• iii@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    14 days ago

    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.

    • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      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.

      • iii@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        14 days ago

        That’s indeed an issue. By definition an elephant is an elephant, even if it has great manes and hunts antilopes in the savanna.

          • iii@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            14 days ago

            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?

    • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 days ago

      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.