Sign up to save AA and DLA

Claire_DC

Yes, I do know what the requirements are. You fail to say why you have posted them really though as it doesn't once say how the care component should be spent. So long as whatever the money is spent on is helping them in whatever way, then surely that is within the boundaries of what disability LIVING (note that it is living allowance, not surviving allowance) allowance is for?

My mum is disabled, she goes out twice per week for her shopping generally always accompanied by somebody. Last night she was admitted to hospital, she is still there now being treated because of her severe arthritis. She has sky+, and maybe just maybe some of her disability benefit pays for her to have this. This is the only thing she has in her life at home for a form of enjoyment... do you deny her this basic but imo fully necessary 'extra' to enable her to have some standard of living that is not just sitting and not twiddling her arthritic thumbs?

Surely by saying that this money should not be spent on improving this persons life because it is not curing/directly helping her arthritis or whatever is saying that this person should only do things that benefit her physical side of her illness and to hell with how she feels?

It's not fair to have these crippling diseases and illnesses as it is. To then be told when you struggle with the most basic of day to day tasks such as dressing, eating, washing and even just sitting down and breathing a lot of the time etc that you can't afford/you're not allowed to have yourself a little bit of enjoyment to try and even out all the horribleness of what you go through 24/7. It is surely paramount to sentencing that person to a live with nothing but pain, upset and stress; something worse than criminals put up with when sentenced to jail - only a disabled person has done nothing to deserve that life.

I'd be more worried about the money being spent on prisoners playstations than a disabled persons xbox or internet etc to be fair.

Claire_DC

alwaysonthego wrote: »

We are not talking about benefits in general but DLA. How someone wishes to spend their IS/JSA/ESA is up to them, it is for their everyday living costs and non-essential items should be purchased with this money.

But what if the IS/JSA/ESA covers the basic cost of living - gas, electricity, food etc etc? Should any person who has nothing left over from basic living (as that's what the government say is needed for basic things like that) just sit and do nothing because somebody thinks they shouldn't spend their LIVING allowance on LIVING and not just surviving?

DLA is awarded on care/mobilty needs to help their condition so I would think it would be unreasonable for people to use this as excess income to spend on any luxury items instead using it for what it is intended for. No wonder the government is reviewing the system if people are buying playstations and internet connections.

Is it a luxury though, when the person has nothing else in their life? I agree if they're all kitted out with designer clothes and state of the art everything but if this is something they feel they need at home to help their illness/state of mind/boredom etc then I wouldn't necessarily call it a luxury.

I also do not pay tax as I am a full time student supported by my working husband, so I have not actually used the 'my taxes go to paying your benefits' line!

It was meant as a general point to anybody who had (I think I saw somebody in the thread saying about their taxes going towards it).

spikeysoul

Care may be afforded on the grounds that you give - but it does not nessesarily follow that care must be spent soley on the activities or ways you are prescribing.

The phone/internet helps because I can contact friends and family I would otherwise not be able to (I am entitled to personal relationships - the idea of care does recognise this). this helps my mental health and emotional wellbeing - there is an element to care that is considered preventative - it is included in the new guidelines as well. A disabled person is regarded as a whole person not just a unit that need to get washed, dressed, eat, sleep ect ect. It is just that the budget for SS care is VERY limited.

The internet also provides me with support from people with similar/same condition/situation as myself. Without their input I would not have found the specialist (on the NHS) had a diagnosis and recieved treatment that has vastly improved my condition. I also have access to a wide variety of news that would otherwise be out of my reach and thereby am more intellectually stimulated and kept (for want of a better word) sane - this reduces my care needs. I am also able to research things that interst me in fields as varied as gardening and nutrition - again intellectually stimulating.

I can also use them to organise my affairs, to do my shopping and to get delivery of the shopping, to do my banking and arrange things like insurance - independantly and without exhausting myself.

You are right in that swimming helps my condition, reduces my decline and therefore need for care and keeps me in a much better physical and mental health than I would otherwise be in. It does have increased costs as my carer has to come with me - however it's cheap at £1.55 as my carer is my husband (add on the electric for my chair and other bits and bobs). I can go whenever I feel able - not only would a SS carer be more expensive it would also be very difficult to book a day or time when I would know I could go.

