Tories considering benefit review for people with drug and obesity problems.

[meglet]

I have to be really angry to start a thread in this topic .

Cutting benefits for people with addiction problems is surely only going to lead to them committing more crime to raise the money for drugs? Seeing as mental health support is already virtually nonexistent I can't imagine how they think this is going to work.

bbc link

ChChChChange's post: The thing I hate is that the obesity crisis is in large part fuelled by the government. Obesity has soared since the 80's when fat has been demonised and masses of low fat products have been available. The advice is all wrong...eat less, move more, etc. this only leads to weight gain (see for example Zoe Harcombe). If you need to lose weight and you follow governmental advice you are likely to lose a bit of weight but studies show you will most likely regain and get bigger. We need a government which understands that fat doesn't make you fat, it is filling, it's fantastic for your health, we need a government which demonises sugar. If you have a food addiction it is very difficult to get it under control; there is so much cheap access to carbs and crappy sugary products.

Yes to this. I am a good example of this; a long-term dieter who is fatter than ever; a depressed, despairing, frustrated, failure. I have successfully lost hundreds of pounds over the years yet am bigger than ever. I don't diet any more because it doesn't work.

My fear with any new programme targeting the obese is that they don't receive support which will enable them to eat to regain health/forge new long term habits/return to work (and where is the funding coming from necessary to provide proper, sustainable support?). Dieting on its own won't be effective long term. Statistics seem to conclude that more than 90% of dieters regain weight lost plus more I'm a good example.

Anything this current band of politicians do I view with suspicion; I am raging upon reading about the latest banking scandal . They (politicians) are not to be trusted.

sorry i'm still doubled up laughing at the idea that we can all go out and buy organic meat and veg.

(my son eats continuously ((very slim and active btw just constantly hungry)) and i'm imagining the cost of feeding him the amount he needs to eat entirely on organic meat and veg for even one day let alone a month and that's with only one child to take into consideration)

Self inflicted illnesses? I just wrote a long rant in response to that but deleted it because it got unpleasant. Of course I see what you mean, but I think taking the path where you judge people for the causes of their illness is a VERY dangerous one. Few illnesses don't have some root or other in the way you live your life, we all have to die of something after all. The pursuit of perfect optimum health via lifestyle is IMO an illusion. Organic veg for all indeed. I don't in the least mind people buying organic veg as it's much better for farmers, but I wouldn't regard a farmer who developed some pesticide-related illness as culpable for that even though they could have run an organic operation.

I must have some kind of magic money. We get benefits and have a child who eats only a gluten and dairy free diet which is more expensive to cater for than just an ordinary organic diet. We have no choice but to buy gluten and dairy free foods or our child would be in hospital on a daily basis.
Even if people don't buy organic, they don't have to buy junk. They can buy normal fruit and veg and pulses and non organic meat and chicken. The options a not just organic or junk, there is something in between. People buy junk food through choice, nobody is forcing them. Lack of money can't be the only reason that people are obese because they didn't get that size from eating tiny portions and big portions of anything, even junk food, costs a lot of money.

How would eating organic food stop obesity?

Ooh. Another benefits thread.
Don't see many of those round these parts.
Ooh no.

No, the obese people tend not to get that size from eating tiny portions. The thing to consider is why many of them are eating too much in the first place. It tends not to be through unbridled greed alone. Emotional eating is the biggest cause of obesity; people with depression, with a history of abuse, with horrible, miserable childhoods, etc. The same goes for other addictions. People rarely completely screw up their lives with self-destructive behaviour for no reason.

Unless the underlying causes of addiction are addressed, putting someone on Weightwatchers, or through rehab, is unlikely to be a quick fix. Offering understanding and compassion will be more productive than just telling people to eat better and stop drinking.

How would eating organic food stop obesity?

It wouldn't. I was referring to an earlier post about additives and other harmful things being sold in foods. I was merely saying that nobody is forced to buy harmful foods. I don't actually think the levels of pesticides in fruit and veg is harmful as long as you wash your fruit and veg properly. It is obviously better for somebody to buy a bag of value apples for £1 than it is to buy a bag of value chocolate bars for £1.
I think obese people should be entitled to benefits as everyone needs to live but I don't necessarily agree that those benefits should be sickness benefits when the individual has refused treatment. If you refuse treatment then you are refusing help to get better. I would rather see more money diverted to those with illnesses that they are born with / have developed without any cause on the individuals part.

