Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine


12:42 pm - March 14th 2011

by Sue Marsh    


      Share on Tumblr

Today, I’m launching my new campaign.

During the CSR, George Osborne announced that he would be time-limiting ESA (Employment Support Allowance, previously Incapacity Benefit) to one year. This means, that anyone with a working partner found capable of doing any kind of work at all will only receive state support for one year.

Once that year is up they will receive no help at all, a loss of £4661. This is three times as much as higher rate taxpayers will lose in child benefit. 

Under the much tougher assessment system of ESA, just 7% of those with an illness or disability are being found incapable of working at all, so it doesn’t take a mathematician to realise that most people with long term illnesses such as Parkinson’s, Cancer, Bowel Disease, Lupus, Kidney failure, Heart disease, MS, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Mental illness, Lung disease and many, many more are being found “Fit to Work”.

These work assessments have been found “unfit for purpose” by Compass, the Citizens Advice Bureau, the professor who designed the system and even the government’s own advisory committee.

Extraordinarily, this is a cut that will only affect WORKING couples and families. It will only affect households who have had to suffer the misfortune of someone becoming too ill to work. If they have a working partner they will lose every penny. 

ESA is a contributory benefit. We all pay National Insurance. We pay 11% of our wages every month for this insurance. (Next month it goes up to 12%) This is not an inconsiderable amount! 12% a month every month for years and years.

One of the covenants of this insurance is that you will receive a modest payment if you become too sick to work.  (ESA is £388.45 a month.) If you have a working partner, then it is the only income you receive. You have to pay for prescriptions and medical aids and travel. You get no housing benefit or council tax benefit,  £388.45 is your total payment from that vast insurance fund we all pay into. 

* * * * * * * * * * *

I worked for nine years. I have a degree and nearly killed myself trying to forge a career in the face of terrible illness. In the end I had no choice. Working was killing me. Friends and family pleaded, begged even, but it took me a long time to accept that I could no longer work. Giving up on my hopes and dreams was the single hardest thing I ever had to come to terms with.

My husband Dave is my carer and has to support us financially whilst coping with the trauma my illness brings into our lives and the lives of our children. Partners like Dave, who are carers too, often need to take lower paying jobs to look after us, jobs where they can work 9 to 5 and get time off at very short notice. Their careers suffer too. 

I’ve lost count of the times people have urged him to give up work too, begged him to stop stretching himself so thin. Dave has had two breakdowns trying to hold our family together, but for him, working is the most important thing he can do for us. It gives him pride and it stops us all from feeling like total and utter failures. 

That’s why our partners often keep working, despite it being 100 times harder than giving up. We don’t want to become 100% dependent on the state. 

* * * * * * * * * * *

Please help me by writing to your MP from here They Work For You

As ever, the Broken of Britain have a wealth of great information and advice on the next steps here.


A longer version of this post is at Sue Marsh’s blog.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sue is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. She blogs on Diary of a Benefits Scounger and tweets from here.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Conservative Party ,Equality ,Reform ,Westminster

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


I have every sympathy for your position and it is difficult to comment without seeming to be unkind. I will therefore restrict my comments to the general and ask you not to take anything personally. Many of the conditions that you list whilst serious do not always prevent people from working. In fact a bad back can often be more of a hindrance than say cancer in a stage of remission or low intensive treatment. Work in many cases is seen as a positive part of peoples recovery and leaving people out of work makes their condition worse.
I agree the way the assessments are being carried out will sometimes wrongly categorise people as fit and that is why a review process needs to be effective but I would hope that you would agree that something had to be done by whatever government. The nation hasn’t suddenly becoming twice as unhealthy in the past 15 to 20 years. If so what has happened to all the money spent on the NHS?
I would also question the concept of national insurance. It is not insurance and is basically a tax and does not remotely cover the costs of the NHS and the benefits system. Unfortunately it makes some people believe (not you) that they have an entitlement to benefits out of all proportion to their contributions.
I applaud your husband supporting you and your family and would hope that I would do the same.