The football match was taken directly from the easy read consultation document for the care green paper (again taken directly from the internet - information I would not have known about without a connection). under the new proposals you would be able to get care to cover such a need as attending a football match - the need for social interaction and 'down time' or entertainment is still looked upon as important. We are people and they are recognising that fact - it's just DLA gives us much more autonomy, flexibility and independance than SS ever could.

GreyhoundAngel

I don't post much on this section, but I have recently had need to read in the hopes of getting information for my OH, and this particular topic would have a large impact on us.

I was interested to note this quote by Claire from the community care website....

Claire_DC wrote: »

"history shows that AA/DLA were created to contribute to all the costs of disability, including lost earnings and higher fuel, clothing, leisure and housing costs."


http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/social-care-experts-blog/2009/07/adult-green-paper-could-be-cat.html


... and that's just the first bit I've found on it. People who are disabled still need a quality of life, surely?

So, from what it states there... wouldn't "games" even in it's most basic form (ie board games) be categorised under Leisure ?

alwaysonthego wrote: »

The phone line would be essential to contact medical services/carer.

Internet access is not essential so should come out of other income.

Swimming if it helps you medical condition and keep you healthy then it should come out of DLA.

Football match is not essential and should come out of other income and not DLA.

I am confused why you would think having a phone line or internet connection would allow and increase for brain activity. As it is more likely that it would decrease connections in your brain.

ALWAYSONTHEGO ..... Please don't mis-understand me (and apologies for using your post specifically to quote - I'm really using it as an example) ...... In general I would agree with the principle that using DLA payments for important / essential things should be the priority use for that money.

However, as someone else mentioned - not all cases are the same, and what is needed by one person wouldnt necessarily be the same for another. From personal experience, I could easily see how in SOME instances - some controversial items might be of benefit.

My OH was told he would only be given the lowest rate of care DLA, (this is fine and right - as he doesn't need 24/7 "personal care")

However despite the fact that he can't walk very well, very far, or for very long before he becomes very tired and needs to rest - despite the fact that he can't write properly, can't use a computer very easily neither the keyboard nor the mouse, has difficulty even lifting something as "simple" as a full kettle or mug of tea, can't grip even a piece of paper if he drops it, has balance issues ..... he apparently isn't entitled to the mobility element "because he can walk without an aid" Surely mobility isn't just about someone "walking with an aid" or not ?

Not only that, but his mental faculties are no longer the same - he has memory, comprehension & concentration issues, not to mention a slight issue with his speech. The little amount of "official" physio he's had, has not improved things much considering the amount of time passed.

What I'm trying to say (and not very well probably ) is that for my OH, due to the varied issues the illness has left him with - something like a games consol (of some description), a remote control object, rubix cube, or anything along those lines - MAY actually help him ..... whereby not only does it "force" his physical reflexes into action, but also stimulates his "neurological & cognitive" processess at the same time ?

The OH wouldnt qualify for JSA (and you could argue that he shouldnt use that either, as he should be using it for essentials) - as he is not actually fit for work, which would just leave his DLA money. So what money should be used to buy things to supplement his therapy to help ensure that he recovers (mostly) back to normal ?

Just a thought from someone who has desperately been trying to think of alternative ways to help someone recover, who's not improving as well as they should have by the use of "traditional" methods. Under those circumstance, would the use of DLA money really be "wasting tax payers money" ? (and before anyone shouts at me - no, we've not actually bought anything, as even with me doing temp work and his DLA we couldn't afford it,)

I'm sure that there are many, many more scenarios that other people could quote instead of my personal example where "alternatives" could work. There are also many, many others who even with the full amount of entitlement available - get nowhere near what they actually need to help them. To take what they do get away, and to allocate it to someone else to administer - who doesnt even really know their needs, is not something I'd like to see.

G:A x

It appears that since I started writing my reply .... quite a few more posts have been added ... so this may now look a wee bit out of sync

NASA_2

Yes, I mentioned taxes, and I make no apology for doing so.

