MSE News: Welfare reforms 'to hit disabled'

Dunroamin wrote: »

Why would you need to go to either the supermarket or the post office?

ETA

I would be very surprised if someone who was disabled lived as far from their doctor's surgery as that; in most places that would be too far away for a home visit.

The above were examples.
There are _no_ local services here in the village.
(well, that's not strictly true, there are several glass recycling bins).

Or is your argument that people with disabilities should sit at home, get shopping delivered, and never ever go out?

The doctor is one I've been going to since birth, and I know the current doctor reasonably well.
There is a somewhat closer doctors practice, but changing is problematic.

And why the post office?
You can't post recorded stuff to the DWP/... at a post box.

Muttleythefrog wrote: »

The wider issue of whether the need should be attempted to be met when identified by the test... to demonstrate need for the money... misses the point of why the money is awarded.. which isn't to meet the need.

You have made this point clear a number of time, but I think you are confusing explaining the rationale of DLA and justifying it. However well you explain why DLA operates the way it does, it doesn't provide a reason why it is right to operate this way. The only counter-argument is that it would be more expensive to operate on the basis of assessing actual needs rather than perceive need. Not only do I not believe this has to be true, even if it is, it still doesn't mean it is right and should be changed.

I don't know many people in receipt of DLA, but ALL the ones I know do admit that they use the money for their everyday living rather than for their benefits. If DLA as a benefit is hiding as a mean for additional resources to people with disability (ie. the fact you are disabled entitles you in itself to benefits), then do treat it like Child Benefits and give it to every one, with a scale depending on the severity of the disability (as opposed to the number of children), and ignore that non sense business of care and mobility need...oh and of course, make it means tested too...

OR, if it is considered to be about needs (after all, that is what is being assessed to be entitled), then make sure the person NEEDS the financial benefit for their disability. On that basis, there is no doubt that many people would still be entitled. The single man who needs to pay for carers etc... would most certainly fall in that category... hoever, the mum who claims high rate DLA because her child wakes her up once or twice at night and needs a bit more supervision than a 'normal' child, but whose child goes to mainstream school and is able to lead a 'normal' life then shouldn't be able to claim £100s a month that just goes to treat the whole family.