Posts by Andrew C
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
There is an entire group of people that is being unfairly and dishonestly demonised here for political gain. It is not a new thing in history. It is appalling. It needs to be roundly condemned and vehemently resisted. By saying ‘okay, but how do we go after the buldgers’ you’re doing the exact opposite, and buying into the narrative. For isn’t it like saying “this group of people, these victims of how society works – shouldn’t they really be perfect?” No group of people is. Catching benefit bludgers is no different from catching tax cheaters or dishonest accountants or scamming bankers, all of whom cost society. But no policy is made regarding those other groups starting from the assumption that they are in fact all fraudsters, which is what the WWG is proposing we do with welfare recipients.
the short version being - there isn't a way to do it that doesnt fuck it up for everyone else.
Which is what I thought too.
-
All good points Danielle. That's what I was thinking when I figured its a full time job to keep people who dont want to work in a full time job...
-
Hard News: What about that Welfare…, in reply to Petra,
But anyway, unless these guys are double dipping or dealing drugs or whathaveyou, they are actually setting themselves up for a very hard row to hoe later in life. They might not realise that now, but they will eventually. It’s all fun and games when you’re young…
There's annecdotal evidence/rumours/suspicion that ACC have a collection of "friendly" doctors, so the spectrum certainly exists. Not quite the same of course, ACC docs get a steady stream of income from ACC, but you get my point
-
I mentioned the docs because I found it interesting and thought other people might too. I seem to have found an outlier, but never said it wasnt
I do believe the issue of bludging is trivial, and even if I hadn't before (which is not the case) the volume of facts presented in this thread would have forced me to accept it.What I was interested in is whether anyone had ideas on how to get rid of the (few) bad apples in a way which didn't screw over the vast majority. Removing them and leaving the genuine cases would be win win and I was interested to know if anyone had ideas on just how this could be done.
At the time of posting all I had heard was "its not a big problem so forget about it". Was curious to know if that was case closed, too hard, or whether someone out there could come up with something which would make everyone better off.
Im not sure it exists. I would say it would take a full time position to force someone like this into a full time position. So I certainly cannot think of anything, but then that's why I asked...
-
Andrew are you absolutely sure your 3 friends are fit to work?
There is no doubt they are fit to work, they themselves freely admit they simply dont want to.
One of the docs recently suggested that the original ailment may not work any more, and prompted for alternatives. My friend said he had broken his collarbone once. Pinko presto, original ailment removed, new issue preventing work is pain from collar bone.
-
Hard News: What about that Welfare…, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
So an Economist (Rebstock) has a better idea about what Doctors deem unfit for work because they are ill, invalid, or other? Y’know, Doctors who spend up to hundreds of thousands of dollars getting (what she must obviously think a waste), a Science degree.
As an FYI, the 3 friends I refered to earlier all have found doctors who are prepared to sign medical statements saying they are unfit for work. None are unfit, and, and this in my friends' views, the doc's all know this and are aware of the true reason for the requests and are simply playing along. Just sayin.
I mentioned previously I think the issue of bludging is trivial and thus not worth worrying about, but I guess the above means that at least some portion of the medical figures contain an element of fraud.
-
My response to the statistically negligible ‘bludger’ problem is that, like Peaches, I just. don’t. give. a. fuck. and I suggest everyone else stops giving a fuck too.
That's my view too. But for the sake of argument, what ideas are out there assuming we do give a fuck
-
Almost most of the people I know who are on a benefit would rather not be except for a rather small number who have made a life style choice
Ignoring middle class friends with small children who receive working for families and/or childcare subsidies, all of the 3 friends I know who are on the dole are what would generally be classified as bludgers.
It is a choice for them, they dont want to get a job, and actively seek ways to stay on the dole via any means possible. All are capable of working, all have qualifications of some description, and I believe all could find work if they tried. They simply dont want to.
Question: does anyone have ideas on how this specific type of beneficiary can be identified and culled which wouldn't make life hell for those genuine beneficiaries? Or is the consensus this is basically just too hard to do and we have to take a few licks for the greater good.
I guess that at least in part this is one of the questions the working group is attempting to address. Ive seen complaints so far but havn't really seen ideas. Do we have any?
-
[side thread jack]
@hilarystace[side threadjack] Marcus have you got a link to that article? I'm really interested as to why people put their kids through non-evidence based treatments
An american with interest in this once explained his view of why to me along the lines of: in america there is an underlying belief that if anything bad happens to you, you should be able to seek remedy. And that also sort of implies that if something bad happens to you and you can blame someone/something, then that someone/something caused the problem. And if something caused the problem, then something exists that can be unwound or fixed.
I've done a fairly bad job of repeating his line of reasoning, but hopefully you get the drift.
So there is this underlying belief that something must exist which they can try and fix/cure. And as conventional medicine doesn't offer fixes, they turn to alternative therapies.
Fringe frenzy: As many at 75 percent of autistic children are receiving alternative treatments not developed by conventional medicine, which are often bogus.
If this stat is real, that's pretty amazing...
-
@Marcus Turner
Interesting article on "Autism Cures" in the latest Scientific Amercian.
Thanks for pointing this out. Man the cranks are certainly good at mobilising the troops into the comment zone.
I wonder if Orac will give it a once over.