side effects.  And BTW, side effects might not show themselves for some time, like taking Vitamin D, very innocuous and getting hypercalcemia.

very true  i was given lisinopril for slightly consistently high BP ,was fine for a couple of weeks till the side affects kicked in that was not plesent could not stay awake for more than a couple of hours  felt more stoned than i ever did smoking cannabis plus other side affect some times the cure is worse than the complaint

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

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

Post by Raggamuffin Today at 10:44 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.

Korban said "name me a drug with no side effects". I said "potential side effects - there are none", meaning that there are no drugs which don't have potential side effects.

Happy now?

LOL! Yea right we believe you.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The point is - if someone has a choice between being incapacitated and trying a drug which could make them better, which choice would most people make?

Of course you're right but the point is, it should be THEIR choice, should it not? And if they choose not to, then why should they have no money in the form of benefits?

I would say that if they make the choice not to, they're not that ill in the first place, or they want to be ill.

Perhaps..... I don't know, everyone is different.
I don't think you can judge all cases like that.

Some illnesses are invisible - like fibromyalgia. For instance.

korban dallas wrote:

sassy wrote:

Didn't mock you for taking the drug,  Mocked you because you claim to be taking the only drug in the world with no side effects.  And BTW, side effects might not show themselves for some time, like taking Vitamin D, very innocuous and getting hypercalcemia.

very true  i was given lisinopril for slightly consistently high BP ,was fine for a couple of weeks till the side affects kicked in that was not plesent could not stay awake for more than a couple of hours  felt more stoned than i ever did smoking cannabis plus other side affect some times the cure is worse than the complaint

Exactly, sometimes it can be months and then your body decides enough is enough.

victorismyhero wrote:
OK I have an idea.....

since clearly tommy and ragga think tis is such a good idea and that the benefits FAR outweigh any possible risk

then lets go for it...BUT

every person the govt forces onto these medications against their will MUST be insured BY the govt for £100,000 against that (NOTE) miniscule risk as they claim......

let them put their money where their mouth is.....

OH and the cause of death in any of these cases will be determined by a medical examiner from america who is NOT under the control of the govt with a medical examiner of the FAMILIES choice present.....

I haven't argued in favour of any enforced medication... in fact it was me who argued against it on The vaccine thread while you were arguing FOR it!!!





Rags was only asking whether it was a requirement of receipt of benefits and the answer is no... but It is a requirement to declare alcohol or drug problems when trying to claim ESA and if they could be cause of health problems... then treatment is enforced as requirement of receipt of benefits.


For some that could be a methadone treatment programme... of which some would argue is a risk to their health...

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Korban said "name me a drug with no side effects". I said "potential side effects - there are none", meaning that there are no drugs which don't have potential side effects.

Happy now?

LOL!  Yea right we believe you.

I would have thought that the rest of my post made it clear what I meant. Try putting some context into what what you read before you get it wrong as usual.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

LOL!  Yea right we believe you.

I would have thought that the rest of my post made it clear what I meant. Try putting some context into what what you read before you get it wrong as usual.

Try leaning to communicate more effectively lol

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I would say that if they make the choice not to, they're not that ill in the first place, or they want to be ill.

Perhaps..... I don't know, everyone is different.
I don't think you can judge all cases like that.

Some illnesses are invisible - like fibromyalgia. For instance.

Well we're not talking about illnesses for which there is no definitive treatment are we?

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I would have thought that the rest of my post made it clear what I meant. Try putting some context into what what you read before you get it wrong as usual.

Try leaning to communicate more effectively lol

You're the one who got it wrong. It's absolutely clear what I was saying. If you're too thick to understand, that's your problem.

There is no definitely treatment for mental illness, including depression.

Tommy Monk wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:
OK I have an idea.....

since clearly tommy and ragga think tis is such a good idea and that the benefits FAR outweigh any possible risk

then lets go for it...BUT

every person the govt forces onto these medications against their will MUST be insured BY the govt for £100,000 against that (NOTE) miniscule risk as they claim......

let them put their money where their mouth is.....

OH and the cause of death in any of these cases will be determined by a medical examiner from america who is NOT under the control of the govt with a medical examiner of the FAMILIES choice present.....

I haven't argued in favour of any enforced medication... in fact it was me who argued against it on The vaccine thread while you were arguing FOR it!!!





Rags was only asking whether it was a requirement of receipt of benefits and the answer is no... but It is a requirement to declare alcohol or drug problems when trying to claim ESA and if they could be cause of health problems... then treatment is enforced as requirement of receipt of benefits.


For some that could be a methadone treatment programme... of which some would argue is a risk to their health...

An interesting scenario. If someone is addicted to alcohol and refuses to try to treat that, one would have to assume they prefer being an alcoholic.

sassy wrote:There is no definitely treatment for mental illness, including depression.

