When people see the poor as 'people who WILL not work' and want them to 'pull their own weight instead of being a drain on society' they *are* basically seeing them as deserving to suffer. When people are prepared to let genuinely poor people suffer rather than risk freeloaders taking advantage, then while they may not 'delight' in suffering, they are saying that they'd rather let people suffer than risk cheating. (This is not saying that cheating is a good thing, or that it never happens, or that one shouldn't have strong safeguards and sanctions against it; I am referring here to those who would rather *not have the programmes at all*, than risk the possibility of their being abused.) When people 'feel that more people can tough it out and just walk on their sprained ankles' or equivalent, then they *are* endorsing suffering.
The analogy of a hike only works to a certain extent, because no one *has* to go on a hike, and one could validly say that people who are unprepared, or for various reasons incapable, of pulling their weight on a hike, could avoid going and placing an extra burden on others. Everyone has to go on the journey of life, and when people take a harsh attitude toward other people's weakness, and lack of survival abilities, and assumethat everyone who needs help must be cheating unless their reason is as instantly obvious as a broken leg, then they are inevitably going to permit and implicitly endorse a great deal of suffering.