UK: Government benefits cuts leave thousands of HIV patients struggling to afford basic nutrition

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 4:37 pm

First topic message reminder :

UK: Government benefits cuts leave thousands of HIV patients struggling to afford basic nutrition - Page 2 Standardimg30

UK: Government benefits cuts leave thousands of HIV patients struggling to afford basic nutrition - Page 2 Standardimg30

Because HIV suppresses the immune system, it is vital that patients are getting enough nutrition.

ccording to HIV experts, recent welfare reforms by the UK’s Coalition government have left thousands of HIV patients unable to afford the basic food they need to cope with their condition.

In an exclusive report by The Independent on Sunday, it emerged that the situation was now so critical, in some cases doctors were forced to prescribe food supplements to ensure that the patients’ medication would work.

David Asboe, chair of the British HIV Association and a consultant in HIV medicine at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, said: “Before the past three or four years, I never saw people coming in and saying they didn’t have enough money for food. Now I’ve seen several people in my clinic where the fact that they’ve had a decrease in their income, related to benefit changes, means they can’t afford regular food.

“Sometimes I have to prescribe food supplements to help them. If this is one of the unintended consequences of benefit changes, I think it’s very important that it’s looked at.”

He added that because HIV “suppresses the immune system,” nutritional problems posed a serious threat to patients who weren’t getting enough food.

“About 70 to 80 per cent of all treatments for HIV have to be taken with a meal. That’s critical to the success of these treatments, and they have to be taken regularly and on time. Taking [medication] with food optimises the absorption and has an impact on effectiveness. There’s one treatment that has to be taken with a 400-calorie meal; there is evidence that, if you take it on an empty stomach, that compromises the treatment.”

The numbers of patients saying they needed emergence grants from the Terrence Higgins Trust (THT) because of benefit cuts jumped by 63 per cent between 2012 and 2013. There was also an overall 15 per cent rise in applications.

Of the 2,179 people given an emergency grant of £250 by THT last year, 919 were on benefits. Just under half of all those given help needed it specifically because they could not afford food.

Figures released in November last year by Public Health England showed HIV infections among gay and bisexual men at a record high.

Pamela Nash MP, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on HIV and Aids, said: “These findings are truly alarming, and hopefully will send shockwaves through Whitehall. I find it deeply saddening that those with HIV in our country are not only having to deal with their condition, but now have the added burden of worrying about their finances.”

Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, who is also a member of the HIV parliamentary group, said: “People with HIV often have to deal with a range of physical, emotional and social problems. It’s absolutely wrong that, on top of that, so many are also being forced into poverty by the coalition’s heartless austerity agenda.”

THT’s chief executive Paul Ward added: “What we’ve seen is that progressively more people have had their cases reviewed and, as a consequence, are no longer entitled to benefits at all. For many people with HIV, this isn’t a question of not having enough money to go to the cinema or buy some clothes. It means they have not got enough money to eat properly. For those who are very unwell, it means they struggle to make appointments simply because they don’t have money for the bus fare.

“The numbers in this report should act as a warning sign at all levels of government that people with HIV are not receiving the level of support needed to meet the most basic of costs. In an age when highly effective treatments mean that people with HIV can live long and healthy lives, it is nothing short of a disgrace that HIV and poverty should still so often go hand in hand.”

Earlier this month, THT said an extra 250,000 HIV tests a year could slash new infection rates.

Last month, in an exclusive interview with PinkNews.co.uk at a THT reception, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said the time had come for the UK’s political leaders to redouble their efforts in tackling the HIV epidemic among gay and bisexual men.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/02/23/uk-government-cuts-sickness-benefits-condemned-truly-alarming-thousands-hiv-patients-go-hungry/

This government is killing people.
Twisted Evil

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:27 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

Support group means that they are too ill to attend regular appointments, and look for work at the job centre.
They get moved onto the work related activity group, that is paid at a lower rate, and they have to attend the job centre etc.
ATOS, has been moving HIV patients off the support group, when there is no change in their condition.

