Budget - tougher for DLA claimants

sock-knitter

sh1305 wrote: »

I wear glasses due to a rare and progressive eye disease. I wouldn't need reactions lenses if I didn't have this disease and my sight wouldn't change at the rate it does either.

me too, but i wouldnt have thought you could claim dla for it, as there are no care needs, the eyesight is restored due to the lenses in the glasses

skcollobcat10

deeplyblue wrote: »

They provide manual wheelchairs for people, and often only fairly basic ones. You want an electric wheelchair, or a scooter, or even a specially modified chair which will give the exact support needed for your condition, then you will probably have to buy it. You can use DLA (mobility) to buy an electric wheelchair.

At least that is how it works in my region.

db

Hello,

I use my mobility money for the car and for the hoist for my electric wheelchair, I find that that is the best use of what money I am given through DLA, (of course you need something to cart the stupid wheelchair around!). I wouldn't use Motability for the wheelchair or for a scooter, reason being that I think that they charge far far too much.

I would purchase secondhand from the likes of Ebay, you can speak with the sellers/or dealers over the phone, some will even come out free of charge to your home to test that it is the right wheelchair for you. I will give you one example, I own 3 electric wheelchairs because I do not live in a specially adapted house, (its a 250 year old one), I bought the last wheelchair from Ebay, I am in Scotland and this dealer was in Gatwick, near London, they absolutely bent over backwards to accomodate me, I bought a secondhand wheelchair from them (1 year old, cost would have normally been £3,000), when it turned up, the batteries were dead, I phoned them up and they without quibble sent through the post a brand new set of batteries for me. I WOULD NOT accept the rubbish that social services offer, unless you are paralysed from the neck down they only give the basics. Now I was a nursing sister, I looked at what they offered, the cheapest of cheap, no suspension, (have you ever sat in one like that!), you feel like your bum is dragging along the pavement, and if that is not bad enough, well all your joints are aching because you have been jolted along, it is not a very pleasant day out.

Indie_Kid

sock-knitter wrote: »

me too, but i wouldnt have thought you could claim dla for it, as there are no care needs, the eyesight is restored due to the lenses in the glasses

My sight isn't restored by the glasses. The glasses don't correct the colour blindness, repair the nerve damage or stop my eyes wobbling - all of which cause other problems and do cause care needs.

No matter what anyone does to my eyes, they can't get any better than the second and fourth line. Therefore, I have care needs.

deeplyblue

krisskross wrote: »

I think a lot of the people getting DLA for MH issues may well lose it and the money be chanelled into extra therapy.

You wrote this directly after a couple of posts on ME. This may well be pure coincidence - my own responses (like this one) often appear on the website well after the post to which they were a response.

However, just in case anyone reading this thinks this post relates to the previous ones:

ME is not a mental health issue. The World Health Organisation classify it as neurological condition - and have done so for decades. The government's own guidelines say that it should not be treated as MH condition when looking at people's entitlement to benefit. The latest government-funded attempts to run treatment trials, based on the "motivate people and make them exercise more" theory have had to be abandoned as they were proving either useless (in the best cases) or counter-productive (in the worst).

BUT believing the "they should get off their backsides" theory of ME allows some rather lazy journalists to get paid for writing "indignation" pieces. It also, and more significantly, allows insurance companies to deny benefits which are restricted to "physical incapacity". This is one reason why Simon Wessely and his associates, who get substantial sums from insurance companies (directly and indirectly) are so insistent that it should be considered as a psychological illness.

If this analysis, and this attitude to psychological illness, could be transferred to the UK state benefit system, it might save the state benefit system a lot of money.

This is why the issue needs addressing whenever it arises. For one take on the ME sufferer's take on benefits see:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10436374.stm

db

skcollobcat10

government_slave wrote: »

Same here. My son hasn't had a penny DLA or IB since his first claim that he hasnt gone throught a medical check first. When he was 16yrs old an independant ''Government'' appointed doctor came to assess him and awarded him DLA for life. The same was applied to IB which he started to receive when he was 21 we had to travel over 2hrs away to see that ''Government'' doctor.
Him being reassessed is pointless and a waste of money in opinion if anything he is worse not better.

I really do not think that your son will be assessed more than once, if this government has any heart they will see that he only needs 1 assessment and then I think that he will be fine. This is all hype, do not worry.

sock-knitter

sh1305 wrote: »

My sight isn't restored by the glasses. The glasses don't correct the colour blindness, repair the nerve damage or stop my eyes wobbling - all of which cause other problems and do cause care needs.

No matter what anyone does to my eyes, they can't get any better than the second and fourth line. Therefore, I have care needs.

please accept my apologies for jumping to conclusions

Indie_Kid

sock-knitter wrote: »

please accept my apologies for jumping to conclusions

Apologies accepted.

I wonder if the rights payment programme (random checking) would still exist? or would this not be needed?

Tobermory

From the Commons Debates on the Parliamentary website:

Mr Duncan Smith: "Nobody, after these checks, will have money taken away from them who can genuinely demonstrate that they should be receiving DLA. The key point is to make sure that those who do not need it are seeking work."

Is Mr Smith confusing DLA with IB ?

Indie_Kid

Tobermory wrote: »

From the Commons Debates on the Parliamentary website:

Mr Duncan Smith: "Nobody, after these checks, will have money taken away from them who can genuinely demonstrate that they should be receiving DLA. The key point is to make sure that those who do not need it are seeking work."

Is Mr Smith confusing DLA with IB ?

Seems like it.

karatedragon

Tobermory wrote: »

From the Commons Debates on the Parliamentary website:

Mr Duncan Smith: "Nobody, after these checks, will have money taken away from them who can genuinely demonstrate that they should be receiving DLA. The key point is to make sure that those who do not need it are seeking work."

Is Mr Smith confusing DLA with IB ?

I don't get this w*****'s statement. DLA is not an out of work sick benefit.