Disability benefits: PIPs should be for 'really disabled' - Polidicks

[QUOTE][B]Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those "taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide says. [/B]No 10 policy unit head George Freeman said personal independence payments (PIP) reforms were needed to roll back the "bizarre" decisions of tribunals. Ministers say the changes will save £3.7bn but leave a "strong safety net". But disability charity Scope criticised Mr Freeman's "crude" distinction between physical and mental health.[/QUOTE] Source: [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39097019[/URL] Disappointing that someone so ignorant and ableist is in a position to do something like this. Typical Tories I suppose...

So why do you keep trying to take the benefits from my Uncle who is literally missing a fucking hip with doctors orders to not even walk around the fucking house you greedy fucking Tory cunts.

Absolute fucking cunts I swear to god. My mother suffered a brain aneurysm a year ago, and while she's been extremely lucky as to survive and come out relatively unscathed, she's now host to a lot of problems. Mainly frequent headaches/migraines, loss of concentration, memory, and some pretty bad vertigo making it extremely difficult for her to work. Are these not sufficient reasons to claim PIP then?? Fucking arseholes, the lot of them need to be wiped out.

This kind of thinking is what's keeping us from advancing the treatment of the mentally ill. It's just straight fucking ignorant, no two ways about it.

Having anxiety is not a reason to claim disability. [QUOTE=SomeDumbShit;51878573]So why do you keep trying to take the benefits from my Uncle who is literally missing a fucking hip with doctors orders to not even walk around the fucking house you greedy fucking Tory cunts.[/QUOTE] Your uncle should still be able to claim benefits I would think.

[QUOTE=Derek_SM;51878674]Having anxiety is not a reason to claim disability.[/QUOTE] Yes, it should.

[QUOTE=lew06;51878579]Absolute fucking cunts I swear to god. My mother suffered a brain aneurysm a year ago, and while she's been extremely lucky as to survive and come out relatively unscathed, she's now host to a lot of problems. Mainly frequent headaches/migraines, loss of concentration, memory, and some pretty bad vertigo making it extremely difficult for her to work. Are these not sufficient reasons to claim PIP then?? Fucking arseholes, the lot of them need to be wiped out.[/QUOTE] I think this is more aimed at lazy NEETs than people who have physical problems. the government is probably wondering why some people are getting like £1600 a month from the taxpayer for being depressed/anxious when in reality a large % of working people also suffer from it. I understand there are genuine sufferers but it'd be naive to think it's not being abused.

[QUOTE=Derek_SM;51878674]Having anxiety is not a reason to claim disability. [/QUOTE] What should you do if you have anxiety that prevents you from working? You need disability if you can't work for a stable income.

[QUOTE=Derek_SM;51878674]Having anxiety is not a reason to claim disability.[/QUOTE] So what do you consider "disabled" then? Because I feel pretty fucking disabled barely being able to leave my house because of my anxiety.

[QUOTE=Tinter;51878734]What should you do if you have anxiety that prevents you from working? You need disability if you can't work for a stable income.[/QUOTE] Anxiety is a fixable disease, while physical and severe mental issues are not. Its a factor of life that when a job gives you anxiety then you need to quit and find a new one, imagine if everyone just gave up and claimed disability allowance instead of finding another job. The government are just trying to make being a claimant less attractive because claiming disability is better than working in some cases.

[QUOTE=Ishwoo;51878753]Anxiety is a fixable disease, while physical and severe mental issues are not. Its a factor of life that when a job gives you anxiety then you need to quit and find a new one, imagine if everyone just gave up and claimed disability allowance instead of finding another job.[/QUOTE] So just make a short term option for those people so they can live well getting treatment.

[QUOTE=Kolmala;51878711]Yes, it should.[/QUOTE] No, it shouldn't. There's medicine for that. I bet you also think people should get disability for having OCD.

[QUOTE=Ishwoo;51878753][B]Anxiety is a fixable disease[/B], while physical and severe mental issues are not. Its a factor of life that when a job gives you anxiety then you need to quit and find a new one, imagine if everyone just gave up and claimed disability allowance instead of finding another job.[/QUOTE] Anxiety that's bad enough to impact day-to-day life to the point of someone considering disability isn't usually "fixable". Best case scenario, it's manageable, just like most other mental illnesses.