As usual, the party that allegedly wants to promote marriage, comes up with a set of proposals designed to create an incentive for couples to split up. Even in the proposed USC, people will apply as families, and their partner’s income will count towards the level of benefit they recieve. Even couples that remain together whilst one person is unemployed will face additional pressures on the relationship if one person is assumed to be responsible to keeping the other person.

This is why it is insane to let tories anywhere near benefits policy, and why when they talk about promoting marriage they are really using a dog whistle to attract the homophobes and have no intention of actually doing anything practical to promote the institution.

“Work in many cases is seen as a positive part of peoples recovery and leaving people out of work makes their condition worse.”

Correct, but you’re missing out the fact that having a chronic condition also means you probably will have more sick days than an employee who doesn’t. You basically need an understanding employer. In a time of unemployment, employers are simply going to take on people without the condition. Why is it that discussions of this sort exclusively focus upon the alleged attitudes to work of the benefit claimant and never about the employers perspective?

A benefit cut simply isn’t going to get people back into work, efforts spent on working with employers to design flexible jobs where it is understood that a person may have flare ups or days when they are extremely limited in what they can do will have more success may have a bit more success.

It’s not as if ‘being fit for work’ means one can do any work that’s available, though. Someone could clearly be assessed as ‘fit for work’ but if the only work available in your neighbourhood is stacking shelves in the supermarket or other work which involves standing all day (including health care, teaching, many more), there are many (myself included) who couldn’t do it. Luckily I have a job which involves sitting at the computer all day so my knees can take it. Luckily I’m able and trained to use a computer. Pity those who aren’t.

No employer is going to take on someone who can’t stand and walk around all day if that job involves standing, lifting, walking. And no employer is going to take on someone who is fine(ish) one day and bed-ridden the next, with little hope of much improvement.

So the solution is to make everyone who is assessed (by someone with no medical training, and no in-depth knowledge of the benefits recipient) as being ‘fit for work’ impoverished by stopping their benefits and make them look for work, under those conditions? Do me a favour.

Neil B – I’m glad you commented as I’m sure you speak for many.

-The conditions I list are variable. That is the point. Some will be fine to work and well controlled on medication. A percentage won’t.

-Work will in fact often make auto-immune conditions worse, not better.

-Assessment are wrongly classifying up to 40% of those assessed as “fit for work” That goes way beyond margin of error.

The numbers claiming ESA (previously IB) have remianed static since the mid 80s – there has been no rise in those claiming this benefit.

-Fraud is less than 0.5% (DWP own figures)

My only point is that this will act as a disincentive to work. That goes against what the government are trying to achieve.

Catch the cheats, but making life impossible for those in genuine need won’t do that.

I will be posting a series of articles all week on this. There is only so much I can put in one blog post, lol.
If you really want to see why I certainly don’t take it personally but believe it is a flawed proposal, please consider reading all week, thanks.

And those fed through the Atos disability denial factory will eventually find themselves here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365959/Workshy-forced-clean-streets-good-habits.html What next? The return of the crank and the treadmill? A month’s work would be marvellous work experience for the long-term unemployed if it came with a month’s wages

7. So Much For Subtlety

“Under the much tougher assessment system of ESA, just 7% of those with an illness or disability are being found incapable of working at all, so it doesn’t take a mathematician to realise that most people with long term illnesses such as Parkinson’s, Cancer, Bowel Disease, Lupus, Kidney failure, Heart disease, MS, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Mental illness, Lung disease and many, many more are being found “Fit to Work”.”

Sorry but no. It depends how many people were on the scheme without any of those illnesses. Given that previous governments moved a lot of the long term unemployed onto sickness benefits, it is entirely possible that those 7% include everyone who have real long term illnesses like Parkison’s, Cancer and so on.