Yes there is. Millions of people have benefited from such treatment.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:There is no definitely treatment for mental illness, including depression.

Yes there is. Millions of people have benefited from such treatment.

But it is not definitive, there are many cases of treatment resistant depression.

Primary Care Depression Guidelines and Treatment Resistant Depression: Variations on an Important but Understudied Theme

By: Bradley N. Gaynes, MD, MPH, Linda J. Lux, MPA, and Gerald Gartlehner, MD, MPH

The statistics are sobering. In any given year, between 13.1 million and 14.2 million U.S. citizens will experience an episode of major depressive disorder (MDD). (1) Although approximately half of these people seek help for this condition, only 20 percent—10 percent of the total population with MDD—receive adequate treatment. (2) Even then, only 30 percent of those who receive adequate treatment reach the treatment goal of remission. (3) The remaining 70 percent will either have a response without remission (about 20 percent) or not respond at all (50 percent). (3) This latter group, whose depressive disorder does not adequately respond following acute-phase treatment, appears to have a harder-to-treat depression. (4) In particular, patients with two or more failed treatment attempts are a common and challenging presentation to psychiatric and primary care clinics. (5) For these patients, expert consensus includes considering a diagnosis of treatment-resistant depression. (5-7)

Having two adequately dosed but unsuccessful treatment trials in the same episode predicts a lower likelihood of remission with the next treatment. Although the remission rate for depressed patients with a first or, if necessary, a second treatment attempt is approximately 30 percent, the likelihood of recovery with a subsequent medication treatment decreases to approximately 15 percent. (5) Unfortunately, patients with treatment-resistant depression incur the highest direct and indirect medical costs among those with MDD, and these costs increase with the severity of the illness.

The primary care setting is the major access point for MDD, and primary care physicians write about two of every three antidepressant prescriptions in the United States. (9) Many clinical practice guidelines address depression management; most of these give special emphasis to primary care. Nevertheless, despite how common it is for depressed patients with at least two unsuccessful treatment attempts to present to clinicians in general—and to primary care in particular—at this time no single guideline has treatment-resistant depression as its main (or even secondary) topic.

For this commentary, we compared three depression guidelines that focus on primary care management of depression and are available in the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC):

   Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement (ICSI). Major depression in adults in primary care. Bloomington (MN): Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement (ICSI); 2011 May. (10)
   National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health. Depression. The treatment and management of depression in adults. London (UK): National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE); 2009 Oct. (Clinical guideline; no. 90). (11)
   Department of Veteran Affairs, Department of Defense. VA/DoD clinical practice guideline for management of major depressive disorder (MDD). Washington (DC): Department of Veteran Affairs, Department of Defense; 2009 May. (12)

Although none of these guidelines focuses on managing patients with treatment-resistant depression, each addresses some key clinical management issues, as discussed below. The differences across the guidelines are perhaps more remarkable than the similarities.

How Is Treatment-Resistant Depression Defined?

ICSI considers treatment-resistant depression to be more severe than the consensus definition, stating, "True treatment resistance is seen as occurring on a continuum, from failure to reach remission after an adequate trial of a single antidepressant to failure to achieve remission despite several trials of antidepressants, augmentation strategies, ECT and psychotherapy." For this guideline, "true treatment resistance" is defined as "failure to achieve remission with an adequate trial of therapy and three different classes of antidepressants at adequate duration and dosage." (10)

NICE has struggled with defining treatment-resistant depression. Before 2009, the organization viewed it as depression in a patient who has failed to respond to two or more antidepressants given sequentially at an adequate dose and duration. Subsequently, NICE concluded that this view implied a "natural cut-off" not supported by the available evidence. Additional critiques found the definition potentially pejorative, unappreciative of the role of psychosocial factors and psychotherapy interventions in managing patients with depression, and guilty of ignoring differing degrees of treatment failure. With the 2009 update, NICE has substantially modified its earlier understanding of treatment-resistant depression and frames the problem of inadequate response by considering "sequenced treatment options rather than by a category of patient." (11)

VA/DoD has no specific definition for treatment-resistant depression, although they do refer to refractory depression. Instead, they focus basically on the number of treatment failures, with two such failures apparently meeting their key criterio

http://www.guideline.gov/expert/expert-commentary.aspx?id=36835

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes there is. Millions of people have benefited from such treatment.

But it is not definitive, there are many cases of treatment resistant depression.

How would any particular person know unless they tried the treatment though?

That isn't the point, you said there was difinitive treatment for depression, there isn't.

korban dallas wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

They're not you bell end!!!


That was the point I was making!!!

well perhaps i misunderstood your previous comments because they seemed to suggest that being assesed as fit for work by Atos and having to then get more supporting evidence from your doctor was a good thing
regardless of the fact you have to get supporting evidence and support from your doctor in the first place anyway
but that is dismissed in by ATOS in a huge number of cases
so you against the current system then ?

