to think some people actually wish we didn't live in a welfare state?

[milkgoddessmakesthefinestmilk]

all this talk, about whether it is right for parents to choose not to return to work, and why do people keep having children when they are on a low income.
and all the other million threads on MN about people on benefits etc.

makes me wonder, do you actually wish we didn't live in a welfare state?

i certainaly don't, no NHS people dying because they counldn't afford treatment.
people that are disabled, sick and unable to get a job, struggling to eat, living rough etc

be a pretty unpleasant country then you know.

why does someone on a middle income need to claim benefits? and why do they feel entitled to do so?

My SIL is californian. I remember her response when I told her that I do home visits as a GP. It was 'Wow, that must cost the patient a fortune!'. She didn't believe me when I said it was free, as are most things on the NHS.

People don't appreciate how lucky we are over here and won't until the government destroy and privatise it.

Rant over.

my mother is always shocked at the level of post-natal care offered here, and in the home, too.

also that i was 'allowed' to give birth vaginally after having been in labour for a day.

she used to go on to no end about 'socialised' medicine and how bad it was.

until i told her to shut up.

because for some, it doesn't matter how much you earn, it'll never be enough. .

There's a vast difference between "can't afford to use the heating this month" and "can't afford to pay for my sky tv". But because we live in this "must have" society people seem to think that if they're not earning enough to have it, then they should be entitled to it in some other way, be it by claiming benefits or going into debt.

If dh lost his job tomorrow sky would be the first thing to go, then broadband, telephone (would actually be cheaper to keep my mobile as pay as you go so landline could go) no holidays, jim membership, all these things are luxuries which if you can afford them are nice, but if you can't then you just don't have them.

a salient point, wannabe.

I just cannot gt worked up about 'benefit cheats' - maybe it is my political views, my upbringing - I don't know. My instinct (not very scientific I know) tells me that there are always a number of grafters and a number of lazy arses per population and that the richer we get as a society the more dissatisfied we seem to become. Constant comparing with each other, griping about what 'they' have what 'they' are getting away with - it is so unhealthy.

I can guarantee that the Gov is wastng a lot more money on wars and Project Trident, on PFI's etc. ad nauseum than is lost to benefit fraud each year. Not to mention the thousands of people who fail to claim their entitlements each year as the system is so bloody complicated. I do all my Mums benefit applications and it is a bloody nightmare for me and I have a degree in Government! Not to mention having to deal with the drones that work in benefit depts (I am a former local Gov employee so feel entitled to criticise). Too many 'not to mentions' being used here I apologise .

Not sure what I am saying here exactly - I will put that down to tiredness and severe heartburn - but I maintain that we are very lucky to have a benefits system. There is a problem in areas of Britain - places that haveyet to recover from the loss of heavy industry, mining etc. where long term unemployment and invalidity benefit has become the norm - this is obviously unhealthy. The people in these situations are just not living the life of riley though - they suffer from social exclusion, poor mental and physical health and are in no way enviable.

Here endeth the ramble - I magine you are all tucked up in your beds now anyway!

I understand the frustrations people have with some benefit claimants who seem to have a better life. My darling niece got involved with a lad 4 or 5 years ago who was habitually unemployed/unemployable.

He's on IB for mental health reasons and he certainly isn't the most balanced chap I've ever met. This didn't stop him working in Spain for 4 months when they were first together, however...nor did this 'employment' stop his benefits. How does that work again???

They went back to Spain this year for a month in April/May, got back here for 2 weeks, then went to Turkey for 2 weeks with their 4 year old ds. Said child has been to Spain for months at a time, Egypt, Turkey and a number of other locations on holidays, despite the fact that neither my niece nor her partner works.

They have all sky channels (whether this is legitimately or not, I don't know); they have a BMW convertible which they drive round in (not brand new, but expensive, none the less) and they all wear designer clothes. That's the kind of thing that sets people off on the anti-benefits rant.

My nieces sister, also unemployed, paid £350 for a puppy. £350 fgs! I know it's about priorities, but taxpayers are shelling up their hard earned cash in the form of taxation so her rent can be paid and she can go out and buy a f**cking £350 puppy dog!!!! What incentive does she have to go out and get a job? None that I can see. That drives me nuts!

No-one wants people who are genuinely in need to be unsupported. The benefits system has to be in place to protect those people who can't help themselves. Most people, however, want wasters who bend the system to their own advantage like this to be stopped. They want to see our young people working, not shirking. And this isn't one parent families we're talking about here...this is the terminally unemployed. The ones who won't work because they're better off not working.

jammi, how do you get £1000? I'm a disabled single mum and don't get anywhere near that! Let me know what I'm missing.

Do I wish we didn't live in a welfare state?

Only when I am doing my tax return.

Actually what I do wish is that the system was fairer and more rigorously policed. I do think that it is criminal that able-bodied people with no inclination to work can get benefits for years on end, so I think that this should be stopped. I don't like the fact that benefit levels are such that low-waged people feel disincentivised to work. I think the NHS is a mess and the education system is suffering from initiative overload.

I imagine that the majority people who receive/live on benefits genuinely need them and are eligible for them.

But it is amazing that even on this thread (our own 'slice' of the real world), there are so many who can relate a story of benefit abuse - and most are from direct knowledge/experience, and not hearsay.

