senzafine, i posted from my personal observations. I dished out methadone to 70 “addicts” over a period of seven years. Only five of them were in employment. Some of them had been on the methadone for over twenty years and in that time had never held a job. So don’t tell me to think before I post. You have your experiences, I have mine

Ah. Methadone. I stand corrected. You need not say anymore.

Perhaps you can then explain, toad, why there are thousands and thousands on the sickness benefit for over a year that do not meet that permanency test, then,.

Actually, Toad, you’re wrong in terms of getting the full amount. Those who meet the one test can still do some work. Like the unemployment benefit, the Sickness benefit is supposed to be a short term benefit to top up earnings where work is unable to be done due to sickness etc. It has similar work search requirements, taking into account sickness. It is not the intention that those on the sickness benefit get the full amount for a long time.The planning process is focused on moving sickness beneficiaries into employment as their disability-related or medical condition and individual circumstances allow. Hardly a long term aim.

So you will always get both short-term and long-term sickness beneficiaries – the long-term ones being the ones who would meet the permanency test for invalid’s benefit but not the severity test.

You must undergo a medical exam/have your medical cert signed by your doctor every 3 months in order to continue to qualify for sickness. At least, you did when I was on it. I think by that very definition, it was designed as reasonably temporary assistance.

DPF: I completely agree with funding addicts into treatment rather than paying them a benefit. Though i do believe a component must be some form of welfare when they are back in the community. I have some experience with this, having undergone non-residential treatment for drug addictions some 11-12 years ago. IMO, a funded treatment/welfare/work readiness package would be world class and could, if handled correctly be a very tight and successful model.

MurrayM: I would caution you to step back for a moment and think before you post. There are a large number of people whom have undergone treatment for addiction, and have completely transformed their life. They are in all industries, in all professions. I for one, as did many of my peers become very productive members of society as a direct result of treatment.

These are the medical qualifications to receive it:

54. Sickness benefit: standard eligibility requirements
(1) A person is entitled to a sickness benefit if he or she satisfies the criteria in subsections (2), (3), and (4), and—
(a) is not in full-time employment, is willing to undertake it, but because of sickness, injury, or disability is limited in his or her capacity to seek, undertake, or be available for full-time employment; or
(b) is in employment, but is losing earnings because, through sickness or injury, he or she is not actually working, or is working only at a reduced level.

Note that there is no mention of “short term” or “temporary”.

[DPF: It is implicit, because under Invalids Benefit it says "the expectation that people of working age support themselves directly or indirectly through employment, and that other measures are available for people who are temporarily unable to support themselves."

Also it says the Invalids is for permament incapacity to work, exceeding the period set down in regulations. So again the sickness benefit is clearly expected to be for cases less than that period]

Rufus

I suspect many of those 24,000 cite drug addiction as their sickness. I’d rather we fund them into treatment, rather than keep paying them the sickness benefit.

And thirty years ago, when homosexuality was still on the DSM, you would suggest the same cure, DPF?

Radical reform is needed to rein in DPB abuse and the benefit-lifestyle chosen by some. Bludgers should be forced to look for work or face benefit reduction. Time limit on benefits, with the exception of the elderly and infirm, should be imposed.

I have witnessed first hand the “treatment” these people receive, and there is no way in hell they are going to become productive individuals as a result of this “treatment”.

Read Theodore Dalrymples’s book romancing opiates, it says it all, and all of it is true.

In time, he was actively managed off ACC and gradually back into employment. This was physically excruciating for him, and I recall be incensed and a apparent injustice of the whole process.

Over time the work helped my friend become stronger, more mobile, more active and altogether in a better space. He isn’t 100% today, but has a much higher quality of life that he would have had he stayed on ACC.

The lesson for me was that the health benefits from working outweigh the personal ‘cost’ getting back into work.

Well, if he’s not, I certainly am