You're viewing a single thread.
I do not think many people would disagree with the title.
In my opinion: the problems come mainly from freeloaders, that according to me do need to be refused.
And another problem I envision is the grey zone. Situations like me. I've diagnosed CPTSD, am neuratypical.
Working with other people 5 days a week destroyed me. But I managed to find a solution as a self-employed person. Am I unable to work, or not, what's the correct government's opinion on that?
In my opinion: the problems come mainly from freeloaders, that according to me do need to be refused.
You know that the concept of freeloaders is hogwash that mainstream media perpetuates because it gets views, right? At least under the Australian system, far more money is spent trying to "catch" them, than is spent on them.
Same in the US.
I worked as a fed in the US. The US federal government will spend a dollar to make sure a dime is spent properly.
is hogwash that mainstream media perpetuates because it gets views, right?
No, I do not know that. Please explain
At least under the Australian system, far more money is spent trying to "catch" them, than is spent on them.
Assume far more money is being spend on fire prevention, than what's currently lost in fire. Then that's not an argument pro, nor contra, fire prevention.
Nah thanks, not about to be sealioned by a 19d old account, don't have enough spoons for that.
I know the reference for sealioning, but could you help me understand the "enough spoons" part? (I agree with you by the way, just don't understand your whole comment)
Ah, thanks for enlightening me.
I’m opposed to basically anything in your comment, but thanks for the spoon story.
Assume far more money is being spend on fire prevention, than what's currently lost in fire
For anyone reading this thinking that this may sound like a good rebuttal: it's a false equivalence.
Fire prevention is a worthwhile expenditure, because things being on fire when they shouldn't is generally very bad. The cost of fire prevention is worth it, especially when lives are at stake.
Benefit cheat-catching is (or at least should be) purely about net savings. What happens though is the costs outweigh the savings making them pointless, as well as hurting those in who accidently get caught in the net too.
Don't fall for specious arguments, folks! A pithy rebutally might sound convincing at first, but don't be afraid to think deeper about it. And don't be afraid to ignore the commenter if you believe they're arguing in bad faith.
“freeloaders” is exceedingly rare, it’s mainly a rightwing talking point to erode support for benefits. A high percentage of people with disability who can’t work aren’t even able to get disability insurance.
it takes years, you need to hire a lawyer, go through extensive medical testing… All that to get a couple thousand a year, and given that you’re not working, it’s barely survivable.
The only report I read on it was 15 years ago, a report by the general inspector of SSDI they estimated that 1-3% of people applying for disability were fraudulent and they had on average a 0.3% success rate. I wonder if that report is available online, I had read it at the local library.
People like this will fight tooth and nail to prevent any theoretical "freeloaders" from getting less than minimum wage to survive on at the expense of something like 98.5% of people who make genuine claims (because your description is accurate, it is absolute torture to go through, and this bullshit lie is pushed to manufacture public support to make it even harder), but they accept tax dodging billionaires exploiting society for their own gain as an inevitable part of life they're happy to put up with because they've been brainwashed in to thinking one day it might be them (when the reality is you're probably thousands of times more likely to become ill and or disabled than you are to become filthy rich).
It's so fucking twisted.
I feel like thousands of times is deeply underestimating the odds. There are 801 billionaires in the US, while there are over 70 million people living with a disability.
Edit: I should add that I agree very much with the rest of your comment.
Yeah, I didn't have the energy to go look up the numbers lol I figured thousands still covered hundreds of thousands, but millions might be overshooting it, but you're absolutely right, thanks.
It’s like saying the problem with the criminal justice system is guilty people being found innocent.
Unfortunately the justice system does find a lot of guilt people innocent, especially in cases of sexual violence, and or if they have a lot of money and power, so it might not be the best comparison, but I get what you mean!
Great parallel. If there is to be error, let it be on the positive side and not hurt those who need help.
The exaggeration or outright lying about welfare and social nets for political gain has roots back to the 60s. Reagan used the already created term "welfare queen" to disable even more help. Far easier to taint the whole thing than to improve fraud detection or shudder let the very small percentage of fraud exist while you try to help as many people as possible.
Republicans hate people. It's as simple as that.