There has been a focus on mental health in culture in the last few years, mostly due to suicides from depression and anxiety. A Tory saying something like this shows you just how out of touch they really are

apparently he suffered from anxiety and depression at one point, so you know it's totally fine and everyone's obviously a hypocrite for attacking him

Its a shame none of the opposition parties are competent enough to call the Tories out on their bullshit.

[QUOTE=Derek_SM;51878778]No, it shouldn't. There's medicine for that. I bet you also think people should get disability for having OCD.[/QUOTE] And a lot of the time, that medicine can make things worse, or makes things harder for the person taking it, or doesn't even help. Taking medication for a mental illness isn't like taking some ibuprofen for a headache. It's not that simple. The brain is incredibly complex and complicated.

[QUOTE=Derek_SM;51878778]No, it shouldn't. There's medicine for that. I bet you also think people should get disability for having OCD.[/QUOTE] Medicine doesn't always work, and sometimes it brings bad side effects. Also I don't believe you've ever seen severe OCD before.

[QUOTE=Derek_SM;51878778]No, it shouldn't. There's medicine for that. I bet you also think people should get disability for having OCD.[/QUOTE] If someone's OCD is severe enough to prevent stable employment, then yes, they should get disability. Just because it's a mental illness that can potentially be treated with medication, doesn't mean that everyone with said illness is going to be able to work when receiving medication. Medications for mental illnesses often aren't perfect, and can have side effects that hinder an individual's ability to work whilst under their influence. This is especially so for anti-anxiety medications such as xanax, which are generally have additional hypnotic and sedative effects, which are often sever enough to prevent someone from working.

[QUOTE=Derek_SM;51878778]No, it shouldn't. There's medicine for that. I bet you also think people should get disability for having OCD.[/QUOTE] You are part of the problem. Just because you are ignorant doesn't make it untrue.

[QUOTE=Derek_SM;51878778]No, it shouldn't. There's medicine for that. I bet you also think people should get disability for having OCD.[/QUOTE] ocd can impair cognition just do a cursory glance at medical research of these conditions before you form an opinion

[QUOTE=Derek_SM;51878778]No, it shouldn't. There's medicine for that. I bet you also think people should get disability for having OCD.[/QUOTE] To my knowledge, OCD, and Anxiety are actual mental illnesses and disorders that can be quantified and diagnosed. Saying that your work gives you "anxiety" is not having an anxiety disorder. Being "OCD" about how your school books are arranged is not actually having obsessive compulsive disorder. These can be treated; however, mental health problems are not that well understood in how to treat them [DEL](sorry to all you psychologists out there, but psychology wasn't a real science until the advent of neuroscience and its applications to psychology)[/DEL] so actual "cures" aren't really there yet. So no, anxiety disorder isn't something that you simply can take a pill for and get over, nor is OCD something you can pop a pill for. Some mental health problems just aren't fixable with modern techniques, and these people can't be left to starve. EDIT: Thanks for pointing it out, after looking up other stuff, I had previously heard/thought that psychology had not applied the scientific method when conducting research, but apparently that isn't true.

Welfare abuse is such a small problem empirically IIRC. This is just tory bullshit that'll cut out a lot of people that actually do need the benefits under the guise of "FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY" with the help of medical illiteracy.

[QUOTE=Derek_SM;51878778]No, it shouldn't. There's medicine for that. [/QUOTE] You realize that most anxiety medications have horrendous side-effects, right?

[QUOTE=Reviized;51878878] These can be treated; however, mental health problems are just now starting to receive scientific treatment (sorry to all you psychologists out there, but psychology wasn't a real science until the advent of neuroscience and its applications to psychology) .[/QUOTE] I know this is kind of off-topic but this simply isn't true. Psychology does have its share of quack-y stuff, but actual scientifically rigorous psychology work has been undertaken for decades now. Neuroscience in itself is not immune to quackery either, and its applications to psychology aren't as widespread as you seem to think; the two disciplines are actually generally studying different things, they're not just 'science' and 'non-science' ways of studying the same thing, which is what your post seems to suggest.

