Budget - tougher for DLA claimants

krisskross

sh1305 wrote: »

Many do use it for what it's for.

But everyone should!! For goodness sake it isn't just a bit (a lot) of extra pocket money

Indie_Kid

krisskross wrote: »

But everyone should!! For goodness sake it isn't just a bit (a lot) of extra pocket money

But how do you define "extra expenses caused by disability"?

ash4becks

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Did you tell people this when you applied for university or is this a fact you only use when it suits you? Come to think of it, how did you pass level 3 qualifications with a reading age of 15?

my reading age is of a 12 year old writing and maths of a 10 year old and i passed a-levels dont comment on what you know nothing about often if you have problems with reading and writing this can be helped with a note taker in lesson and in exams

deeplyblue

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

And even better if these additional costs were paid direct, rather than handing over cash to the claimant. That would go some way to discouraging fakers.

Others have pointed out that sometimes this money is used for goods, not services. Still, central government (the last one - but I don't think party has much to do with this) has actually floated this idea.

The notion was that they would stop paying DLA (care component) to the disabled person and give the money instead to their local council, who would arrange for it to be spent on their behalf. So far, so reasonable?

Well, not exactly. What they would do is work out how much DLA was to be given to people in that authority's area and give the LA the DLA(C) budget. The individual would still need to be assessed by the DLA authorities as to whether they counted as disabled. Then the Social Services department would go round those who were assessed as needing care and arrange for them to get the right sort of care.

So now the DLA budget has to stretch to paying for a whole new section of Social Services to receive the money, track its path through their financial systems, go out to see people, fill in their forms to assess their needs, have meetings to work out who goes where when, train staff in "disability awareness" and contribute to their pension fund. So take 20% (at least) off the money from central government.

For a while, no doubt the payment is ring-fenced. DLA payments for those entitled to DLA. Then someone works out that you can save a lot of money by NOT assessing people to see if they need DLA(C) - just get them to apply to local Social Services for help - then all these trained "disability advisers" can work out what help you need. At this point, since it is no longer a state benefit but a council service, you can also abolish the appeals system. Money saved, which can be spent on - well, paying off government debts.

Life gets tough for the local council and they decide that they have to means test all disability services. Fair perhaps, but of course it will require more bureaucrats to run the means-testing system - money that will have to come out of the disability budget.

Then the local Social Services points out that they have other people with needs as great or greater than the disabled - abused children, young families in unsafe or unhealthy housing, care homes for those with dementia and so on. After a short, and not very hard fought, campaign the money becomes part of the general budget for Social Services.

Then the local authority gets it tax capped, and has to reduce services, and - with great regret - stops providing any carer services to people in their own home. It can't send out a list of agencies, because that might imply endorsement, and it doesn't have the funds to vet them.

Now if you really need help, and you can't manage to find an agency or afford the agency fees, you can apply to local charities (partial list enclosed) or you can move into a council-run home - if there are places available. Or, of course, rely on your family for unpaid help, which is how things were run for years. The trouble is that such a system doesn't run well unless the family can afford to have a fit and able person NOT out there in the workplace helping to pay off the mortgage.

Probably some variant on this will happen anyway - perhaps a more straightforward decision that the country cannot afford to pay out benefits to the disabled, unless they are on the breadline, in which case other benefits are available.

In part the replacement of IB with ESA reflects this philosophy - put all those who are not working into one category. Now sub-divide them into those who could work, but aren't doing so (for whatever reason) and those who could NOT work for whatever reason - which could mean they are sick, disabled or dying. It could equally mean that they are looking after small children or acting as carers for disabled relatives.

Hand the DLA (and similar) money over to the NHS (equipment and medical needs) and Social Services (services) and you have removed the disabled as money benefit category entirely.

Maybe that would the logical end of the integration of disabled people into society. Maybe it would end up removing the needs of the disabled out of the sphere of state provision - you want help, take out disability insurance.

It wouldn't get my vote - not least because I have some idea how that works in the US - but many on the right would cheer.

db

agal

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

The mobility component of whatever rate can be used to obtain a car if the claimant is able to drive, or to pay for transport if they are not. I see few problems with that.

Just a small correction, I use my Mobility to pay for a Motability car although I am registered blind and am not allowed to drive (obviously!). My wife is the named driver for the car.

karatedragon

DLA has only been in existence I believe for the last eighteen years.

How did all the disabled people get on prior to its introduction?

Indie_Kid

karatedragon wrote: »

DLA has only been in existence I believe for the last eighteen years.

How did all the disabled people get on prior to its introduction?

Wasn't there attendance allowance and mobility allowance before 1992?

kah22

sh1305 wrote: »

But how do you define "extra expenses caused by disability"?

I'm quite sure there is a legal definition somewhere but for the moment why not run with Common Sense

lindashome

Hello all this is my first time here, I know how upsetting it is for genuine people who are unwell,I would just like to tell you that during the last 3 months two friends had their dla stopped after having a medical by these "doctors" one a man of 58 ,who had worked all his life & had the worse kind of luekemia,the other one is a mother who had been caring for her mentally handicapped daughter for years with no help from anyone, hers was stopped also.after lots of research on the internet, we were able to get the right advice & told to write a long detailed letter, which we did,both benefits were reinstated straight away.it doesnt make up for the fact that these two people contemplated suicide....the stress caused was unbelievable....I would just like to add that just suppose i was running a buisness say a cafe for arguments sake theres no way i would want someone ill working for me.& also what about health & safety! example when my friends handicapped daughter had her dla stopped she was told she was able to go to work. so just suppose she worked in my cafe ,had a massive fit [which she has several times a year. scolds herself, the customers & so on .fit for work my a---! If you are genuine , do not give up hope, fight it.Just one more thing , anyone seen that advert where the bloke is on a building site & he says "my boss lets me step to the side so i can inject my insulin as i,m diabetic .....rubbish , where does health & safety come into this then...someone could cause an accident like that......also the dla/atos can be sued. please dont despair when you get a computer generated letter......

50Twuncle

lindashome wrote: »

....I would just like to add that just suppose i was running a buisness say a cafe for arguments sake theres no way i would want someone ill working for me......

What's your definition of "ILL" ?
And why would someone who is "ILL" want to work in a BIGGOTTED owners cafe ?