Winter fuel payment petition

Indie_Kid

krisskross wrote: »

Or why people already receiving fairly generous benefits via the Disability Living Allowance feel they should be able to hijack someone else's entitlement to a benefit meant exclusively for that sector of society.

DLA isn't that generous. Especially when you can't drive and need constant supervision outside.

Many people feel they should get the WFP because they need it. Due to disability, they have higher bills - DLA won't cover these bills.

jazabelle

krisskross wrote: »

No one has still explained why they think the WFP should be means tested and DLA shouldn't be. Or why people already receiving fairly generous benefits via the Disability Living Allowance feel they should be able to hijack someone else's entitlement.

Um, not everyone said that.

I do agree there would be a huge problem with the vulnerable people that wouldn't apply (for either benefit) if they were means-tested yet would be entitled, and they would be left suffering.

Yet, I do think many benefits should be means tested, so that they are targetted to those most in need. I would have pretty high caps, but caps should be in place at some point.

And neither DLA (particularly low rate) or WFT are generous. Using the extra income generated from not giving it to people that don't need it, I would increase it for those that do.

Obviously these two ideas clash, so I am going to solve the problem by going to bed.

jazabelle

krisskross wrote: »

You are trying to tell me I can't understand pain and suffering unless I experience it myself? Now that is rubbish. I think you are trying to say I lack empathy right?I think several of the 'disabled people posting on this thread have come over as very 'poor me'.

Not really, no. It's not personal to you - I just think it's very hard to understand something like constant pain unless you've been there. Of course you can empathise, but it doesn't mean you can truly understand.

I guess that's at me, huh? I realise I've gone over quite a few of my condition, but only trying to get you to understand that until you've been there, not to be so dismissive. It was obviously a compete waste of time, as you're still going away with the attitude that you can cope so much better than us, we're a bunch of whingers/scroungers and should just get on with it.

krisskross

jazabelle wrote: »

And neither DLA (particularly low rate) or WFT are generous.

DLA even at the lowest rate is still almost 4 times the WFP. And don't forget that at 80 a person will have significant extra needs due purely to ageing. I know old ladies who need to use incontinent pads etc simply because they are no longer mobile enough to get to the toilet in time. Now a young person will get DLA for this sort of incontinence, the old lady won't. Far better to leave WFP as it is and means test DLA, thus releasing significantly more money to be redistributed. People aged under 65 (the ones DLA is applicable to) are much more likely to be 'benefit aware' and apply than 90 year old pensioners with no family to help them

Indie_Kid

krisskross wrote: »

DLA even at the lowest rate is still almost 4 times the WFP. And don't forget that at 80 a person will have significant extra needs due purely to ageing. I know old ladies who need to use incontinent pads etc simply because they are no longer mobile enough to get to the toilet in time. Now a young person will get DLA for this sort of incontinence, the old lady won't. Far better to leave WFP as it is and means test DLA, thus releasing significantly more money to be redistributed. People aged under 65 (the ones DLA is applicable to) are much more likely to be 'benefit aware' and apply than 90 year old pensioners with no family to help them

The old ladies can apply for attedance allowance.

I can't always get to the toilet and have just been told to use pads / nappies.

GlasweJen

I'm sorry but I had to laugh at some of the lists of disabilities that were posted earlier, no wonder disabled people struggle to get taken seriously when they list heavy periods and short sightedness in among the "real" disabilities.

My list would be:
dysautonomia, neurocardiogenic syncope, pacemaker, keloid scars, dyslexia, neurological impairement, anaphylaxis (sometimes even when there's no allergen present, go figure) irlens syndrome, long sighted, walks a bit funny, has an annoying 18 year old sister. Oh and implant because periods got so bloody heavy then i got intollerant to oestrogen.

jazabelle

GlasweJen wrote: »

I'm sorry but I had to laugh at some of the lists of disabilities that were posted earlier, no wonder disabled people struggle to get taken seriously when they list heavy periods and short sightedness in among the "real" disabilities.

Again, they were not listed as disabilities. Trialia was saying along with her actual disabilities she has all those other things, which add up. Not that period pain and short sightedness alone are.

krisskross

jazabelle wrote: »

Not really, no. It's not personal to you - I just think it's very hard to understand something like constant pain unless you've been there. Of course you can empathise, but it doesn't mean you can truly understand.

I guess that's at me, huh? I realise I've gone over quite a few of my condition, but only trying to get you to understand that until you've been there, not to be so dismissive. It was obviously a compete waste of time, as you're still going away with the attitude that you can cope so much better than us, we're a bunch of whingers/scroungers and should just get on with it.

I don't think most of you are whiners/scroungers but many of you do come across as grabby and think you should have hugely special treatment because you are 'disabled'. This is an attitude that I see everyday. Just run me over with the mobility scooter, shouldn't have been in your way on the pavement should I?
Yes I would have stood back to let you get on the bus first anyway, there is no need to wave your stick at me and shout that I should show respect. Now I know you will say that you are not like this but I have met very very many who are. Those who use their disability, real or perceived to obtain preferential treatment or service.

willa

GlasweJen wrote: »

I'm sorry but I had to laugh at some of the lists of disabilities that were posted earlier, no wonder disabled people struggle to get taken seriously when they list heavy periods and short sightedness in among the "real" disabilities.

My list would be:
dysautonomia, neurocardiogenic syncope, pacemaker, keloid scars, dyslexia, neurological impairement, anaphylaxis (sometimes even when there's no allergen present, go figure) irlens syndrome, long sighted, walks a bit funny, has an annoying 18 year old sister. Oh and implant because periods got so bloody heavy then i got intollerant to oestrogen.

Um, excuse me, but 'heavy periods' or heavily painful periods can be extremely incapacitating! Jazabelle, period pain may not be classed as a 'disability' but, from one who has period pains that are basically labour pains, let me tell you they are extremely disabling!
I would think severe short-sightedness can be quite disabling too!

krisskross

sh1305 wrote: »

The old ladies can apply for attedance allowance.

I can't always get to the toilet and have just been told to use pads / nappies.

You have to have substantive care needs for AA. There is no mobility element for AA so slowness getting to the toilet would get 'nul points'.

But you do get DLA which you said you use to pay for your pads and nappy sacks.