Cancer patients to face welfare tests during chemotherapy, charities warn

Doesn't bother me, I'm Gemini.

The problem isn't really the cutting off of funds. Rather it is the mindset that someone is somehow entitled to a paycheck for being sick.

This particular program is relatively new, only starting in 2008. The people benefiting from the program haven't been on that particular teat for very long, so it cannot be argued that these people would be significantly harmed by their removal from this list. They would essentially default to whatever situation they would have been in 3 years ago.

Cancer is terrible, and we've lost many Farkers even to the disease, but that isn't the discussion (so I hope it doesn't get dragged in that direction) at hand. It is simply that people think they should get something for nothing, and there is a significant industry in the clamoring for other people's money.

yeah this is so asinine - i mean in the good ol' USA they just let them die slowly and painfully.

I'm sick in London right now so I'm getting a kick...

/not really
//bad food, worse weather

AverageAmericanGuy: The people benefiting from the program haven't been on that particular teat for very long, so it cannot be argued that these people would be significantly harmed by their removal from this list.

That's stunningly wrong. If someone who rents their home and works full time is suddenly rendered unable to work due to cancer treatment, this benefit helps them keep a roof over their heads and pay their bills. Please demonstrate how removing this benefit in this kind of situation cannot harm the recipient. Bear in mind that IMO, becoming homeless can be defined as "harm". Also, before you start off on the "well, what would they have done prior to 2008?" tack, remember that the ESA replaced sickness benefits so it's hardly a new benefit, it's just been renamed.

AverageAmericanGuy: The problem isn't really the cutting off of funds. Rather it is the mindset that someone is somehow entitled to a paycheck for being sick.

It's called National Insurance. Against things like sickness, unemployment etc.

The Envoy: AverageAmericanGuy: The people benefiting from the program haven't been on that particular teat for very long, so it cannot be argued that these people would be significantly harmed by their removal from this list.

That's stunningly wrong. If someone who rents their home and works full time is suddenly rendered unable to work due to cancer treatment, this benefit helps them keep a roof over their heads and pay their bills. Please demonstrate how removing this benefit in this kind of situation cannot harm the recipient. Bear in mind that IMO, becoming homeless can be defined as "harm". Also, before you start off on the "well, what would they have done prior to 2008?" tack, remember that the ESA replaced sickness benefits so it's hardly a new benefit, it's just been renamed.

If the person is well enough to fail the interview, they clearly should be removed from its rolls. Extending the benefit duration to "indefinitely" because they once found their way onto it isn't what the benefit was created for, and defending the well from investigation is nothing more than advocating permanent benefits at taxpayer expense.

PartTimeBuddha: AverageAmericanGuy: The problem isn't really the cutting off of funds. Rather it is the mindset that someone is somehow entitled to a paycheck for being sick.

It's called National Insurance. Against things like sickness, unemployment etc.

And someone who is well should continue to receive payments?

FTFA: "...entitlement" has encouraged dependency on benefits"

Wha? NO. Unpossible. Never. Couldn't possibly happen. Ridiculous.

G-Rot: "And someone who is well should continue to receive payments?"

And what is the criteria for determining "wellness"? My grandfather was spry, alert and robust right up until the last two weeks of his life, and he had cancer for several years. You saying he should have been working that whole time?

Sure, if he couldn't afford to independently retire.

Still no tests required for corporate handouts.

Looks like they are serious... AS A CANCER

AverageAmericanGuy: PartTimeBuddha: AverageAmericanGuy: The problem isn't really the cutting off of funds. Rather it is the mindset that someone is somehow entitled to a paycheck for being sick.

It's called National Insurance. Against things like sickness, unemployment etc.

And someone who is well should continue to receive payments?
Note: my response is in-depth and has a CSB in it. TL:DR summary: UK Government wants to cut corners, is using an immoral firm to kick sick people off sickness.

These people have CANCER! That much is not in dispute. So even if they are possibly physically able, for the short term, of doing their work, we as a society should say "no, you've got frickin cancer, use what little energy you have, rather than working, on getting better. You've paid your NI for years, we've got your back."

Not "Oh, sorry to hear you've got a potentially terminal disease. Before we give you back some of the taxes you've spent decades paying for this very eventuality, we'd like you to complete this novel in triplicate, then have someone who is NOT medically qualified (ATOS "medical" services; they have failed-nurses doing medical checks on people that a Surgeon has already said is sick; but apparently only the Government's own "special" company can make that decision, even though they're given targets to reduce "passes") ask you insulting questions for 2 hours, then decide because you aren't literally dying right now, to say you're fine to work.

Look up ATOS medical; they're an evil evil company. They are paid by the UK government (whom you must recall, also runs a healthcare system, but wants these tests run privately) to run tests on people who are claiming sickness benefits. Also, they do in-house testing of government employees.