[QUOTE=Carlito;51878963]I know this is kind of off-topic but this simply isn't true. Psychology does have its share of quack-y stuff, but actual scientifically rigorous psychology work has been undertaken for decades now. Neuroscience in itself is not immune to quackery either, and its applications to psychology aren't as widespread as you seem to think; the two disciplines are actually generally studying different things, they're not just 'science' and 'non-science' ways of studying the same thing, which is what your post seems to suggest.[/QUOTE] I had previously heard that psychology (and some other disciplines) didn't really apply the scientific method when conducting research, or at least hadn't until recently. The example kind of being the usage of electroshock therapy, and other drugs as potential treatments for mental issues without actually applying the scientific method (this is going back a fair ways). That's the only real defining line between "science" and "non-science" is whether or not a discipline at the very least attempts to apply the scientific method to experimentation. After looking it up it seems that you're right however, and that while there has been quackery in psychology (and other disciplines as well), the field appears to apply the same principles as any other discipline. I edited my statement above.

[QUOTE=Derek_SM;51878778]No, it shouldn't. There's medicine for that. I bet you also think people should get disability for having OCD.[/QUOTE] Slightly related story. I don't have severe anxiety, but I also have ADD. The medicine I took for ADD gave me severe anxiety. Not saying neither is treatable, but it might take a bit of time to solve the issue. What would you propose someone should do in the mean time that does have a severe cause from the start?

[QUOTE=Derek_SM;51878778]No, it shouldn't. There's medicine for that. I bet you also think people should get disability for having OCD.[/QUOTE] There's medicine for crippling back pain too, should people with crippling back pain not be allowed to claim disability? I bet you also think OCD means 'I like organising things on my table in neat little piles, I'm so OCD! haha!'

[QUOTE=Derek_SM;51878778]No, it shouldn't. There's medicine for that. I bet you also think people should get disability for having OCD.[/QUOTE] I was taken from work in the back seat of a cop car. I had a mental breakdown after my supervisor asked me what the cuts on my face were about. The night before, I was tearing away the skin on my face with my fingernails and taking a razorblade to my forehead. I was punching myself until I'd spit blood, and there was a bottle of drain-o surrounded by empty beer bottles in my bathroom. I had planned to drink it, but was stopped by my best friends wife. I told this to my boss, who called the cops, who took me to a place called Community Bridges. I sat in a recliner for hours in nothing but a night gown, watching judge judy with ten other patients. The medicines they gave me knocked me out for hours, and after several visits with therapists, I was let go with a few prescriptions. The medication they put me on turned me into a zombie. I couldn't focus on anything for more than a few seconds, and if I was at work, the info I'd read on one monitor was gone by the time my eyes drifted to the next. I felt scared driving on that stuff because I'd forget where I was. I went to a doctor for a new prescription, and what he put me on made me sleep for 14 hours straight. The next medication made me hallucinate and destroyed my appetite. The medications I was prescribed due to issues with crippling depression and anxiety were the equivalent of tranquilizers. Stuff to numb every waking moment as opposed to any semblance of making things better. The concept that people with depression or anxiety don't deserve disability benefits because there's "medicine for that" is absurd. I had to stop taking my medication because it effected my work performance, which ultimately lead to threats of termination.

[QUOTE=Reviized;51879006]I had previously heard that psychology (and some other disciplines) didn't really apply the scientific method when conducting research, or at least hadn't until recently. The example kind of being the usage of electroshock therapy, and other drugs as potential treatments for mental issues without actually applying the scientific method (this is going back a fair ways). That's the only real defining line between "science" and "non-science" is whether or not a discipline at the very least attempts to apply the scientific method to experimentation. After looking it up it seems that you're right however, and that while there has been quackery in psychology (and other disciplines as well), the field appears to apply the same principles as any other discipline. I edited my statement above.[/QUOTE] Modern psychology is a vastly different beast from psychology classic. Particularly when it comes to experimentation now as researchers actually have to follow ethical guidelines no matter who they are studying at the time, sane or not. Even a simple questionnaire can take a while to get past ethics committees in some cases. It's a lot harder to follow the scientific method with than a hard science like physics or computing, but it does follow the scientific method a lot more now than it did historically.