That is attending somewhere between once a month and once every 3 months - and there is no reason why someone symptom free should not be in that group if they get ESA at all.

Why would someone get moved from the support group, when there has been no change in their condition, Doug can't walk for more than about four minutes, then he is in agonizing pain, job centre is two buses away from here. Rolling Eyes

by Eilzel Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:27 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

There is no reason on earth for an HIV+ person even be on ESA if they are symptom free. The only point I would expect to see someone with HIV going into the support group would be once they had developed full blown AIDS.

Besides that out of the support group they are still getting £99 a week. Would you like to explain why that is not enough to cover and adequate nutritional diet?

You can be HIV, symptomatic, which is what Doug is and too ill to attend job centre, is condition isn't ever going to improve.
The point of the article was to demonstrate that people with HIV need to maintain a healthy diet, they need to eat with their drugs, you can't do that on £70, for those that are symptom free.
Sassy, i and others have gone over the issues, you just keep on repeating yourself, with assumptions etc, you aren't worth the effort, and it's boring to keep going around in circles with your RW cap doffing shit tbf.

phil, I am absolutely not suggesting now that I think people should lose money if it would actually kill them to do so. However; how on earth in £70 not enough money to eat healthily per week?

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:28 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

There is no reason on earth for an HIV+ person even be on ESA if they are symptom free. The only point I would expect to see someone with HIV going into the support group would be once they had developed full blown AIDS.

Besides that out of the support group they are still getting £99 a week. Would you like to explain why that is not enough to cover and adequate nutritional diet?

You can be HIV, symptomatic, which is what Doug is and too ill to attend job centre, is condition isn't ever going to improve.
The point of the article was to demonstrate that people with HIV need to maintain a healthy diet, they need to eat with their drugs, you can't do that on £70, for those that are symptom free.
Sassy, i and others have gone over the issues, you just keep on repeating yourself, with assumptions etc, you aren't worth the effort, and it's boring to keep going around in circles with your RW cap doffing shit tbf.

My point is WRA group will be getting £95 a week not £70 and it is perfectly possible to maintain a healthy diet on £70 yet alone £95.

by Raggamuffin Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:28 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

There is no reason on earth for an HIV+ person even be on ESA if they are symptom free. The only point I would expect to see someone with HIV going into the support group would be once they had developed full blown AIDS.

Besides that out of the support group they are still getting £99 a week. Would you like to explain why that is not enough to cover and adequate nutritional diet?

You can be HIV, symptomatic, which is what Doug is and too ill to attend job centre, is condition isn't ever going to improve.
The point of the article was to demonstrate that people with HIV need to maintain a healthy diet, they need to eat with their drugs, you can't do that on £70, for those that are symptom free.
Sassy, i and others have gone over the issues, you just keep on repeating yourself, with assumptions etc, you aren't worth the effort, and it's boring to keep going around in circles with your RW cap doffing shit tbf.

Why can't they eat with their drugs? I don't understand.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:29 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
sphinx wrote:

When you are signed off sick you get 13 weeks assessment phase when you get the same money as JSA then if you are still sick you are sent for the WCA and if found by that to be unable to work you will be assigned to either the support group for those so sick and unlikely to get better that work is out of the question and will get somewhere between £100 and £106 or the Work Related Activity group if it is considered you may still be able to do limited work or will at some point in the future be able to and you will get £94 -£100 a week.
https://www.gov.uk/employment-support-allowance/what-youll-get

So if they're in a work related group, they get about £6 a week less?

Yes. I have no idea where catman got his £100 a month from.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:29 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
sphinx wrote:

When you are signed off sick you get 13 weeks assessment phase when you get the same money as JSA then if you are still sick you are sent for the WCA and if found by that to be unable to work you will be assigned to either the support group for those so sick and unlikely to get better that work is out of the question and will get somewhere between £100 and £106 or the Work Related Activity group if it is considered you may still be able to do limited work or will at some point in the future be able to and you will get £94 -£100 a week.
https://www.gov.uk/employment-support-allowance/what-youll-get

So if they're in a work related group, they get about £6 a week less?