The fact that I pay taxes means that I have a right, in my own mind at least, to have an opinion on where they go. Those who dont pay taxes have less of a right to an opinion but, of course, can express as is there wish.

The Benefits system is very generous and it does need reviewed.

Claire_DC

NASA wrote: »

Yes, I mentioned taxes, and I make no apology for doing so.

The fact that I pay taxes means that I have a right, in my own mind at least, to have an opinion on where they go. Those who dont pay taxes have less of a right to an opinion but, of course, can express as is there wish.

The Benefits system is very generous and it does need reviewed.

My mum paid taxes for all her working life UNTIL she became disabled... surely she's only reaping back what she's already paid in and as such it's not your taxes that are keeping her, but her own contributions; and thus under your own rules you have little/no say in what she needs to buy to live (and not just survive) let alone more of a say.

Generous? Have you seen how much extra it costs to be disabled?

hayley11

I think it would be a disgrace if they took DLA/AA away but are they really ever going to do that? How would they ever justify it? I haven't read all this thread so apologies if i'm stating the obvious

I do think the system needs sorting out in some way, i'm not sure how they'd weed at all the fake claims though, some people are just very good at lying.

A cousin of mine claims it for "mental health" reasons, there is nothing wrong with her except she is extremely lazy and can't stick at any jobs so she chooses to fake illnesses to get as many benefits as possible.

And on the other side of the coin, my mum who is totally blind and has had DLA a long time, was recently knocked down to the lower rates because apparantly now she should be "used to be being blind" - have you ever heard anything so absurd if your life? Luckily she appealed and won.

With regards to the care component, it's not black and white what that should be used for is it? I don't think they could ever make it black and white either because how could they tell people how to spend it?

spikeysoul

I also worked before I became too ill to do so - mostly it was Part-time (I was a student) but I did pay tax on my income. I started when I was 15 finished (in a full time position) at 23 - thats still 9 years working - does that mean I can have a say what I spend my benefit on then - I know I'm only 26, but I didn't half try (I'm iller because I tried too hard!).

I do also intend to go back to work - so when I am recieving DLA and working - then can I have a say?

I know my needs why can't I have a say anyway - does Claire DC's mum get more of a say in how I spend my money than I do?

Any one say slippery slope?

seven-day-weekend

My sister has AA and has chosen to spend some of it on a gardener (so that she doesn't have to worry about it becoming a wilderness as she can't do it herself), a cleaner (ditto with the housework) and until recently, a dog walker (because when she first had the dog she was able to walk it herself and employed the dog walker when she could no longer do so . She has now given the dog away so doesn't need a dog walker any more).

I don't think it is wrong of her to spend the money this way as if she didn't have the disability she could do these things herself. So she IS using it to assist with her disability.

She also employs a lady to help her bath and wash her hair.

It does worry me if AA is done away with, that she will no longer be able to have the cleaner and gardener. Worrying about these things will make her mental health worse, and trying to do them herself will cripple her. I hope sense and discretion is used.

NASA_2

Claire_DC wrote: »

My mum paid taxes for all her working life UNTIL she became disabled... surely she's only reaping back what she's already paid in and as such it's not your taxes that are keeping her, but her own contributions; and thus under your own rules you have little/no say in what she needs to buy to live (and not just survive) let alone more of a say.

Generous? Have you seen how much extra it costs to be disabled?

The taxes paid 10, 20 or 30 years ago have been spent a long time ago. The taxes that are paid now dont even cover everything that is being paid for - I guess thats why the UK is in debt.

The Welfare state in its current form is simply not sustainable, there are too many old people, not enough workers to sustain it. When I am older I seriously doubt DLA/AA will exist because there wont be enough money so I feel the need to look out for my own interests.

Who will pay for my pension when I get to retire at the ripe old age of 68? Though I will more than likely be dead long before then in reality.

I've seen how much it pays - the benefit system that is - to be disabled.

I dont mean to get at anyone here or say that anyone is playing the system - all I want is for rationalisation now so that my taxes dont pay for something that will be gone by the time I am older and in need of help.