A good case example was a civil-servant working for the tax office; had her yearly medical, got told by the ATOS person: "sorry, you're simply too sick for us to employ, you need to sign off sick and lose your job." Then a week later, ATOS sickness-benefits people say "No, you're not too sick to work, even though we just got you sacked. No sickness money for you, scrounger. Get a job". As I said, unqualified failed-trauma nurses judging complex surgical cases.

In my own experience, my partner, who suffers from a wide gamut of mental and physical health problems was "assessed" by a woman we later found out has no formal medical qualifications at all, bar a physiotherapy/massage practice licence.
Even though my partner's psychiatrist, GP and specialists all said she is too ill to consider employment (the Psych said she'd be a danger in a workplace), their views are not taken into account, and indeed are trumped by a woman who took a 6 month course in massage. Failed her by giving her 9 points (10 is the level necessary to pass). Apparently that happens a lot, something to do with ATOS having "targets" to kick people off sickness.

Even though it made no difference, money wise to us (we weren't getting any money for her being sick, it was purely about having the State classify her as unwell, not money), we appealed this decision. As my partner put it, it's bad enough being in constant pain, having serious depression and other mental problems as well, without some snotty-nosed prick saying you're a scrounger and liar to boot. We appeal, tribunal comes up; normally that's an all day affair, with cross-examination by a panel of doctors, with a Judge presiding. Judge asks us in, Doctor spends 5 minutes asking basic questions, asking her to walk, her mood and stuff, waiting while her panic attacks calm down, and says "thank you". We get shown out, figured we'd somehow done something totally wrong and an instant rejection was heading our way. Turns out, they'd already seen the details before asking us in, read the various specialists notes, and had already agreed she was completely unable to work, just wanted to ask a couple of questions to decide how unsuitable. Apologised for all the fuss, sent us out after only being there an hour, with a "we're sorry, ATOS suck" message.

The scary bit is that without me egging her on, my partner would absolutely not have appealed at all, because her depression, anxiety and paranoia problems would have meant she'd have curled up in a ball and done nothing. Thankfully, she does have me, and we're not dependent on the sickness-benefits for our daily bread. I shudder to think what is happening to sick, ill people without carers, who are punted off sickness and told to sign on for unemployment, miss their appointment because insert-sickness-related-problem-here and end up with nothing to live off, despite having paid into the system for years.

Before the morons start, I'd just like to point out that this has fark ALL to do with 'sozcialised medahcine evil!1!'.

The NHS treats the condition: they don't have anything to do with the allocation of benefits to the sick whatsoever.

cman: Seeing if people are well enough to work?

THE HORROR

There is 'well enough to work' from the governments standpoint, and then well enough to work from an employers standpoint. And actually being well enough to work.

Wizard Drongo: These people have CANCER! That much is not in dispute. So even if they are possibly physically able, for the short term, of doing their work, we as a society should say "no, you've got frickin cancer, use what little energy you have, rather than working, on getting better. You've paid your NI for years, we've got your back."

I figure someone who has cancer has a job, it's called beating cancer. That's the job.

AverageAmericanGuy: The problem isn't really the cutting off of funds. Rather it is the mindset that someone is somehow entitled to a paycheck for being sick.

This particular program is relatively new, only starting in 2008. The people benefiting from the program haven't been on that particular teat for very long, so it cannot be argued that these people would be significantly harmed by their removal from this list. They would essentially default to whatever situation they would have been in 3 years ago.

Cancer is terrible, and we've lost many Farkers even to the disease, but that isn't the discussion (so I hope it doesn't get dragged in that direction) at hand. It is simply that people think they should get something for nothing, and there is a significant industry in the clamoring for other people's money.

No, this particular program has been around for a long time, just the name changed. It used to be called Invalidity Benefit, then was renamed Incapacity Benefit, and is now called Employment & Support Allowance (ESA). This isn't a case of getting something for nothing - as a British taxpayer, I pay National Insurance, which contributes towards my upkeep if I were to become ill or unemployed. If you have been unlucky enough to have a debilitating illness it is a huge help to know that you won't lose the roof over your head.

gibbon1: I figure someone who has cancer has a job, it's called beating cancer. That's the job.

Not to be glib, but where does that logic end?

"People who climb Mt. Everest have a job. It's called mountain climbing. That's the job."

Why should we pay someone who has cancer when we wouldn't pay someone who wants to climb Everest?

I've gone to school or worked with a couple of people undergoing chemotherapy. They didn't really take much time off. They certainly didn't take stretches of weeks or months off. Lots and lots of people undergoing chemotherapy continue working.