Support group get £248 PCM.

by Raggamuffin Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:29 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

That is attending somewhere between once a month and once every 3 months - and there is no reason why someone symptom free should not be in that group if they get ESA at all.

Why would someone get moved from the support group, when there has been no change in their condition, Doug can't walk for more than about four minutes, then he is in agonizing pain, job centre is two buses away from here.

Didn't you say he knows most people in the street or something?

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:31 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

That is attending somewhere between once a month and once every 3 months - and there is no reason why someone symptom free should not be in that group if they get ESA at all.

Why would someone get moved from the support group, when there has been no change in their condition, Doug can't walk for more than about four minutes, then he is in agonizing pain, job centre is two buses away from here.

Probably because there is more to work assessments that ability to walk or distance to job centre.

by Raggamuffin Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:31 pm

Catman wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So if they're in a work related group, they get about £6 a week less?

Support group get £248 PCM.

That's about £57 per week.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:32 pm

Catman wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So if they're in a work related group, they get about £6 a week less?

Support group get £248 PCM.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-support-allowance/what-youll-get

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:34 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

Why would someone get moved from the support group, when there has been no change in their condition, Doug can't walk for more than about four minutes, then he is in agonizing pain, job centre is two buses away from here.

Probably because there is more to work assessments that ability to walk or distance to job centre.

Unless they find a cure for HIV/AIDS, then Doug's condition isn't going to improve.
The fact is that this government want everyone to exist on £70 a week eventually, and that will be what Universal Credit will be, however, this will never be brought in, because the Tories will be kicked out at the next election, along with the fucking Liberals.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:35 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

Support group get £248 PCM.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-support-allowance/what-youll-get

Doug was getting £248 (fortnight)

by Raggamuffin Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:38 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

https://www.gov.uk/employment-support-allowance/what-youll-get

Doug was getting £248 (fortnight)

That's £124 per week.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:40 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Probably because there is more to work assessments that ability to walk or distance to job centre.

Unless they find a cure for HIV/AIDS, then Doug's condition isn't going to improve.
The fact is that this government want everyone to exist on £70 a week eventually, and that will be what Universal Credit will be, however, this will never be brought in, because the Tories will be kicked out at the next election, along with the fucking Liberals.

It is possible they will develop a cure for both HIV and AIDS
It is highly probable that they will develop further support medication that may improve Dougs symptoms
There is more possible work than that which involves walking
WRAG does not expect Doug to work but to remain open to the possibility of improvement
If you want to seek UC rates and work out what you would get visit http://policyinpractice.co.uk/universal-credit-calculator/better-off-in-work-calculator/ - you will find out you get more money per week and if you do a couple of hours employment you get even more.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:42 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

https://www.gov.uk/employment-support-allowance/what-youll-get

Doug was getting £248 (fortnight)

Joint claim I take it? Legally it would have to be.

If that is the fortnightly amount you either have serious deductions at source or are stuck on assessment rate and you need to visit CAB or some other expert service pronto.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:42 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Catman wrote:

Doug was getting £248 (fortnight)

That's £124 per week.

Yeah and that is wrong by any calculation.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:45 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

Unless they find a cure for HIV/AIDS, then Doug's condition isn't going to improve.
The fact is that this government want everyone to exist on £70 a week eventually, and that will be what Universal Credit will be, however, this will never be brought in, because the Tories will be kicked out at the next election, along with the fucking Liberals.

It is possible they will develop a cure for both HIV and AIDS
It is highly probable that they will develop further support medication that may improve Dougs symptoms
There is more possible work than that which involves walking
WRAG does not expect Doug to work but to remain open to the possibility of improvement
If you want to seek UC rates and work out what you would get visit http://policyinpractice.co.uk/universal-credit-calculator/better-off-in-work-calculator/ - you will find out you get more money per week and if you do a couple of hours employment you get even more.