As I said, the majority who receive are eligible, but clearly there is a tremendous amount of abuse. And I think something should be done about the abuse, and those who live in that dishonest way.

misdee, if you have dressings they could be donated to St John who could use them for training, they wouldn't be used in anger (as we say) because you can't guarantee the background of something that didn't come from SP or SJ Supplies. But it would save them money because they still have to pay for what's used in training.

wannabe: "physically incapable" do you only see people with physical disabilities as being unable to work?

emma1977 The medical system in the USA scares me.

Watch Sicko or 30 Days by Morgan Spurlock or The Business of Being Born (still trying to get a copy of it) if you're scared by the US system, you will be even more scared!

Forget the neonatal death rate, how about the fact that American RICH live 5 years LESS than British POOR?

expatinscotland, the word you are looking for is Sick Care. The US system isn't health care because it doesn't believe in preventative. For example the autoimmune disorder I have is manageable on Aspirin. Some people still get ill but in general Aspirin prevents the worst of it. The Americans in my support group don't get Aspirin because it is preventative.

Have you seen the public information adverts (can't remember the proper name for them) where they show the dangers of "socialised medicine"? There is a doctor being evicted from his home and town because he is not allowed to practice there! America has gone to great lengths to "protect" their citizens from "socialised medicine".

Jammi, I apologise, as I read through I saw how you worked it out. I'm still amazed though!

I think people object to having a gun put to their head and their earnings taken to support people who choose to have children they cannot afford to support. Some hard working people cannot afford to have anymore children and have to go to work and spend longer hours away from their own children to pay the tax to support others. It's quite perverse. I'm not against a support network for those who are genuinely in need of help. I am against supporting and sustaining poverty in this way. We now have a 3rd generation of people who don't work, people who don't know anyone in their family who has worked, we have 3 million on incapacity benefit. We have a NHS system that is inefficient, money is poured into it and not put to good use or well managed, we are killing people because basic cleanliness isn't undertaken. Education system is failing. It's all well and good pouring money into state run services and benefits but it needs to be effective and efficient more often than not you're just lining the pockets of bureaucrats, politicians and overpaid state workers.

Good post Rebelmum. I think thats what gets to most taxpayers, the fact that the taxes dont get used properly and benefits are no longer really used for the purpose which they were intended.

No adult should be able to choose to live on benefits (not talking WTC/HB were the person works to support)whether they have children or not. Thats not a safety net, its about not choosing to work to support yourself.

Those who have a disability, a disabled child/dependent or are genuinely incapacitated dont "choose" to live on benefits 99% of the time. Thats truly who we should be helping.

Job seekers should be a true safety net for a limited period only.

Maybe then we would have more to spend on our hospitals, schools would all meet the same standards to that children get an equal education etc. There would be no postcode lottery for treatment etc.

Hopefully labour wont get through the next election and maybe some fresh blood is what we need to inject into this country.

I'm not sure I do agree with you rebel, maybe it's my understanding of what you've said.

I haven't worked for ten years, I probably won't again but we'll see what happens with my treatment. I am on disability benefits.

Should I have not had Tink? Am I inconsiderate to think about trying again? Especially as my pregnancies are very expensive and I'm not contributing to the NHS.

If you are single how come you are thinking about trying again?

Tinkerbellesmum - not sure I agree with you about the US medical system not being preventative.

Granted, I only know a limited amount about how the two systems compare....but, in the US, women are told to have an annual smear. In the UK, isn't it every 3 years? How often are women over 40 supposed to have a mammogram in the UK? In the US, it's every year.

With those two (limited) examples, it would seem that any health issues can be spotted much earlier in the US and while not prevented, possibly earlier treatment is more effective and less extreme.

Because there is a difference between the official definition of single and the word we use. I am classed as single because my partner doesn't live here, we don't live together as though we are married. We can't afford to, his money would not cover the money I would lose as his XW is taking most of, but that's a whole different story. Tink's dad and I are still a couple and still want more children, he just can't live with us.

Have I gone into enough personal detail to explain my life to those of you paying for it?

I do know more examples, it was just one I chose to use. I also used to live that side of the pond, so I do know first hand about some of it.

A smear isn't as costly as having to take daily preventive drugs. The disease I have is the worst autoimmune disease there is, without being dramatic. The amount of things that can go wrong that just one aspirin a day can prevent and they can't get their insurance to cover that, it is crazy.

Are you saying you can't afford one aspirin a day, and/or that you think the state should provide it if you need it? Not sure I completely understand what you're saying.

Why would insurance cover aspirin? Surely even over here a prescription is for drugs that you can't just walk into a pharmacy and buy?

Not to mention aspirin is dirt cheap.

I do have Aspirin on prescription because it is life saving medication. Yes I could afford it, I have a spare tub at my parents house, but why should I when it is life saving medication? Without it I have regular strokes and the "minor" problems I suffer from that it helps that are debilitating.

That wasn't my point though, my point is in America it's not life saving treatment, it's preventative. In America sufferers have to go without it (officially) because it's not seen as treating the disease. I know people (with this disease) who have to ship other things in from Canada because they're not allowed it as it doesn't treat the disease "it's preventative".

This is stuff that has been talked about on long threads on support forums, it's not something I can explain in a post or two.

If you want to really understand how it works out there watch one of the films I mentioned.

Interesting what you say about preventative because I'vealways thought it was the NHS who didn't care about preventative. Give them a good crisis (like a heart attack or an emergency caesarean) and they rise to the occassion. But, ask for cholesterol drugs when you have high cholesterol, and youoften get the NHS fob off.

The only valid complaint about the American system that I know oof is that you have to pay part of the bill. (unless you are welfare and then it is free)