However, mental illness? This is a much abused term. We give a lot of benefits to people who can work but who claim one form or other of mental illness. Why should anyone with, say, alcoholism get benefits? Especially if they no longer drink as we saw this week. Or stress? Or agraphobia? Tough love would do many of these people a world of good.

“ESA is a contributory benefit. We all pay National Insurance. We pay 11% of our wages every month for this insurance. (Next month it goes up to 12%) This is not an inconsiderable amount! 12% a month every month for years and years.”

National insurance is not a contributory scheme. It has a token payment to make it look like one. And even if it was, the government can and does arbitrarily redefine such schemes. The Left usually approves of that.

“One of the covenants of this insurance is that you will receive a modest payment if you become too sick to work.”

And yet while you may stress the payment side of that deal, others would stress the not-too-sick-to-work side of it. People who are healthy enough to work owe it to the rest of us to work. That is what the government is trying to ensure. That is not a bad thing.

@So Much For Subtlety

“However, mental illness? This is a much abused term.[…] Tough love would do many of these people a world of good.”

Speaking as someone who has neurological problems making it hard to manage stress, tough love has only ever driven me into breakdowns. Taking away money and support from people struggling like this won’t make them better, it’ll make them worse. They need proper help learning to cope, and daily support at work; the same applies to people with agoraphobia, and others. Right now there’s very little out there to help people, and what there is takes months or sometimes over a year before you can even begin treatment (that may or may not work – these days only one type of help is offered and if that doesn’t work for you, tough). At work? Depends how nice your employer wants to be, but the worst off will lose their job if they get one at all.

“And yet while you may stress the payment side of that deal, others would stress the not-too-sick-to-work side of it. People who are healthy enough to work owe it to the rest of us to work. That is what the government is trying to ensure. That is not a bad thing.”

The trouble is, the government is using a system that has been proven on many levels not to be reliable to make that decision. I’m scared to death I’ll be found “fit to work” because I know from trying to stay as active as I can, and doing bits of volunteering, that I’ll manage less than a day and be bedridden for 3-4 more days before I can work again. During that time I’ll suffer pain that painkillers won’t touch, sleep problems, digestive issues, dizziness and nausea. I’ll cry until I’m too tired too and my partner will be sick with worry, affecting his ability to work productively. After a few weeks of this I’ll get so bad I’ll be lucky to manage two separate days in a whole month, if that. I’ve spent 3 months at a time bedridden before now. No employer is going to take me on and given my neurological problems, and now much I can physically manage to do, I cannot possibly make enough money to live on working for myself from home. Believe me, I’ve looked into it every which way. I miss my job with a passion. I worked with special needs kids for a pittance and didn’t claim so much as working tax credit even though I could hardly afford food (literally, I was eating 1-2 small meals a day). It was a vocation for me, and I loved every day. I’m not “workshy”, or lazy, or a liar or a benefit cheat. Giving it up cost me a piece of my soul, and continues to do so every day.

I’ve seen so many people turn around and say “but it’s not aimed at people like *you*” – but it is. People with my condition are constantly having their benefits taken away and having to appeal (many succeed, but that’s weeks of hassle and running around and stress that then makes them even sicker for weeks, as I said above has happened to me; so sick they can’t spend time with their kids – if they were able to have kids in the first place – see friends, or do anything but lie in bed and be too tired to cry). It’s exactly people like me who are suffering. The 0.5% who are cheating the system will know exactly what hoops to jump through to keep getting their money. The rest of us suffer at the hands of a government who won’t listen to their own advisers on the matter.

@ Neil B
>> I would hope that you would agree that something had to be done by whatever government. The nation hasn’t suddenly becoming twice as unhealthy in the past 15 to 20 years. If so what has happened to all the money spent on the NHS? <> Work in many cases is seen as a positive part of peoples recovery and leaving people out of work makes their condition worse. <> I applaud your husband supporting you and your family <>having a chronic condition also means you probably will have more sick days than an employee who doesn’t.<> it is entirely possible that those 7% include everyone who have real long term illnesses like Parkison’s, Cancer and so on. <> Or stress? Or agraphobia? Tough love would do many of these people a world of good. <<

I'm not certain I can do anything but shake my head sadly at hearing views like these expressed in public.