Doug is too ill to attend job centre, which is miles away (2 buses)
Even ATOS admit to their system being flawed, why was he put into the support group originally and then taken out when there has been no improvement in his condition.
Not going around in circles with you, you just don't listen and repeat the same old RW shit.
The End.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:45 pm

Unless we are not talking ESA at all but the disability premiums on IS.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:46 pm

sphinx wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

That's £124 per week.

Yeah and that is wrong by any calculation.

He was getting £248 a fortnight.

by Raggamuffin Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:48 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

Doug was getting £248 (fortnight)

Joint claim I take it? Legally it would have to be.

If that is the fortnightly amount you either have serious deductions at source or are stuck on assessment rate and you need to visit CAB or some other expert service pronto.

Why a joint claim?

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:51 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

It is possible they will develop a cure for both HIV and AIDS
It is highly probable that they will develop further support medication that may improve Dougs symptoms
There is more possible work than that which involves walking
WRAG does not expect Doug to work but to remain open to the possibility of improvement
If you want to seek UC rates and work out what you would get visit http://policyinpractice.co.uk/universal-credit-calculator/better-off-in-work-calculator/ - you will find out you get more money per week and if you do a couple of hours employment you get even more.

Doug is too ill to attend job centre, which is miles away (2 buses)
Even ATOS admit to their system being flawed, why was he put into the support group originally and then taken out when there has been no improvement in his condition.
Not going around in circles with you, you just don't listen and repeat the same old RW shit.
The End.

No I am simply taking a neutral overview of possibilitys rather that focusing on the minutiae like you do.

"Too ill to attend job centre" is a pretty extreme assessment - if he could attend using a taxi then the Job centre should (and can if you point it out to them) pay for a taxi.

If he was put in the support group then and not now with no change in his condition there are 2 equal ly probable possibilities - one is that they are wrong now the other is that they were wrong then.

By the way have you ever considered the impact it has on both you and Doug with you constantly repeating that he cannot do anything and there is no hope he will ever improve? Have you considered that such a mindset will be only having negative impact on both of you?

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:54 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Joint claim I take it? Legally it would have to be.

If that is the fortnightly amount you either have serious deductions at source or are stuck on assessment rate and you need to visit CAB or some other expert service pronto.

Why a joint claim?

Because he lives with catman as a couple.

It would be illegal for them each have a separate claim because 2 separate claims pay more than a joint claim on the grounds 2 people living together have less overall outgoings than 2 people living separately.

It is the reason that straight couples with children may decide to split up - and it is a very dubious part of benefit rules but that is how it is.

by Raggamuffin Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:57 pm

sphinx wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Why a joint claim?

Because he lives with catman as a couple.

It would be illegal for them each have a separate claim because 2 separate claims pay more than a joint claim on the grounds 2 people living together have less overall outgoings than 2 people living separately.

It is the reason that straight couples with children may decide to split up - and it is a very dubious part of benefit rules but that is how it is.

I was going to ask if the benefit rules on couples apply to gay people.

Doug gets ESA, yes? Isn't Catman his carer, so he will get money for that, and possibly other benefits too.

What happens though if Catman gets money from this inheritance which takes him over the means-tested benefits limit?

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:00 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Because he lives with catman as a couple.

It would be illegal for them each have a separate claim because 2 separate claims pay more than a joint claim on the grounds 2 people living together have less overall outgoings than 2 people living separately.

It is the reason that straight couples with children may decide to split up - and it is a very dubious part of benefit rules but that is how it is.

I was going to ask if the benefit rules on couples apply to gay people.

Doug gets ESA, yes? Isn't Catman his carer, so he will get money for that, and possibly other benefits too.

What happens though if Catman gets money from this inheritance which takes him over the means-tested benefits limit?