Our respective experiences might differ based on context.
Where I live, there's 500k people on disability, on a work age population of around 5 million (1).
I was offered disability benefits, as I received my diagnosis.
You were offered sick leave or permanent disability benefits? In most places those are completely different.
Someone with CPTSD in my country might get long term sick leave if their condition flares up, but that condition isn’t in the list of those considered for long term disability benefits.
If getting long term disability in belgium is so early that’s probably a good thing. Lot’s of disabled people in other countries literally die on the streets because they don’t have the physical or financial capital it takes to go through the multi year long draining process it takes to get disability benefits.
Permanent, as of the neurological component.
The CPTSD developed by growing up in an environment not, beneficial for lack of better word, to my situation.
That’s really progressive of belgium, you’re lucky to live there.
99% of countries wouldn’t do that.
Yet, there's a freeloather problem here.
By legal definition, there's not. As anyone that receives disability benefits is legally disabled.
But in practice.
and your sources to back that up are…?
I’m sure like everywhere a couple people cheat the system. But using that to excuse the marginalisation of disabled people who can’t work is disingenuous at best.
That's indeed an issue. By definition an elephant is an elephant, even if it has great manes and hunts antilopes in the savanna.
so your claim that there is a freeloading problem is not backed by data?
The situation here is simply reversed.
Where, in your examples, it takes lawyers and years to get benefits.
Can you prove there isn't a freeloader problem, in your situation, as each case takes years of legal resolution?
We can only refer to anecdotal experience, or gross numbers. 1 out of 10 working age people are on disability in Belgium. What's the gross ratio where you live?
I just want to chip in that the definition of "disabled" is more complex than just receiving disability benefits. I'm going to use a UK framework to illustrate what I mean, but my overall argument applies equally to other countries.
There are multiple different kinds of disability benefit in the UK. One of them (PIP) isn't dependent on household income, and isn't linked to one's ability to work. ESA is another disability benefit which does depend on income and is also linked to difficulty working. You can get both PIP and ESA, but it's fairly common for people to get PIP, but not ESA. Being in receipt of either of these benefits would potentially qualify a person as being "disabled"
These benefits are also used for gaining access to other resources for disabled people, like a blue parking badge that allows one to park in disabled bays. The easiest way to get one of those is to provide evidence of being in receipt of a benefit such as PIP, but you don't actually have to be in receipt of any benefit to get a blue badge (and once you do have a blue badge, that is often sufficient 'proof of disability')
And to complicate things further, if we are talking about disability discrimination, then a person doesn't need to be in receipt of any of these benefits to be covered by the Equality Act. Many people who don't even think of themselves as disabled are covered by this legislation, which casts a very wide definition of "disabled".
The TL;DR: is that even the concept of "legally disabled" is complex and context dependent.
I think you're also misunderstanding what is being "on disability" in other countries? It seems like your government covers long-term (but not lifelong) illness. Mine doesn't. So the comparison is kind of disingenuous.
Yes, I don't think I quite understand what you mean. Perhaps an example could help me understand?
Really proving my point on the whole "sealioning" thing here.
I'm unaware what that is, I'm sorry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
Now you're aware.
Thank you. I now know what sealioning means. Thank you.
If a functioning disability safety net means you get an occasional freeloader then that's an acceptable price.
I agree, it's about trade-offs.
That's why my first statement was: I do not think many people would disagree with the title.
And then you say "oh but the freeloaders need to be refused"
No shit, but it honestly just bites the nose to spite the face to even really give a shit about freeloaders. Have a basic vetting system and if someone is being an especially greedy asshole make an example. Trying too hard just hurts legitimate cases. Like anti piracy affects customers more than pirates.
Have a basic vetting system and if someone is being an especially greedy asshole make an example.
That's exactly what I'm argueing for, the example part not needed. Just weed them out.
Thing is, freeloaders are pretty rare. While people in need are far too common.
In my opinion: the problems come mainly from freeloaders, that according to me do need to be refused.
What do you base your opinion on? Statics or are you talking out of your ass?
Its to pay less than motivated individuals can earn and consider if the person can earn a living in their field or profitably be offered benefits during retraining for another. If they can't then they are disabled did you have a hard one?