10. So Much For Subtlety

6. Schmidt – “And those fed through the Atos disability denial factory will eventually find themselves here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365959/Workshy-forced-clean-streets-good-habits.html

Sorry but what is wrong with this precisely? Are you saying that people who clean the streets are so low that no decent person should be forced to join them? Or that the streets of Britain are so clean that there is no need to clean them a little more?

Candidates will only be referred for a compulsory work placement if a Jobcentre Plus adviser believes they are deliberately avoiding trying to get a job or would benefit from getting into the ‘habits and routines’ of getting up every morning.

One of the advantages of working is that people are forced into good habits and routines. One of the disadvantages of benefits is that people lose those habits. What is wrong with encouraging people to acquire such habits?

The Department for Work and Pensions said every work placement would give jobseekers the chance to acquire ‘fundamental work-related disciplines’ and be of benefit to local communities.

They benefit themselves and they benefit their communities. What is wrong with this precisely?

Jobseekers would have to spend up to 30 hours a week, for a month, on their work placement and would still have to look for work in between.

They won’t even have to do that much work.

“What next? The return of the crank and the treadmill?”

Why would that be such a bad idea in, say, British prisons?

“A month’s work would be marvellous work experience for the long-term unemployed if it came with a month’s wages”

We pay them benefits already. They are getting the wages. I don’t see why it is unreasonable to expect some work as well.

11. So Much For Subtlety

8. Tes – “Taking away money and support from people struggling like this won’t make them better, it’ll make them worse.”

I disagree. It is highly likely to make them better. Better yet, it is also highly likely to make sure other people who are slowly going down the same path, don’t do so. Encourage them to turn their lives around in fact. Benefits institutionalise people. We need to get in early to make sure that there is no Golden Bridge to life-long institutionalised incapacity.

“The trouble is, the government is using a system that has been proven on many levels not to be reliable to make that decision.”

I disagree. It is too early to say how it is doing, but it looks like it is doing a good job so far to me.

“The 0.5% who are cheating the system will know exactly what hoops to jump through to keep getting their money. The rest of us suffer at the hands of a government who won’t listen to their own advisers on the matter.”

Sorry but so far those who are cheating the system are running at something like 30-40%. Not 0.5%.

12. Planeshift

“One of the advantages of working is that people are forced into good habits and routines. One of the disadvantages of benefits is that people lose those habits. What is wrong with encouraging people to acquire such habits?”

There is nothing wrong with getting unemployed people onto work placements, but the proposals by IDS are just stupid and designed to punish not help.

1. They involve manual work only, which is clearly not suitable for everybody. Its also stupid in a service based economy and won’t add anything to the CVs of those on it (it will probably hinder more than anything as employers will look on it badly).

2. The placements will only be 3/4 weeks. This is not long enough to learn the “good habits” or get a meaningful work experience. Most people in the sector think it takes about 3 months to fully ingrain work habits and create a work ethic, and this is entirely dependent on the work being fairly paid as the psycological effect of 2/3 months paychecks is needed. IDS’s work placements fail on this.

This is the usual tory sociologically illiterate bollocks, pay lip service to what those who work in the field say, and instead design a punitive programme that achieves nothing except telling daily mail readers that tories have bigger penises.

@4 Claire

“It’s not as if ‘being fit for work’ means one can do any work that’s available, though. Someone could clearly be assessed as ‘fit for work’ but if the only work available in your neighbourhood is stacking shelves in the supermarket or other work which involves standing all day”

Well in that case they should be on unemployment benefits rather than disability benefits.

@11 I assume you have a link to back up your 30-40% figure, yes? T’otherwise we might be forced to decide that you simply plucked that figure out your arse.