Then Catman signs off benefits, else he would go to prison. Rolling Eyes

by Raggamuffin Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:02 pm

Catman wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I was going to ask if the benefit rules on couples apply to gay people.

Doug gets ESA, yes? Isn't Catman his carer, so he will get money for that, and possibly other benefits too.

What happens though if Catman gets money from this inheritance which takes him over the means-tested benefits limit?

Then Catman signs off benefits, else he would go to prison.

OK - just wondered.

These are genuine questions you know. I don't claim benefits, so I find it all a bit complicated, and there are so many types of benefits around.

Would your inheritance affect Doug's benefits as well as he's your partner?

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:03 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Catman wrote:

Then Catman signs off benefits, else he would go to prison.

OK - just wondered.

These are genuine questions you know. I don't claim benefits, so I find it all a bit complicated, and there are so many types of benefits around.

Would your inheritance affect Doug's benefits as well as he's your partner?

My brother and i have a business venture planned.
No benefits would be claimed.

by Raggamuffin Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:05 pm

Catman wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

OK - just wondered.

These are genuine questions you know. I don't claim benefits, so I find it all a bit complicated, and there are so many types of benefits around.

Would your inheritance affect Doug's benefits as well as he's your partner?

My brother and i have a business venture planned.
No benefits would be claimed.

OK. I was reading the link which Sphinx provided and I gather that ESA is means tested after a certain length of time, and I presume your inheritance would affect Doug's eligibility.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:07 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Catman wrote:

Then Catman signs off benefits, else he would go to prison.

OK - just wondered.

These are genuine questions you know. I don't claim benefits, so I find it all a bit complicated, and there are so many types of benefits around.

Would your inheritance affect Doug's benefits as well as he's your partner?

This is exactly why everyone should be screaming for UC to be bought in - it is so much more simple than anyone can work it out quickly - far less scope for mistakes (which cost the current system more than fraud).

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:08 pm

Catman wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

OK - just wondered.

These are genuine questions you know. I don't claim benefits, so I find it all a bit complicated, and there are so many types of benefits around.

Would your inheritance affect Doug's benefits as well as he's your partner?

My brother and i have a business venture planned.
No benefits would be claimed.

Remember that DLA/PIP are not necessarily affected and can and should still be claimed (and before anyone asks no I most definitely do not support the change to PIP)

by Raggamuffin Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:10 pm

sphinx wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

OK - just wondered.

These are genuine questions you know. I don't claim benefits, so I find it all a bit complicated, and there are so many types of benefits around.

Would your inheritance affect Doug's benefits as well as he's your partner?

This is exactly why everyone should be screaming for UC to be bought in - it is so much more simple than anyone can work it out quickly - far less scope for mistakes (which cost the current system more than fraud).

A friend of mine gets benefits because he's disabled, and I lost track when he was explaining it all to me.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:10 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

Doug is too ill to attend job centre, which is miles away (2 buses)
Even ATOS admit to their system being flawed, why was he put into the support group originally and then taken out when there has been no improvement in his condition.
Not going around in circles with you, you just don't listen and repeat the same old RW shit.
The End.

No I am simply taking a neutral overview of possibilitys rather that focusing on the minutiae like you do.

"Too ill to attend job centre" is a pretty extreme assessment - if he could attend using a taxi then the Job centre should (and can if you point it out to them) pay for a taxi.

If he was put in the support group then and not now with no change in his condition there are 2 equal ly probable possibilities - one is that they are wrong now the other is that they were wrong then.

By the way have you ever considered the impact it has on both you and Doug with you constantly repeating that he cannot do anything and there is no hope he will ever improve? Have you considered that such a mindset will be only having negative impact on both of you?

What are you? A Doctor? Frankly Sphinx I think you have got a bloody cheek. Are you or are you not claiming benefit for illness? Phil has said many times that the Doug has been HIV for many years and the drugs he has to take have very debilitating side effects. I expect the pain he is in makes yours look like a walk in the park.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:11 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Catman wrote:

My brother and i have a business venture planned.
No benefits would be claimed.