I support the need for a system... but I don't support the current system.


Tough was needed but this is too tough and definately causing too many wrong decisions of being fit to work when clearly not fit to work at all...


Maybe because it is too tough in the rules and not allowing enough discretion for common sense judgements to be made?


But It is also true that some people are assessed and as A result are informed about extra benefits they are entitled to...


Are we all agreed that there is a need for an independent assessment to be made on claims of sickness to stop loads of people trying it on...!?


I don't think anyone would argue for a free for all would they!!!???

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I would say that if they make the choice not to, they're not that ill in the first place, or they want to be ill.

Perhaps..... I don't know, everyone is different.
I don't think you can judge all cases like that.

Some illnesses are invisible - like fibromyalgia. For instance.

Well we're not talking about illnesses for which there is no definitive treatment are we?

I don't know rags! Because as I said at the beginning, All illnesses are different and affect people differently - as does medication.

I am not one for making people take meds agaisnt their will - as Tommy and others will testify in the vaccine threads!

I will give you an example: my other half was given Vioxx (sp?) years ago for a bad back. He's one of those robot those who'll do as the GP says
I told him not to take it as he would become reliant upon it.
He didn't take it and carried on in pain - until I found the TSE machine - and then the tablets Vioxx were taken off the market after finding out they were giving people heart attacks (google it and you'll see)

Say he'd been on benefits and refused to take those meds and been forced to and then suffered a heart attack?

Oh and this is a,so another reason I don't trust Drs much and scientists!

As of 2009/10, the UK was spending 2.37 per cent of GDP on these benefits. This was almost exactly what the UK was spending thirty years earlier in 1979/80, and a lot less than in most years since then. Bear in mind that this was after the biggest collapse in GDP since the great depression.

Comparisons with years before 1978/9 are less robust because we can’t exclude some payments to pensioners from the data prior to 1978/9 (although this really does not seem to make a huge difference to the trends).

With that caveat in mind, we can say that expenditure on these benefits as a share of GDP prior to the recession probably wasn’t very different to the early 1970’s. The popular notion that the UK has been spending record amounts on these benefits in recent years is the opposite of the truth.


govt income around 612billion (not this is NOT GDP)
govt expenditure on sickness benefits 40 billion

6.5% roughly of govt income

WTF are those two cabbages whingeing about when tax avoidance/evasion costs 3 times as much?

The figures clash significantly with those produced by HMRC, the government's tax collecting body. The PCS-commissioned research estimates that over 2013 and 14 the UK lost £73.4bn to tax evasion ("tax lost when a person or company deliberately and unlawfully fails to declare income that they know is taxable or claims expenses that are not allowed") over the course of the studied period, dwarfing the official government estimate of £22.3bn.

The other areas that contribute to the tax gap are tax avoidance – defined as "tax that is lost when a person claims to arrange their affairs to minimise tax within the law in the UK or in other countries". The PCS estimates tax avoidance costs the UK economy £19.1bn over the course of the year. Tax debt - tax which is not paid by a person or company who knows that they owe it, but who don't pay or delay payment - cost the UK £18.2bn over 2013-14
While the total tax gap has narrowed slightly from the £120bn Tax Research estimated in 2010, tax evasion has been rising quite sharply over recent years and is predicted to do so.

Re side effects, there are potential side effects for vitamins you can buy over the counter - something many people take every day. The point is that they are potential side effects, not ones that every single person taking it will get. The same is true for prescription drugs.

In drug trials, they have to log all side effects, even if they're not necessarily proven to be related to the drug. This is for safety reasons.

there is no logic to their arguments...just pure vitriol aimed at a voiceless minority

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well we're not talking about illnesses for which there is no definitive treatment are we?

I don't know rags! Because as I said at the beginning, All illnesses are different and affect people differently - as does medication.

I am not one for making people take meds agaisnt their will - as Tommy and others will testify in the vaccine threads!

I will give you an example: my other half was given Vioxx (sp?) years ago for a bad back. He's one of those robot those who'll do as the GP says
I told him not to take it as he would become reliant upon it.
He didn't take it and carried on in pain - until I found the TSE machine - and then the tablets Vioxx were taken off the market after finding out they were giving people heart attacks (google it and you'll see)

Say he'd been on benefits and refused to take those meds and been forced to and then suffered a heart attack?

Oh and this is a,so another reason I don't trust Drs much and scientists!

We are talking about people not even trying a drug eddie. Are you saying that some are put off by the huge lists of potential side effects? I've addressed that point.

I know about Vioxx - it was unfortunate. However, there are many other similar drugs which have not been taken off the market, so there are alternatives. It's not set in stone eddie, but if you were so ill that without medication you would have no life, would you not try one?