Just because someone has cancer and is having chemotherapy it does NOT automatically mean they're on death's door. I think when people think chemotherapy what automatically comes to mind is some shrivelled up husk of a person who has end-stage terminal cancer but struggling through their nth bout of chemotherapy so they might get one more long, sad, painful month of life.

Someone undergoing chemotherapy will not be in perfect health, but they also won't necessarily be house-bound invalids either. There's no reason why a government shouldn't responsibly ensure that benefits are given on the basis of actual, not assumed, need. As an ex-public servant (of NZ) I'm probably far more aware that it is incumbent upon the public service to be careful with taxpayer money.

Honestly, the public service can't win:

A. Hey! You'll make them sad if you ask questions, just give them money even if they might not need it! I'll sue you! I'm going to the media! I'm going to come over there and kick your head in!

B. Hey! Why are you giving money to people without checking they actually need it first? Lazy, inefficient, wasteful, incompetent useless paper-shuffler!

Public Servant: I don't get paid enough to deal with the public. Hello, private sector.

I lost a family member to cancer and although there were periods where this family member seemed well enough to be perceived "normal" it wouldn't last more than a couple of months and we never knew when that would come and go.

Chemotherapy destroys your body, think immune system here, that's what it's intended to do. Take you almost to the brink of death hoping it kills the cancer, while also killing other parts of you (death will have his pound of flesh one way or the other). Therefore her immune system wasn't really able to cope with a steady job work environment and good luck getting employers wanting to invest alot of time and money training someone who may be a big financial burden on them or needs to be replaced sooner than later. Also we never knew when she would get sick again, so it is a huge risk for an employer.

Yes there are laws against discrimination but good luck proving it and most cancer patients wont challenge it because they no longer have he money or stamina to do so.

If they do adopt this litmus test I pray they go by what the cancer patients doctor says and do lots of research on some of the lasting effects of chemo.

Tellingthem: There are many types of cancer. Just because you have "cancer" it does not mean that you are always unable to work. I swear some of you think that every cancer patient is one step away from death. My grandma fought thyroid cancer for 17 years (it would go into remission and then come back). And for most of it she was relatively healthy and worked through it. Now if you are too sick to work then yes I have no problem with the government helping out. But just because you are under treatment for cancer does not always mean you can't or shouldn't work.

.

I think the point some of us are making is that you should let the patient decide if they are well enough to work, not some definition of wellness. Is your definition of wellness "if they can do the job they should do the job"? That's great but then you go back to the interview process at the job: "I see here you have worked meanial jobs and haven't been able to work more than a year, sometimes for a month at your prior jobs. Can you tell me a little about what has been driving this behavior?" "Cancer." "I see, well we will call you with in a few weeks to let you know our decision." Never get a call back, but a big double fark you cancer guy because we determined that because you could do the job you no longer deserve to get assistance, so go die in a corner somewhere. PS good luck with your remission I hope it takes.

1nsanilicious: I think the point some of us are making is that you should let the patient decide if they are well enough to work, not some definition of wellness.

That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

AverageAmericanGuy: PartTimeBuddha: AverageAmericanGuy: The problem isn't really the cutting off of funds. Rather it is the mindset that someone is somehow entitled to a paycheck for being sick.

It's called National Insurance. Against things like sickness, unemployment etc.

And someone who is well should continue to receive payments?

I was dealing with your 'mindset' slur. The 'mindset' is not that you're "being paid for being sick". You're being supported through the National Insurance system during your illness.

AverageAmericanGuy: gibbon1: I figure someone who has cancer has a job, it's called beating cancer. That's the job.

Not to be glib, but where does that logic end?

"People who climb Mt. Everest have a job. It's called mountain climbing. That's the job."

Why should we pay someone who has cancer when we wouldn't pay someone who wants to climb Everest?

I know some people are trolling here but if you are willing to regularly put yourself through the hell that is chemo and permanently change your body for the worse then my hats off to you, go collect the $200 a month you will be getting on assistance.

Again I would hope that this litmus test goes by what doctors say as to you being cancer free and that you have been cancer free for a long time. I have a friend who had testicular cancer, had one of his fellas removed and that was the end of it. Do I think he needs permanent benefits? No. But if his doctor says he does but I think he should work, then I say fark me and go by what the doctor says.

cman: Seeing if people are well enough to work?

THE HORROR

The added bureaucracy to facilitate all this testing probably costs more than just assuming they are too sick to work.

Cost to Benefit Ratio: how duz dat wurk?

PartTimeBuddha: AverageAmericanGuy: PartTimeBuddha: AverageAmericanGuy: The problem isn't really the cutting off of funds. Rather it is the mindset that someone is somehow entitled to a paycheck for being sick.

It's called National Insurance. Against things like sickness, unemployment etc.

