MSE News: Welfare reforms 'to hit disabled'

krisskross wrote: »

when people have their claimed for needs met then i have no problem at all with them receiving the payments to help pay for them.

However we see many posters who have apparently claimed for needs, including 24/7 care and supervision, who have absolutely nothing in place to meet or alleviate those needs. What is the point of giving the money then?

The answer is always that it would not be possible to pay for this round the clock help from DLA payments but if someone is managing without the help for years on end then surely they can manage without the payments?

Another answer is that is enough for the need to exist to justify the payment but does it really exist if if doesn't need addressing?

I presume you're using me as an example or someone like me. I don't think you get the idea of DLA (or its replacment PIP).

DLA is not designed to assess need and provide money to facilitate that need. That is quite clear. The test, as it will be for PIP, is to measure general level of disability in day to day life so that the state can acknowledge via monetary award that there is a higher cost of living typically associated with disability.

The DLA test is incredibly narrow and doesn't seek to find out if the needs identified for measuring disability would actually be best served in being met at all. So for example the DLA test did not look at whether actually providing me with supervision would actually be a sensible idea... it simply took the generic view that I need supervision according to some general rules. It would be a complete waste of money me getting supervision because the amount of time I could afford to get supervision would be minimal even with the DLA award... and in my view supervision is not something that would reduce my disabilities day to day, it would increase them (the DLA test is far too simplistic to discover that). However there are some things that I can do to reduce disabilities.. not entirely conventional (but then I'm dealing with a range of MH problems that generate quite unconventional circumstances) ... but I am using my DLA money to do that now.

Managing without care or similar is not really relevant. The idea of DLA is via money give some opportunity to the claimant to facilitate the normal expectations of life... whether the claimant desires those normal expectations or can realistically meet them is quite another question. The DLA test is very very basic... the majority of my needs day to day don't go anywhere near to the criteria for getting DLA... for example I need order in my environment (or treatment to prevent this need) otherwise I face being heavily disabled/distracted by thoughts about such... the majority of my waking day is taken up with thoughts about my environmental order. That's what critically disables me day to day... the DLA test doesn't look at that... it at best just deals with the consequence... I'm unable to do things like get washed or groomed because all my energies (limited by depression) are tied up with pandering to the obsessive thoughts. The supervision needs identified probably relate to the fact I will target people because of these obsessional requirements of order... the fact I've gone for many years without supervision and without DLA is rather insignificant a point since it is events that have occurred that probably lead to the conclusion the supervision is needed. For example I punched the postman about a year ago... he left my garden gate open... almost a year ago now I went out.. alone... on a pub crawl... and I ended up acting particularly strangely... i na way that when documented by psychiatrist caused some alarm.. my behaviour when in rare ventures out at night causes them some concern... ironically I don't get any DLA award for requiring supervision at night.. yet all evidence seems to suggests this is when I pose greatest risk to self and others.

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. But more importantly perhaps is that the sorts of things the DLA test looks at are the sorts of things that unaddressed will simply lead to greater risks or poorer quality of life for the claimant... i.e. it could well appear to an outsider that they get by without the help.. but getting by is not what DLA is set up to legally tackle. Any system which looks deeper into the actual needs and actual costs and actually help needed would by massively more expensive. I'd be more than happy to have experts assess my actual needs and what would actually help me and give me any (if any) relevant monies. If I could spend my DLA money to undisable me day to day I'd do it... but that's not realistic.

As for gravy train... thoughts like this are well away from my mind... my battle for DLA became an issue of my intergrity... something I have traded on for my adult life.. something that was already under attack from a devious GP... I had no choice but to fight after that outrageously worded (but standard) DLA rejection letter... I do wonder if I'd have pursued the claim for 2 years had it not been for my integrity being challenged like that and the disorder that created. I get offers of work now and again from old contacts that would generate income well beyond anything I'm going to get on benefits. Money is only important to me in that I obsess about efficiencies associated with it... money falls into the general environment of requiring order and efficiency... so my problem with money has never been getting it.. but spending it appropriately. This is something I have to try to work on... and I am.

rogerblack wrote: »

To get to my local post office and back is 10 quid.
Nearest supermarket is 20.
Local benefits tribunal venue is 40.
Doctor is 30.

Taxis can be not too bad if you're in a built up area.

I've got a leaflet here from the local Taxi firm.. it actually gives rates for local supermarket trips... presumably this must be a key market. £8.50 one way to the local ASDA. This is presumably a cheap part of the country too as far as taxis go... and it is heavily populated urban area.