@10 Must. Not. Feed. Troll

16. So Much For Subtlety

12. Planeshift – “They involve manual work only, which is clearly not suitable for everybody. Its also stupid in a service based economy and won’t add anything to the CVs of those on it (it will probably hinder more than anything as employers will look on it badly).”

Talk to employers. No manual work is not stupid in a services-based economy and it adds a lot to their CVs. If they can stick that sort of work for long, it shows that they can stick that sort of work for long. It shows they have a desire to work. They have good work habits. They actually get up before 9 am. As opposed to people on benefits who have nothing but bad habits. Not even a good reference. No job is a bad job. Short of the incapacitated, I am finding it hard to think of anyone it is not suited to. It hardly matters, given the millions of people on benefits, those it is not suited to as such a small group they can be safely ignored for now.

“2. The placements will only be 3/4 weeks. This is not long enough to learn the “good habits” or get a meaningful work experience. Most people in the sector think it takes about 3 months to fully ingrain work habits and create a work ethic, and this is entirely dependent on the work being fairly paid as the psycological effect of 2/3 months paychecks is needed. IDS’s work placements fail on this.”

I agree. 3/4 weeks is not long enough. It ought to be a pre-requisite for applying for benefits. All benefits, or as close to as possible. We should cease to give money to idle people. So by all means, demand 6 months of it. Demand no end to it as long as someone, anyone, is claiming. I doubt “fair” pay has anything to do with it although I can see why you would need to think it does.

@ Somuchsociopathy

Since you haven’t provided proof of your assertion that 30-40%
are cheating the system we’ll take that as an admission that
you were lying.

18. Planeshift

“I doubt “fair” pay has anything to do with it although I can see why you would need to think it does”

Not only me who thinks that, but pretty much every person who has ever worked with long term unemployed will tell you the thing that keeps people in work is 2/3 paychecks of a value that demonstrates work pays

“No manual work is not stupid in a services-based economy and it adds a lot to their CVs”

A month of forced labour really won’t. You may as well tattoo the forehead of the person doing it as “sent on this by job centre person who thinks they were lazy, “. It will be pointless for the person doing it, and only create more resentment.

The new deal placements were 3 months, involved sending people on a variety of types of work, and still proved a mixed success at best (and yes those were forced as well). Go and read the various evaluations of them. If IDS was serious he would be building on the lessons of the new deal, not proposing something punitive and of less value.

Not only that, but as being sent on them will be at the discretion of the job centre staff, people who are cheating the system will simply get around it by intimidating the poor staff making the decisions of who to send for forced labour.

The main problem is you, and your fellow tories, think being unemployed is a crime for which people should be punished. Not a consequence of economic policy and social disadvantage. Your view is probably that unemployment in the 1930s was caused by the invention of the duvet, and only solved once Hitler bombed the duvet factory.

Another horrendous story from the Tory vermin and their Lib Dem lap dogs. No-one should really be surprised that they attack people who cannot fight back, nor should they be surprised that the sociopaths that support them have managed to put the boot in too. What this sad little wanker who posts under the name ‘So much for subtlety’ is getting out of taunting the Sue Marsh, is anyone’s guess.

I do notice a couple of things from that exchange though.

1) We have seen on an earlier thread people have had posts deleted for homophobic content, yet this guy appears to able to traduce millions of people and ferociously attack disabled people with impunity. Scum like that would never stand outside Sue’s Door and shout abuse (not single handed anyway). So perhaps he has to get his frustration out somewhere. Hey, ho. Perhaps we are just trying to show the type of ‘people’ who support these actions? I am the only person who finds his attitude a total embarrassment? I am all for engaging in debate with decent people, but the above efforts are just bile. They can never add anything to the debate.

2) Yet again, not one ‘decent’ Tory or any normal Lib Dem has made any comment about the unfairness of this action. It is pretty clear now that these cuts (oh, sorry, ‘savings’) have been written on the back of a fag packet and ideology driven. This is nothing to do with ‘deficit reduction’; this is about systemically dismantling the welfare state under the cover of ‘deficit reduction’. Can anyone with a decent bone in their body look me in the eye and tell me the deficit was caused by Sue Marsh? Could any ‘decent’ Tory (no, not SMFS) tell me that they think that Sue Marsh and others in similar positions are the people who need targeted?

