People who cannot work because they are obese or have alcohol or drug problems could have their sickness benefits cut if they refuse treatment, the PM says.
David Cameron has launched a review of the current system, which he says fails to encourage people with long-term, treatable issues to get medical help.
Some 100,000 people with such conditions claim Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), the government says.
Labour said the policy would do nothing to help people to get off benefits.
Campaigners said it was "naive" to think overweight people did not want to change their lives.
There is currently no requirement for people with alcohol, drug or weight-related health problems to undertake treatment.
Benefit treatment
Benefit treatment
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Benefit treatment
Young people out of work, education or training for six months will have to do unpaid community work to get benefits if the Conservatives win the election.
David Cameron said about 50,000 18 to 21-year-olds would be required to do daily work experience from day one of their claim, alongside job searching.
The welfare shake-up would make sure young people "don't get sucked into a life on welfare", he said in a speech.
Labour said the Tories would do nothing to get young people "real jobs".
The opposition has pledged a compulsory jobs guarantee for the young unemployed, paid for by a tax on bankers' bonuses.
The Conservatives are focusing on welfare reforms this week as they draw up battle lines before May's general election.
Their proposed community work programme will cost about £20m to deliver, paid for by "initial savings" from the delivery of universal credit.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Benefit treatment
LMAOThe opposition has pledged a compulsory jobs guarantee for the young unemployed, paid for by a tax on bankers' bonuses.
And people with that sort of "understanding" of economics (and basic math) want to be entrusted to run the government?
I wouldn't trust them to run a bath...
As of last December there were 764000 unemployed in the UK
-
MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 21516
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: Benefit treatment
Simple - all they have to do is compel the local sweet shop to give all 764000 a job
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: Benefit treatment
I neglected to finish my point there...(I intended to delete that line and them come back to it later)
Here's what that relates to:
As of last December there were 764000 youth unemployed in the UK:
So if on average, each of those folks was given an annual salary in their "guaranteed job" of a relatively modest but liveable $30,000 each, (19,538 and change in British Pounds) the cost would come to nearly 23 billion in US dollars...
Somehow I doubt that if the "banker's bonuses" were taxed even at a rate of 100% it would cover that...
And that's for just one year...
And then of course there's the whole question of exactly what these lads and lassies would be doing in their "guaranteed jobs", and who would be providing them....
But I see Meade seems to have come up with the solution for that question...
Here's what that relates to:
As of last December there were 764000 youth unemployed in the UK:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... statistics764,000 young people aged 16-24 were unemployed in September to November 2014
So if on average, each of those folks was given an annual salary in their "guaranteed job" of a relatively modest but liveable $30,000 each, (19,538 and change in British Pounds) the cost would come to nearly 23 billion in US dollars...
Somehow I doubt that if the "banker's bonuses" were taxed even at a rate of 100% it would cover that...
And that's for just one year...
And then of course there's the whole question of exactly what these lads and lassies would be doing in their "guaranteed jobs", and who would be providing them....
But I see Meade seems to have come up with the solution for that question...