OK. I was reading the link which Sphinx provided and I gather that ESA is means tested after a certain length of time, and I presume your inheritance would affect Doug's eligibility.

Like i said, we won't be needing benefits once the inheritance arrives, so i will be providing for Doug and i.

by Raggamuffin Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:11 pm

Catman wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

OK. I was reading the link which Sphinx provided and I gather that ESA is means tested after a certain length of time, and I presume your inheritance would affect Doug's eligibility.

Like i said, we won't be needing benefits once the inheritance arrives, so i will be providing for Doug and i.

OK, but I presume he couldn't claim them even if he wanted to - except the DLA thingy.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:12 pm

Sassy wrote:
sphinx wrote:

No I am simply taking a neutral overview of possibilitys rather that focusing on the minutiae like you do.

"Too ill to attend job centre" is a pretty extreme assessment - if he could attend using a taxi then the Job centre should (and can if you point it out to them) pay for a taxi.

If he was put in the support group then and not now with no change in his condition there are 2 equal ly probable possibilities - one is that they are wrong now the other is that they were wrong then.

By the way have you ever considered the impact it has on both you and Doug with you constantly repeating that he cannot do anything and there is no hope he will ever improve? Have you considered that such a mindset will be only having negative impact on both of you?

What are you? A Doctor? Frankly Sphinx I think you have got a bloody cheek. Are you or are you not claiming benefit for illness? Phil has said many times that the Doug has been HIV for many years and the drugs he has to take have very debilitating side effects. I expect the pain he is in makes yours look like a walk in the park.

Well Doug certainly couldn't manage to go hunting on horseback like she does Sass.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:13 pm

sphinx wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

OK - just wondered.

These are genuine questions you know. I don't claim benefits, so I find it all a bit complicated, and there are so many types of benefits around.

Would your inheritance affect Doug's benefits as well as he's your partner?

This is exactly why everyone should be screaming for UC to be bought in - it is so much more simple than anyone can work it out quickly - far less scope for mistakes (which cost the current system more than fraud).

Hardly, seeing that Disability UK has said that it will make life a lot harder for more than half a million disabled people, and they have the facts and figures on all disabled people.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:14 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Catman wrote:

Like i said, we won't be needing benefits once the inheritance arrives, so i will be providing for Doug and i.

OK, but I presume he couldn't claim them even if he wanted to - except the DLA thingy.

Already explained.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:15 pm

Catman wrote:
Sassy wrote:

What are you? A Doctor? Frankly Sphinx I think you have got a bloody cheek. Are you or are you not claiming benefit for illness? Phil has said many times that the Doug has been HIV for many years and the drugs he has to take have very debilitating side effects. I expect the pain he is in makes yours look like a walk in the park.

Well Doug certainly couldn't manage to go hunting on horseback like she does Sass.

I read the thread and was totally flabbergasted that Sphinx appears to think it is ok to sit in judgement of Doug's position, when he is quite obviously a bloody site sicker than her and has been for a long time with an illness that is a lot more serious.. His, I would imagine, doesn't come and go but is permanent!

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:15 pm

Sassy wrote:
sphinx wrote:

No I am simply taking a neutral overview of possibilitys rather that focusing on the minutiae like you do.

"Too ill to attend job centre" is a pretty extreme assessment - if he could attend using a taxi then the Job centre should (and can if you point it out to them) pay for a taxi.

If he was put in the support group then and not now with no change in his condition there are 2 equal ly probable possibilities - one is that they are wrong now the other is that they were wrong then.

By the way have you ever considered the impact it has on both you and Doug with you constantly repeating that he cannot do anything and there is no hope he will ever improve? Have you considered that such a mindset will be only having negative impact on both of you?

What are you? A Doctor? Frankly Sphinx I think you have got a bloody cheek. Are you or are you not claiming benefit for illness? Phil has said many times that the Doug has been HIV for many years and the drugs he has to take have very debilitating side effects. I expect the pain he is in makes yours look like a walk in the park.

