Saturday, 14 February 2015

David Cameron dislikes the welfare state.

The following text was taken from  a BBC news article. Text in bold was the article, non-bold text is my own thoughts on the issue. ( )

David Cameron has commissioned a health adviser to review whether people with obesity, alcohol or drug problems should have benefits cut if they refuse treatment to make them fit for work.

Translation : I believe that people in need, people who have no options or power should have their means for living and gaining any choice removed in order to make them powerless and less important.

About 100,000 people with such long-term, yet treatable, conditions are claiming sickness benefits.

Translation: People who have mental conditions that prevent them seeking aid, should pull themselves up by their own bootlaces!

Prof Dame Carol Black will consider whether the welfare system fails to encourage them to get treatment. 

Question: Is it the job of the welfare system to encourage people to seek treatment, or is that a fallacious argument? Surely it's the job of the welfare system to provide welfare.

The PM said it was unfair for workers to fund those who refuse such help.

Translation: The PM does not understand that is EXACTLY the point of the welfare system.

"Some have drug or alcohol problems, but refuse treatment," Mr Cameron said.

Point: Yes that is true. That is part of the condition of addiction. Mr Cameron does not understand that addiction is ADDICTION. But at least he can sit back satisfied in being a selfish ass.

"In other cases people have problems with their weight that could be addressed, but instead a life on benefits rather than work becomes the choice.

"It is not fair to ask hardworking taxpayers to fund the benefits of people who refuse to accept the support and treatment that could help them get back to a life of work."

Translation: We should force people against their will to take "help" that we force on them regardless of their actual issues, cares or beliefs.

"In particular, I have asked her to consider whether people should face the threat of a reduction in benefits if they refuse to engage with a recommended treatment plan.

Question: "Recommended treatment plan"... does that include visiting a state mandated,  Quango to make money for your friends Mr Cameron?

"It is vital that people who would benefit from treatment get the medical help they need."

Point: Except of course getting to treatment is difficult when the state has withdrawn the funds you need to get to the treatment.

Currently there is no requirement for people with such health problems to undertake treatment.

Comment: Well done BBC. In other news, freedom of choice, requires people to have choice.

About 60% of the 2.5 million people claiming sickness benefits have been doing so for more than five years.

Thought: Errr. What is the point of this statement? Shock horror! People who are sick,....have been claiming they are sick!!! More than five years? Well, let's see, people who have lost a leg, do those grow back?  The purpose of this statement is to deliberately make sick people look and sound like leeches. That is it's entire purpose. It's a "scare" tactic, nothing more.

Dame Carol said: "I am deeply interested in trying to overcome the challenges these types of benefit claimants pose.

WTF: They pose you a challenge? Sick people, people in need, pose you a challenge. Do you mean they need help, or you want to find a way to take away what little happiness they have?

"These people, in addition to their long-term conditions and lifestyle issues, suffer the great disadvantage of not being engaged in the world of work, such an important feature of society."

Translation: As a society, we find people who are not good-little-robots a real pain in the ass and want them to feck off. In fact we want to remove the welfare state and funnel that money into our own pockets.