When the Tories talk about ‘eliminating waste’ normal people think they are talking about unnecessary paperwork or perhaps a furniture upgrade, but when the vermin talk about waste, they are talking about spending money on the disabled.

Planeshift @3 is exactly right.

I have rare chronic conditions and haven’t worked for over four years. However, I’m at a point where I’m managing my conditions a bit better and am looking for work. Everything I’ve applied for thus far – even jobs I’m massively overqualified for – has not even reached the interview stage.

People who have been off long term sick, or who have a medical condition or disability, have far fewer options than healthy unemployed people. Firstly you have to find an employer who is ‘positive about disabled people’ – this means that at least in theory they will be understanding, and they are aware of the DDA. Usually this means the public sector – currently facing budget cuts of course, so fewer jobs are available.

Even when an employer is outwardly encouraging of applications from disabled people (and chronic conditions count as a disability), this might not end up being the case in practice. The DDA states that if an applicant has a disability and fulfils all the essential criteria of an advertised job, they should be guaranteed an interview. I have been surprised and disappointed at the fact that this has not played out in practice in my experience.

And this is from the employers who present an ‘understanding’ image. Those private companies who don’t mention disability in their job adverts may be understanding, or they may not. All an applicant can do is be upfront on their application form, state that they have disabilities/conditions that may require flexible hours or extra equipment, and see what happens. I’ve been doing this, as I don’t want to lie on my applications forms – and I haven’t been shortlisted for anything.

Faced with a stack of applications, I’m quite sure most employers would plump for someone who’s never had a day off sick in their lives and who was willing to be in the office all hours working their arses off, over a person who has a four-year gap on their CV, a probability of needing to take sick days now and again, and who may request inconvenient things like working from home one day a week. Employers are going to do what’s easiest for them unless they are forced to be more flexible and understanding.

Which is where the DDA supposedly comes in – great in theory but how is it enforced? If I email a prospective employer, from whom I’ve just received a rejection letter, asking them why, as I had all the essential criteria and a disability, I haven’t been shortlisted, and I receive no reply, what recourse do I have to kick up a stink about it and get the interview I’m entitled to? Do I get a solicitor on the case? Even if I did manage to swing it somehow, they’d find a reason not to give me the actual job because I’d clearly be a troublemaker.

So yes, there needs to be more emphasis on employers and less on sickness benefit claimants and whether they’re ‘fit’. Because being fit to work depends on the attitude of the employer. If I had an understanding employer who was willing to help and be flexible, I could work. If I had an employer similar to the one I last worked for, who threatened me with the sack when I asked to work from home, and laughed in my face when I requested equipment to make typing more comfortable for me, then no, I couldn’t.

@SMFS: ” it is entirely possible that those 7% include everyone who have real long term illnesses like Parkison’s, Cancer and so on.”

No it isn’t possible. You are not entitled to your own facts. Many of use work with people with people with disabilities and can see evry day the incorrect decisions being made. There are well documented examples in the public domain as well.

On the other hand, I do disagree with Sue about the 7% statistic. That is the percentage being put in the support group (which amounts approximately to having no chance of ever working); the percentage being found unable to work at present is about a third.

Here i sit smiling at the Tory views the new labour views and the people who what real disability is like.

I’m classed as fucked with a broken back and a spinal cord injury, against my doctors wishes and without telling him I returned to work, I had ormorphine to keep me going, except i did not know was my spinal cord was damaged so after a year they found me laying on the floor having had a stroke.

Four years in and out of hospital a doctor said to me you asked for this, you have a lesion of the spinal cord, after tests and I already knew i had problems with my bowel and bladder i was sent to Stoke Manderville to be told I had a Lesion of the spinal cord at C2 L5 with major loss of feeling in my legs arms and hands.