No sassy I am a chronic pain sufferer and my experience is having someone around me telling me how bad it is how little I can do and that it is never going to get better makes it all a hell of a lot worse as well as making me depressed.

I would rather have someone highlighting the fact that today I got out of bed when I could not yesterday and so that was good than telling me I will be spending tomorrow in bed again because it never gets better.

There are times as a sufferer of chronic pain I want to slap phil - because he only ever describes the negatives.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:17 pm

Catman wrote:
Sassy wrote:

What are you? A Doctor? Frankly Sphinx I think you have got a bloody cheek. Are you or are you not claiming benefit for illness? Phil has said many times that the Doug has been HIV for many years and the drugs he has to take have very debilitating side effects. I expect the pain he is in makes yours look like a walk in the park.

Well Doug certainly couldn't manage to go hunting on horseback like she does Sass.

She has never been hunting on horseback in her life and has never claimed to. She used to ride - and had to give it up (mores the pity and I am fucking determined I will get back somehow) and once a year she drives her car following the hunt.

by Raggamuffin Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:20 pm

Catman wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

OK, but I presume he couldn't claim them even if he wanted to - except the DLA thingy.

Already explained.

Not really. You just said he wouldn't need to, which isn't the same thing as not being entitled to.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:20 pm

sphinx wrote:
Sassy wrote:

What are you? A Doctor? Frankly Sphinx I think you have got a bloody cheek. Are you or are you not claiming benefit for illness? Phil has said many times that the Doug has been HIV for many years and the drugs he has to take have very debilitating side effects. I expect the pain he is in makes yours look like a walk in the park.

No sassy I am a chronic pain sufferer and my experience is having someone around me telling me how bad it is how little I can do and that it is never going to get better makes it all a hell of a lot worse as well as making me depressed.

I would rather have someone highlighting the fact that today I got out of bed when I could not yesterday and so that was good than telling me I will be spending tomorrow in bed again because it never gets better.

There are times as a sufferer of chronic pain I want to slap phil - because he only ever describes the negatives.

Yes, I know you have chronic pain, but that is nothing in comparison to having HIV for as many years as Doug has had it and having the side effects of the drugs. People have recovered from what you have. The drugs Doug takes stops it turning into full blown AIDS, it doesn't cure it. You have good days and bad, I bet Doug would love to have as many good days as you have.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:21 pm

Sassy wrote:
Catman wrote:

Well Doug certainly couldn't manage to go hunting on horseback like she does Sass.

I read the thread and was totally flabbergasted that Sphinx appears to think it is ok to sit in judgement of Doug's position, when he is quite obviously a bloody site sicker than her and has been for a long time with an illness that is a lot more serious.. His, I would imagine, doesn't come and go but is permanent!

His symptoms are permanent.
He suffers from insomnia, constant itching all over his body, night sweats, he can't walk for more than about four minutes, then he's in agony, most recently, as was observed by ATOS, as they made him do an eye test, his sight is starting to go.

by Raggamuffin Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:21 pm

Sassy wrote:
Catman wrote:

Well Doug certainly couldn't manage to go hunting on horseback like she does Sass.

I read the thread and was totally flabbergasted that Sphinx appears to think it is ok to sit in judgement of Doug's position, when he is quite obviously a bloody site sicker than her and has been for a long time with an illness that is a lot more serious.. His, I would imagine, doesn't come and go but is permanent!

