I’m sure like everywhere a couple people cheat the system. But using that to excuse the marginalisation of disabled people who can’t work is disingenuous at best.
Where, in your examples, it takes lawyers and years to get benefits.
Can you prove there isn’t a freeloader problem, in your situation, as each case takes years of legal resolution?
We can only refer to anecdotal experience, or gross numbers. 1 out of 10 working age people are on disability in Belgium. What’s the gross ratio where you live?
About 1 in 12, and I know a couple people who need it but have been refused.
By the way, just so you know I’m leaving your comments up because people have put a lot of effort into making good replies. But if that wasn’t the case, many of them don’t fit within the rules.
It doesn’t sound like you’re bad faith, but this is number one a support group for disabled people, so repeating harmful stereotypes about freeloaders or whatever would generally be removed.
I just want to chip in that the definition of “disabled” is more complex than just receiving disability benefits. I’m going to use a UK framework to illustrate what I mean, but my overall argument applies equally to other countries.
There are multiple different kinds of disability benefit in the UK. One of them (PIP) isn’t dependent on household income, and isn’t linked to one’s ability to work. ESA is another disability benefit which does depend on income and is also linked to difficulty working. You can get both PIP and ESA, but it’s fairly common for people to get PIP, but not ESA. Being in receipt of either of these benefits would potentially qualify a person as being “disabled”
These benefits are also used for gaining access to other resources for disabled people, like a blue parking badge that allows one to park in disabled bays. The easiest way to get one of those is to provide evidence of being in receipt of a benefit such as PIP, but you don’t actually have to be in receipt of any benefit to get a blue badge (and once you do have a blue badge, that is often sufficient ‘proof of disability’)
And to complicate things further, if we are talking about disability discrimination, then a person doesn’t need to be in receipt of any of these benefits to be covered by the Equality Act. Many people who don’t even think of themselves as disabled are covered by this legislation, which casts a very wide definition of “disabled”.
The TL;DR: is that even the concept of “legally disabled” is complex and context dependent.
Permanent, as of the neurological component.
The CPTSD developed by growing up in an environment not, beneficial for lack of better word, to my situation.
That’s really progressive of belgium, you’re lucky to live there.
99% of countries wouldn’t do that.
Yet, there’s a freeloather problem here.
By legal definition, there’s not. As anyone that receives disability benefits is legally disabled.
But in practice.
and your sources to back that up are…?
I’m sure like everywhere a couple people cheat the system. But using that to excuse the marginalisation of disabled people who can’t work is disingenuous at best.
That’s indeed an issue. By definition an elephant is an elephant, even if it has great manes and hunts antilopes in the savanna.
so your claim that there is a freeloading problem is not backed by data?
The situation here is simply reversed.
Where, in your examples, it takes lawyers and years to get benefits.
Can you prove there isn’t a freeloader problem, in your situation, as each case takes years of legal resolution?
We can only refer to anecdotal experience, or gross numbers. 1 out of 10 working age people are on disability in Belgium. What’s the gross ratio where you live?
About 1 in 12, and I know a couple people who need it but have been refused.
By the way, just so you know I’m leaving your comments up because people have put a lot of effort into making good replies. But if that wasn’t the case, many of them don’t fit within the rules.
It doesn’t sound like you’re bad faith, but this is number one a support group for disabled people, so repeating harmful stereotypes about freeloaders or whatever would generally be removed.
Not that dissimilar. Can you please provide a source?
That would indeed be surprising information for me!
I just want to chip in that the definition of “disabled” is more complex than just receiving disability benefits. I’m going to use a UK framework to illustrate what I mean, but my overall argument applies equally to other countries.
There are multiple different kinds of disability benefit in the UK. One of them (PIP) isn’t dependent on household income, and isn’t linked to one’s ability to work. ESA is another disability benefit which does depend on income and is also linked to difficulty working. You can get both PIP and ESA, but it’s fairly common for people to get PIP, but not ESA. Being in receipt of either of these benefits would potentially qualify a person as being “disabled”
These benefits are also used for gaining access to other resources for disabled people, like a blue parking badge that allows one to park in disabled bays. The easiest way to get one of those is to provide evidence of being in receipt of a benefit such as PIP, but you don’t actually have to be in receipt of any benefit to get a blue badge (and once you do have a blue badge, that is often sufficient ‘proof of disability’)
And to complicate things further, if we are talking about disability discrimination, then a person doesn’t need to be in receipt of any of these benefits to be covered by the Equality Act. Many people who don’t even think of themselves as disabled are covered by this legislation, which casts a very wide definition of “disabled”.
The TL;DR: is that even the concept of “legally disabled” is complex and context dependent.