MJ Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Aboutus/News/Latest_News/DWPproposestoforcechemotherapypatientstoundergostressfulbenefitchecks.aspx“Cancer patients in the middle of treatment are, in many cases, fighting for their lives. Yet the Government is proposing to change the rules so all cancer patients will have to undergo a stressful assessment to prove they are unable to work. This shows a clear disregard and misunderstanding of what it’s like to undergo punishing treatment. Patients who previously had peace of mind would face the stress and practical difficulties of getting assessed for work they are too poorly to do. “To make matters worse, the Government is pressing ahead with proposed changes in the Welfare Reform Bill that will make 7,000 cancer patients lose ESA after 12 months simply because they have not recovered quickly enough." There's a e-petition here http://e-activist.com/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=70&ea.campaign.id=12513 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest posiedon Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 Signed, nearly up to 8,000 now but not nearly enough. If they clamped down on all the scroungers that are able to claim benefits just for using a staff (walking stick) Then maybe they could afford to pay the folk who have a genuine need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 Maybe the scroungers who avoid billions in tax. There could be an argument for those who are still able to work but claim state pensions have them taken away and forced back to work.But that would be wrong, would it not. Compare the "scrounger" as it is put (Daily Mail Style) who may obtain an extra £10 to those who buy a £1,000,000 yacht and claim the vat back for their company, who is wrong? the sad thing is you with your post have turned the subject of this line of posting to that of hatred. Easy to do, hard to defend. But gets you your comments. Your no better than those you accuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGHR Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 Compare the "scrounger" as it is put (Daily Mail Style) who may obtain an extra £10 to those who buy a £1,000,000 yacht and claim the vat back for their company, who is wrong? If the party who obtained the "extra" ten pounds did so fraudulently then they would be wrong. If the party who bought a one million pound yacht was an entity which was registered for VAT they would be perfectly entitled to "claim back" the VAT on their purchase and by doing so would have done nothing wrong. If that party ever came to sell the yacht they would of course have to pay the VAT component to H.M revenue and customs at that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemy Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 All fair points but I think they detract from the OP's original one. I am fairly sickened by this latest cost cutting exercise from the government and have signed the petition, although I am not optimistic that it will prevent it from going ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GT Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 I am fairly sickened by this latest cost cutting exercise from the government and have signed the petition, although I am not optimistic that it will prevent it from going ahead. I've signedalso remember that Alistair Carmachael MP is a member of this government and you can make the point to him here.http://www.alistaircarmichael.co.uk/index.php?option=com_contact&view=contact&id=1&Itemid=69 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mucklejo Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 have signed and shared on facebook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dratsy Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 Compare the "scrounger" as it is put (Daily Mail Style) who may obtain an extra £10 to those who buy a £1,000,000 yacht and claim the vat back for their company, who is wrong? If the party who obtained the "extra" ten pounds did so fraudulently then they would be wrong. If the party who bought a one million pound yacht was an entity which was registered for VAT they would be perfectly entitled to "claim back" the VAT on their purchase and by doing so would have done nothing wrong. If that party ever came to sell the yacht they would of course have to pay the VAT component to H.M revenue and customs at that time. your missing the point here peat just hates folks that do well for themselves, he forgets that to be able to spend the million in the first place they have earned and payed tax on a lot more the barstewerds. taxes that pay for the benefits of the scrounger and the pension of peat himself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 DoneI would not normally wish Cancer on anyoneBut I a will make a exception to that in Mr.cameron and clegg case Cameron is now 'putting patient privacy at risk' with plan to share medical records with drugs companiesThese two poop holes should not even be in charge of a kids at a zebra crossong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 your missing the point here peat just hates folks that do well for themselves, he forgets that to be able to spend the million in the first place they have earned and payed tax on a lot more the barstewerds. Your kin Joking. Google tax avoidance in the UK and compare it to the so called fraudsters, who is really wrong, I can see why you are a friend of the hog, two peas in a pod. You have no idea what I think, why should we support someone who has put us in this crisis (bankers) and then let them pay themselves 7 billion in bonuses. There is no such thing as a self made millionaire as they needed the system to make it happen. Please point out where I said that I hate folk. Your talking from where the sun don't shine, anally retentive or what? perhaps if the private sector was not about making a very few wealthy and more about a social conscience, private pensions would be as good, mind I am sure the oil industry pension is good, they prey on everyones wallet. Not my fault private pensions are similar to what you are spouting. Any how, why is the GOV picking on the folk who have the least, surly, folk going through this are going through enough without being made to jump through ever shrinking hoops. Punitive or what? That is really the nub of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted December 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 Can I just draw your attention to the original topic?I'm sure so many folk would needlessly stick themselves through chemo for a whole £85 a week out of you hard working tax payers instead of getting themselves a proper job.It'd just kind of be nice if you could pass the information and the e-petition around please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 Done that. From the same web site, a few facts Nearly 1 in 5 people living with cancer turn the heating off, even though they feel cold. Fuel poverty is when someone has to spend more than 10% of their income on energy to heat and power their home. 1 in 4 people having cancer treatment struggle to pay their energy bills. 6 out of 10 people with cancer have had higher energy bills since diagnosis. There is also http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/1107584/families-children-cancer-struggle-ends-meet/ Side tracked in the last post of mine. You are very right, there always seems to be a lack of thought to these schemes when GOVs put them in, the system is jammed with appeals and an additional 100 "judges" have been appointed to go through they backlog. the Macmillan nurses helped with my Mam before she passed on and supported my Dad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CyprusPluto Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 There are some (to put it lightly) bizarre decisions coming out of various and supposedly clever peoples mouths down in London at the moment. No one likes paying tax, whether it's £10 or £200k VAT on a yacht and I'm no different. But I have absolutely no objection to paying my share to help those people who are not in a position to support themselves and I include patients undertaking long term treatments in that. In fact I'd go as far to say I am happy to pay to help those people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piddly Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 There are some (to put it lightly) bizarre decisions coming out of various and supposedly clever peoples mouths down in London at the moment. No one likes paying tax, whether it's £10 or £200k VAT on a yacht and I'm no different. But I have absolutely no objection to paying my share to help those people who are not in a position to support themselves and I include patients undertaking long term treatments in that. In fact I'd go as far to say I am happy to pay to help those people. Well said, i was thinking the exact same Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest posiedon Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 I am fairly sickened by this latest cost cutting exercise from the government and have signed the petition, although I am not optimistic that it will prevent it from going ahead.Having signed a lot of these on-line petitions, I know your lack of optimism is not misplaced, they NEVER (unfortunately) achieve anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.