I'm also annoyed that people on JSA get sanctioned for silly things like attending a job interview at the time they should be signing on whilst people on ESA face no sanctions even for refusing treatment to help them get better. People on ESA for more than 13 weeks get more money than those on JSA and currently are not required to do anything to help themselves recover and get back to work. They should be paid the same amount as those on JSA (only talking about those with obesity and addictions, not other illnesses).

you sound SO ignorant it's untrue.

When you talk about people getting ESA, are you referring to those in the Support Group or WRAG? Because they are different regimes, with different rates for claimants, and it's pretty important to distinguish between them.

and different requirements of them in order to receive the allowance.

What are the different rates?
Whatever the rates are if they are deemed to have an illness that is treatable and a treatment programme is available then I don't think they should be able to refuse the treatment without facing sanctions.
Maybe I am ignorant, maybe I have just seen too many people sanctioned on JSA when they have followed the rules and tried to get a job. Maybe I know too many people making appeals against cuts to their PIP when they don't have treatable illnesses.

yeah i think you've shown you are ignorant and should probably find out more before commenting.

yes there are different rates, yes the allowance is conditional and if you don't meet the conditions you lose it already. no it's far from just people on jsa who've been sanctioned and the people most sanctioned on jsa tend to be those who've been moved off of disability benefits onto jsa despite the fact that they're incapable of working or meeting the requirements for jsa and then get sanctioned for that on jsa. some worse yet get told they're not entitled to disability benefits then get turned away for jsa because they're deemed not well enough to get a job by the jsa people.

there are a lot of 'ifs' in your post that are easily filled in by informing yourself instead of going off of tabloid headlines.

For some reason you want to blame one group of vulnerable people, whose conditions you don't know about, for the problems of other groups. It's a bit mystifying.

None of the people I know who have been sanctioned have moved off disability benefits, that's not to say that a significant proportion haven't been moved off ESA/pip but not any of the people that I know.
I just don't have enough sympathy to stretch to those who have a benefit cut due to not seeking available and offered treatment for a treatable illness. I would have sympathy for anyone who has benefits cut due to not being able to access treatment because of availability.

Personally I'm grateful that the Tories are coming out with crap like this. They need to show their full, nasty colours BEFORE the election so that everyone can be clear exactly what they're voting for. My fervent hope is that some people who voted for shiney, caring Dave last time will see this sort of thing and think "holy crap"!

Bramshott as this thread shows a lot of people will think 'at last, common sense solutions'

don't deceive yourself

but as you say, it's good to have actual policies being discussed (assuming this is a policy and not just a PR balloon)

From what I heard on TV people will only have to agree to accept treatment. That will do them good anyway so I can't see the problem.

Viviennemary - my fear as an ME patient is that one day this will apply to us, but the prescribed treatment for ME is sometimes extremely harmful. So it may be a case of, accept very harmful treatment, or lose the money you need to live.

(BTW for anyone interested in ME)

Vivienne, imagine group therapy with five people who have only agreed to be there to keep their benefits, and five who desperately want to be free of their addiction. Oh, that's going to work like gangbusters. Oh and of course, the treatment centre will only be funded based on the percentage of people who don't relapse afterwards, so they could potentially lose their funding too because they're treating people who don't want to stop and are much more likely to go straight back into the same life.

And for obesity, lots of people taking medication under duress?? really? forced treatment has been included in one piece of British legislation but it's been pretty controversial. Trial data is not based on people taking medication they don't want and don't believe works, so unless they can make a trial on that basis, the risk/consent information is invalid. Oh the legal fun we are all going to have!

People always find reasons as to why everything is a bad idea. People in work have to jump through hoops all the time. I think for the majority of people it will be a positive step. Perhaps if a GP advised against it for a particular individual then that would be different.

It is scary that these people who are in charge of making decisions which can catastrophically impact on us, are woefully ignorant of the subject they are creating new benefit laws about.

This simplistic, knee-jerk reaction to an extremely complex situation is a very good example. Who exactly are they wanting to impress in time for the elections??? Not me, for sure.