I then had to have three disc removed from my spine.

I will be found fit to work, could I work yes I think so with a lot of help yes I could work without doubt 35 hours i doubt it.

But with the help of the Labour government, with the help of Job center plus, and Remploy interworks, and the Shaw Trust all working to get me back to work, in the last ten years I’ve filled in 980 applications and had three replies one just stated, we have enough cripples here already employing another would be a no.

The other just stated we would employ this person if he can show he can do the same work as a non disabled person, if I could do that I’d not be disabled.

The jobs last year I applied for, bricklayer not forgetting I use a wheelchair.

Window cleaning.

Long distance lorry driver.

11. So Much For Subtlety

“I disagree. It is highly likely to make them better.”

Are you a psychologist? Where is your evidence?

“I disagree. It is too early to say how it is doing, but it looks like it is doing a good job so far to me.”

Uh, everyone who’s reviewed it, including the *creator* of it, disagrees. They say it’s not fit for purpose. So far the rates of successful appeals indicate they’re right.

“Sorry but so far those who are cheating the system are running at something like 30-40%. Not 0.5%.”

I’m using the government’s own figures on incapacity benefit (the ones they don’t want to point the media to, but admit are true when pressed). Whose are you using?


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine http://bit.ly/fSFuQN

  2. anabelle hamilton

    RT @libcon: Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine http://bit.ly/fSFuQN

  3. Carl Quilliam

    RT @libcon: Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine http://bit.ly/fSFuQN

  4. Wokstation

    RT @libcon: Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine http://bit.ly/fSFuQN

  5. Dave Howard

    RT @libcon: Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine http://bit.ly/fSFuQN

  6. Debbie Jolly

    RT @libcon: Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine http://bit.ly/fSFuQN

  7. wmd-gnome

    Please RT @libcon: Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine http://bit.ly/fSFuQN

  8. Nikki Evenbreak

    Reading: Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine http://ow.ly/4dYmL

  9. DisabledPeople

    RT @sunny_hundal: 'Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine' says @suey2y – http://bit.ly/fSFuQN

  10. Rebecca

    RT @libcon: Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine http://bit.ly/fSFuQN

  11. Martin Kelly

    RT @sunny_hundal: 'Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine' says @suey2y – http://bit.ly/fSFuQN

  12. Dawn

    RT @sunny_hundal: 'Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine' says @suey2y – http://bit.ly/fSFuQN

  13. Richard Bradley

    RT @sunny_hundal: 'Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine' says @suey2y – http://bit.ly/fSFuQN

  14. kirst

    RT @sunny_hundal: 'Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine' says @suey2y – http://bit.ly/fSFuQN

  15. Annika Seabrook

    RT @sunny_hundal: 'Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine' says @suey2y – http://bit.ly/fSFuQN

  16. barry leary

    RT @sunny_hundal: 'Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine' says @suey2y – http://bit.ly/fSFuQN

  17. Sinister

    Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/IFyNUSk via @libcon

  18. Malcolm Evison

    RT @sinister416: Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/IFyNUSk via …

  19. Rosa

    RT @sunny_hundal: 'Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine' says @suey2y – http://bit.ly/fSFuQN

  20. Armchair Army

    RT @sinister416: Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/IFyNUSk via …

  21. Pucci Dellanno

    RT @libcon: Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine http://bit.ly/fSFuQN

  22. Lianne

    Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine http://bit.ly/hVPIr4

  23. Riven

    RT @sunny_hundal: 'Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine' says @suey2y – http://bit.ly/fSFuQN

  24. Kelly Rennie

    RT @sunny_hundal: 'Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine' says @suey2y – http://bit.ly/fSFuQN

  25. Nick H.

    RT @sunny_hundal: 'Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine' says @suey2y – http://bit.ly/fSFuQN

  26. Sue Bristow

    Why time-limiting disability benefits will hurt working families like mine | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/akU5ngA via @libcon





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.