And someone who is well should continue to receive payments?

I was dealing with your 'mindset' slur. The 'mindset' is not that you're "being paid for being sick". You're being supported through the National Insurance system during your illness.

I don't think it's a slur, and I didn't intend for anyone to take it as such. However there is an entire industry dedicated to making sure that once you go on the dole that you be provided all the means necessary to continue on it indefinitely, even after whatever problem you had is remedied. This happens in America too, so it's not just a British thing, don't get me wrong.

AverageAmericanGuy: Not to be glib, but where does that logic end?

"People who climb Mt. Everest have a job. It's called mountain climbing. That's the job."

Why should we pay someone who has cancer when we wouldn't pay someone who wants to climb Everest?

Because there's no such thing as "National Mountain Climbing Insurance" in the UK. Your critical thinking skills are somewhat lacking.

Xai: yeah this is so asinine - i mean in the good ol' USA they just let them die slowly and painfully.

Well, actually, ranking all nations in the world, the U.S. is tied for Japan with the best survival rate and long term prognosis for cancer patients.

Hey Trolls, did you see Regis today?

AverageAmericanGuy: gibbon1: I figure someone who has cancer has a job, it's called beating cancer. That's the job.

Not to be glib, but where does that logic end?

"People who climb Mt. Everest have a job. It's called mountain climbing. That's the job."

Why should we pay someone who has cancer when we wouldn't pay someone who wants to climb Everest?

The logic ends when not doing your job no longer leads to your death.

Studies have strongly indicated that people with less monetary stress (all stress, really) and more time to focus beat cancer at a greater rate.

National Insurance exists specifically to allow for the joint effort of a combined society to achieve things that individuals cannot. This sounds like it should be one of those things.

I hope I see the day where the US has enough social unity to even have a debate like this.

AverageAmericanGuy: PartTimeBuddha: AverageAmericanGuy: PartTimeBuddha: AverageAmericanGuy: The problem isn't really the cutting off of funds. Rather it is the mindset that someone is somehow entitled to a paycheck for being sick.

It's called National Insurance. Against things like sickness, unemployment etc.

And someone who is well should continue to receive payments?

I was dealing with your 'mindset' slur. The 'mindset' is not that you're "being paid for being sick". You're being supported through the National Insurance system during your illness.

I don't think it's a slur, and I didn't intend for anyone to take it as such. However there is an entire industry dedicated to making sure that once you go on the dole that you be provided all the means necessary to continue on it indefinitely, even after whatever problem you had is remedied. This happens in America too, so it's not just a British thing, don't get me wrong.

It is a slur. Broad, insulting nonsense. Certainly it can't be an objective critique of the UK's system since you haven't even got the simplest facts straight about it.

Utter foolishness. You're not worth bothering with.

ryarger: I hope I see the day where the US has enough social unity to even have a debate like this.

A debate where everyone is in agreement is called a circle jerk.

AverageAmericanGuy: ryarger: I hope I see the day where the US has enough social unity to even have a debate like this.

A debate where everyone is in agreement is called a circle jerk.

This is normally said by someone too dumb to get the point.

(that would be you, AAG)

So, well, carry on. I sympathise with hillary above, though. (and now I know a new acronym too)

Send them here (new window)

Thats No Moose: (that would be you, AAG)

For anyone who hasn't noticed yet, he's got a schtick.

Has any research been done on whether its better for the patient to stay at work or leave work? That should be the major consideration here.

AverageAmericanGuy: ryarger: I hope I see the day where the US has enough social unity to even have a debate like this.

A debate where everyone is in agreement is called a circle jerk.

In what reality has a debate like this ever had unanimous agreement?

It's much more fun to support trolls when you say things that sort of make sense. Or are very funny. Preferably both. This was neither, sorry.

ryarger: AverageAmericanGuy: ryarger: I hope I see the day where the US has enough social unity to even have a debate like this.

A debate where everyone is in agreement is called a circle jerk.

In what reality has a debate like this ever had unanimous agreement

Actually, there are two sides in this particular debate. One side that says that public money should be carefully spent and that able-bodied people shouldn't be on the dole. The other side says "Don't take away my monthly stipend"

In America, despite what you may think, both of these viewpoints are well represented.

hillary: There's a Ron White quote out there somewhere that may be strangely applicable here (and is a simple explanation on why KF trolls immediately is preferable to engaging in any kind of useless dialog), but I can't seem to remember it. Something about repair failures.

It's like my grandad used to say, he'd say, "Sonny boy, don't go rasslin' with pigs, now. Ya'll both gone git filthy but the pig gone like it."

/he actually said it in a normal voice but it sounds better countried up, I think.
//Also he never called anyone "sonny boy" to my knowledge.