Comments:Canadian loses health benefits after company finds joyful Facebook pictures

I'm surprised that her lawyer needs to sit and think about what he's going to do. Give them one chance, and then sue as a matter of priority. At worst, he has to work out which court it goes through.

I've seen the effects of depression. It doesn't prevent someone either having genuine fun or pretending to. The effect of such an uninformed decision is potentially devastating. Maybe one day legislation will be in place to adequatly prevent people from treating mental health sufferers with crass negligent insensitivity. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have suffered from depression, and taken antidepressants to aid in dealing with the underlying chemical imbalance. On medication or not, you can still laugh at a joke, or fake enjoyment for an hour or two. I agree wholeheartedly with the anonymous commentator. The asshole who took this decision needs named, shamed, exposed as utterly unqualified - medically speaking - and a strong message sent to all these settlement avoidance scum. You are depressed until certified not-so by a qualified medical practitioner. More importantly, those very benefits lost may be what is paying for treatment that allows the sufferer to have been social enough for the "incriminating" pictures to be taken. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

In the future
Whether or not this particular ruling was deserved, there need to be more crackdowns and checkups like this (in the US and Canada) for government-sponsored programs. My scum-sucking leech of a neighbor is sitting on disability for "mobility problems". He's outside playing Basketball and smoking as I write this. --Kingoomieiii (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thou shalt not smile if thou ist depressed? Thou shalt continue to sink into thine hole until thou dost kill thineself? Fuck you. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, maybe you should hold off on insulting people until you've read and understood what you're responding to. Just a tip.
 * I'm advocating more checkins in situations like this. See, what I'm demonstrably NOT saying is "NO HAPPY." My gripe is with people who game the system and get free money. I'm speaking to the gray area between "No oversight" (which I see too often) and "Draconian hell" (the crux of your complaint), which hardly deserves a mocking satire of biblical language. Oh, and watch me not insult you back. --Kingoomieiii (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Draconian Hell" as you (quite rightly) call it, is the most probably outcome; this is a fact of human nature, and modern-day politics/bureaucracy. Checkups to see people are not gaming the system will be assigned to overworked, and underpaid, government employees (or, worse, outsourced to a private company). The people doing the work are most likely to be given targets and incentives to cut off people's benefits, and you will have examples like the one this article highlights.
 * To be realistic, you have to just suck it up that there will be an element of fraud/gaming the system. "crackdowns"? Absolutely not! "checkups"? Yes, but managed in such a way that the system is managed by one group and the checkups done by another where they evaluate the system, current beneficiaries, and the system's level of fraud/abuse. From that, revise the rules for managing the system, come back 3-6 months later, and review again. Doing what you'd like, without having people feel hounded and persecuted, is quite expensive. There will be a point where trying to shave a percentage point off the fraudulent claims will cost more than the claims themselves. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Swearing at someone is not an insult. It is strong, aggressive and heartfelt opposition. If you honestly believe in the stance you take - which seems like it hasn't been thought through - then I might have to resist temptation to begin insults, however.
 * I read and understood "need[s] to be more crackdowns and checkups like this" (emphasis added) and I thouroughly disagreed. Scanning the Internet in the hope of catching someone in the act of being (or pretending to be) happy is not going to benefit anyone except maybe banker-style bonus seekers at the top. There is a big difference between physical problems like you reference in your neighbour and mental problems - the 'like this' in the article. BTW, let's say your neighbour has a degenerative nerve condition (I know someone who does). You cannot be active with the consistency to work, but if you're lucky you'll get some wonderful days when you're able to do anything. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Emphasis added, but not intended by the original poster. I'm not talking explicitly about depression, or facebook (And in the case of my neighbor, his leech status is unopposed- he said himself that his fight to keep his kids was motivated primarily by a desire to "Stay on welfare"- though in the end he was so put off by the prospect of ceasing his pot habit that he withdrew his case for custody). If you're going to hold an almost saccharine level of optimism as to people's motives, so will I- I find it difficult to believe (and in fact, absurd) that this particular woman losing coverage was based solely on pictures posted on Facebook. That was not the long and short of this case. --Kingoomieiii (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, your neighbour does sound pretty much a leech. The Facebook pictures may or may not be the full basis for the decision, but they should not have played eny factor in it whatsoever. If you weren't talking about depression, why say 'like this'? If you'd left it general, then whilst I disagree for the reasons above I could at least sympathise with that. I'd probably never have even responded; my sore point centres around the mistreatment of those with mental health problems. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant for "like this" to refer to a situation where someone loses their free-money license because they are found to be able-bodied (or minded), in part due to their own actions. I agree that Facebook should not be the full basis of the decision, but I see no problem with it being the starting point for an investigation in line with normal protocol. I DON'T think she should lose coverage without a real evaluation- I just think that one is in order at this point. Hence, "Whether or not this particular ruling was deserved" --Kingoomieiii (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you ever known anyone with depression? Seriously, on that basis you could launch an investigation every time someone updated their Facebook page. I find that disturbing, regardless of you're quote. There was no reason to include Facebook in such a ruling except cynicism. How about a great place to start would be her medical records? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course I have, and frankly, I think your experience with it is coloring your view on this. We're not talking about kicking someone out of their home. We're talking about sending them back to work. And I SAID I believed a real evaluation was in order before judgment was passed. Such evaluation would surely involve a psychologist.
 * Maybe, just maybe, if you show yourself to be improving from a condition for which you are receiving payment, that payment should be re-evaluated. These types of benefits are meant to kick in when needed and shut down otherwise. --Kingoomieiii (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * On the basis that someone is capable of smiling? Wouldn't a biannual review of medical records and a consultation with a doctor be a better way of checking someone out? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is PURE hyperbole, and I'm not really interested in addressing it. Yes, I would support structured reevaluation, with the stipulation that they may be brought earlier if the patient is experiencing an unusually hasty recovery. Money doesn't grow on trees, despite how my government seems intent on spending it. --Kingoomieiii (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgive me, but I hardly view it as hyperbole. That's what Facebook shows: having fun, essentially it would be based on a bunch of 'smiley' photos if a review was started on that basis. I'm glad we can agree on a structured review, though. Moreover, I suspect most genuine patients would be only too glad to get back to work ASAP if they could. It's good to get back to normal after that kind of experience. Maybe a gradual return, starting part-time, would be in order, slowly switching down the benefits and up on the work again. So long as there is flex in the system, of course, that's what most patients need when work becomes plausible again. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What kind of a retarded system allows people to be paid for not working just because they are depressed? Oh boo hoo, you're a little sad, now here's a weekly check and you just come back to work whenever you feel like it, sugardumpling! What idiots. They deserve to keep paying her just for the ignorance to be in the situation to begin with. 206.74.5.136 (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read Clinical depression. Take your prejudiced ignorance elsewhere. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been diagnosed with depression, I know a fair bit about it. I am a full-time college student who also works about 30 hours a week, so I have no pity for this slacker. 206.74.5.136 (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. It varies from person to person, though; not everyone is the same. As I said above, I'm sure most people with depression would work if they could. Taking time out is sometimes vital. You are achieving something above and beyond; it would be unfair to judge others by such a standard. 'Each case is unique' is a cliche but it ain't that far off the mark here. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)