Have you ever gone somewhere, met someone who looked perfectly fine, and found out they were on Social Security for some disability. The person could jog, play football, hike, and yet doesn't have to work. You may wonder why the government would use money on people for non-visible disabilities.
I wont go against it since my mother is on Social Security for having cancer (this is possible to get if you apply in Puerto Rico). She has been labeled "unfit to work." You may imagine that she is receiving some large sum of money monthly but its only a simple check of $730. Its not worth it to stay home if you can go somewhere and work for more.
I've also seen the other side where some people get Social Security for being "nervous." Nervous? Everyone's nervous at one point. I met a woman who's getting benefits for that. I can't understand how nerves can make a person unfit to work. (If you can explain this to me, please do.)

what?? people get labeled unfit to work for a non-visible-disabilty...and they get monthly er..allowance? ._." is it possible to have that and still work at the same time? as for how nerves make a person unfit to work...no idea, never knew there was such a thing!

well its fine if the person IS genuinely unfit to work, but for reasons like being 'nervous'...that woman must be nervous even when she waits in line to pay at the cashier in some grocery store @.@

I imagine "nervous" could mean something like agrophobia, which is a fear of large crowds of people or sometimes people in general and so weorking would cause massive fear and anxiety and maybe devloip as panic attacks etcetera. Instead of giving benefits why dont they give government paid counselling and psychiatry to overcome this problem and thus let them be able to work?

Of course this wouldnt work for things like cancer or having no legs although even without legs i assume you could still work from home if you had the skills and facilities, all you need is a computer and desk space and a wheelchair.

Instead of paying for so many benefits for people they should pay for helping those that can be helped to get them into work and then pay the benefits to those who truly deserve them who definately cant work.

People like those in the initial description you gave could easily be a sport's assistant at the local under 12s' football team assisting the direction of skills like dribbling, passing etc. He would have no real responsibilities just some light work that would keep him going and entertained.



No, because then you are not unfit for work. You might get a reduced benefit of about £1,000/annum but then I, thankfully, don't know much about the system.



When all the soldiers came home from the war they have some illness where they went stiff with fear when someone dropped something on the ground; it might be similar to that. She could have been involved in some very frightening and life-threatening situations in her time. No-one knows anything of her background but the council and her close friends and relatives.

I'm not against benefits but like shadowx said there could be ways of solving the problems but that costs both time and money; as well as patience. None of which is liked to be parted with. I know which I would choose if I had the choice.

My real problem with giving away benefits as easily as they do is benefit fraud. There must be a high percentage of people doing it because you see the advertisements against it on (English) TV. If there were a more full-proof method of preventing it then that would obviously be better; the answer would be offering the government-funded help to begin with and THEN the benefits. Finding the money for the help would be easy, or at least in England; the answer would be the NHS.

Not necessarily, just because the govt is giving little check of $730...not only means that it considers them, to be unfit to work.It also accounts for their well being and Safety as they are declared unfit to work.
However,this may vary depending on the cases...but certainly it can be argued or pleaded.Otherwise, the govt is absolutely correct by denying work permit to them.(basically it concentrates on their safety and peace of mind)

This post has been edited by prasanna: Feb 27 2007, 06:05 PM

Well for them to have a nervous problem there could be many things that would make them unfit to work. They could be really nervous about many things like being in a crowd, talking to strangers. There are so many things that could make them nervous. Or they could have phobias of a lot of stuff. So ya if they seem unfit to work for something like that they should still be able to get that check. How else would they get money to support themselves if they are unfir to work?

I believe that whether it's visible or non-visible it doesn't make a difference; what matters is how much it affects your performance.

I myself have a disability, and although mine is pretty progressed, it is possible to have a job when you have a disability. I have a friend who walks with a limp and can't use his left hand and he has a job. Granted some companies didn't want him because they called him a liability but in the end he could work.

On the other hand I have a perfectly healthy neighbor who is on disability because she claims working in a factory makes her feel claustraphobic; I understand that can stop you from working in a factory, but isn't that when you get a job outdoors or something? It just seems to me some people are to quick to be on disability.


Perhaps, that individual is actually involved in insurance fraud? You know, claim they hurt their back on the job, get a doctor to agree, settle $$$, and go on disability.

can i just say i get £700 a month to stay at home to look after my daughter as she is registered disabled, but looking at her you would think there was nothing wrong with her and so many people judge us on that.

she actually has optic nerve hypoplasia if you wanna search it.

but i do agree that it shouldnt matter whether its visable or not my daughter although she is only 1 and is blind and has many side effects due to the ONH she leads quite a noraml life at present and does what most 1 year olds do within reason.

i feel that some cases should be looked at alot more closely by the DLA and government than others

I think it shouldn't be based on whether you have or don't have an (in)visible disability, but on how much it affects you as a person. There are people who have, for example cancer, but they can still work. It would also help them forget what they have. But people who are chronically tired (don't know the name of the syndrome in English) can't work and should therefor get a wage replacement.