I think she was talking about positive mental attitude, and that kind of thing. I do think that sometimes people convince themselves they can't do anything, but they could maybe do a little bit if they really wanted to.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:22 pm

.....Oh and he has a curved spine, she picked that up, but he was still thrown out of the support group.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:24 pm

With regard to the OP, if doctors say this is happening, they know a lot more about the condition then any pretend medic on here. It's happening. And £70 a week will NOT cover you to have a GOOD diet, as well as all the other household expenses, and it's a GOOD diet you are supposed to have with a suppressed immune system (I know because I have one with the chronic leukaemia) and the things you are supposed to eat to keep you supplied with the proteins, vitamins and minerals you need cannot be had by eating the diet Sphinx put up, which would probably mean you would end up with scurvy.

by Raggamuffin Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:26 pm

Sassy wrote:With regard to the OP, if doctors say this is happening, they know a lot more about the condition then any pretend medic on here. It's happening. And £70 a week will NOT cover you have and GOOD diet, as well as all the other household expenses, and it's a GOOD diet you are supposed to have with and suppressed immune system (I know because I have one with the chronic leukaemia) and the things you are supposed to eat to keep you supplied with the proteins, vitamins and minerals you need cannot be had by eating the diet Sphinx put up, which would probably mean you would end up with scurvy.

Doctors know what their patients tell them - they don't see their kitchen cupboards, and they're not with them when they're doing their grocery shopping. They can prescribe the stuff you're talking about, can't they?

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:29 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Sassy wrote:With regard to the OP, if doctors say this is happening, they know a lot more about the condition then any pretend medic on here. It's happening. And £70 a week will NOT cover you have and GOOD diet, as well as all the other household expenses, and it's a GOOD diet you are supposed to have with and suppressed immune system (I know because I have one with the chronic leukaemia) and the things you are supposed to eat to keep you supplied with the proteins, vitamins and minerals you need cannot be had by eating the diet Sphinx put up, which would probably mean you would end up with scurvy.

Doctors know what their patients tell them - they don't see their kitchen cupboards, and they're not with them when they're doing their grocery shopping. They can prescribe the stuff you're talking about, can't they?

No, they can't. They can prescribe vitamin supplements, but you body doesn't deal with them in the same way as it does natural foods, and they don't work as well. They can tell by the condition of the patient if they have been eating properly and if they have been having the correct diet to make their medication work properly. Their health going downhill very quickly if that isn't the case.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:31 pm

Sassy wrote:With regard to the OP, if doctors say this is happening, they know a lot more about the condition then any pretend medic on here. It's happening. And £70 a week will NOT cover you to have a GOOD diet, as well as all the other household expenses, and it's a GOOD diet you are supposed to have with a suppressed immune system (I know because I have one with the chronic leukaemia) and the things you are supposed to eat to keep you supplied with the proteins, vitamins and minerals you need cannot be had by eating the diet Sphinx put up, which would probably mean you would end up with scurvy.

How about the diet the woman can up with for herself and 2 daughters for £1 a day approved by dieticians and nutritionists?

And we are not talking £70 a week in the case of sick people we are talking £99 minimum.

What other household expenses exactly?

I have a thread open asking people to give what figure they think the government should be providing. Why not go and tell us there how much the government should be giving people.

by Guest Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:32 pm

Sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Doctors know what their patients tell them - they don't see their kitchen cupboards, and they're not with them when they're doing their grocery shopping. They can prescribe the stuff you're talking about, can't they?

No, they can't. They can prescribe vitamin supplements, but you body doesn't deal with them in the same way as it does natural foods, and they don't work as well. They can tell by the condition of the patient if they have been eating properly and if they have been having the correct diet to make their medication work properly. Their health going downhill very quickly if that isn't the case.

So what is this special natural diet that cannot be covered for £99 a week?

by Raggamuffin Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:33 pm

Sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Doctors know what their patients tell them - they don't see their kitchen cupboards, and they're not with them when they're doing their grocery shopping. They can prescribe the stuff you're talking about, can't they?

No, they can't. They can prescribe vitamin supplements, but you body doesn't deal with them in the same way as it does natural foods, and they don't work as well. They can tell by the condition of the patient if they have been eating properly and if they have been having the correct diet to make their medication work properly. Their health going downhill very quickly if that isn't the case.

Are you saying that people with HIV need a huge amount of nutrients that others don't need? How do they get them from their diet then?

by Sponsored content