What are the DLA Rules-procedure Now[2011] Compared to 2 years ago

krisskross

skcollobcat10 wrote: »

I was thinking more for the severely disabled eg. possibly from birth or a very young age who have had no opportunity to take up employment.

Surely that cannot be right?

But they will get the same pension etc as others who have to pay for their own mobility needs. What's unfair about that?

Because of rheumatoid arthritis and heart disease as well as COPD my husband has extremely poor mobility and often can't get out for weeks at a time. Why other pensioners and not him for help with mobility? Why should his needs be less than anyone else's just because they have claimed for a while?

No I see the reforms as making it fair for all. No one to get mobility help after retirement age instead of just some as it is at present.

sunnyone

krisskross wrote: »

Attendance Allowance can be claimed for care after age 65. Same amount as DLA except there are only 2 rates.

Mobility needs will have to be paid for out of other income after retirement. Exactly the same as now for people who get severe mobility issues at 65 years plus 1 day who are not entitled to any mobility help. Personally I see it as correcting an inequality as at the moment some people with serious mobilty issues get no help purely on age grounds.

krisskross wrote: »

But they will get the same pension etc as others who have to pay for their own mobility needs. What's unfair about that?

Because of rheumatoid arthritis and heart disease as well as COPD my husband has extremely poor mobility and often can't get out for weeks at a time. Why other pensioners and not him for help with mobility? Why should his needs be less than anyone else's just because they have claimed for a while?

No I see the reforms as making it fair for all. No one to get mobility help after retirement age instead of just some as it is at present.

I have just read on the benefits board that a couple on JSA when one reaches retirment age the money they need to live on nearly doubles and that increase is the same as them both gettin HRM for nothing other than the wife being 60 which is as unfair as any other age related benefit change.

If its fair for all then all anomalies should be removed or leave the status quo.

krisskross

sunnyone wrote: »

I have just read on the benefits board that a couple on JSA when one reaches retirment age the money they need to live on nearly doubles and that increase is the same as them both gettin HRM for nothing other than the wife being 60 which is as unfair as any other age related benefit change.

If its fair for all then all anomalies should be removed or leave the status quo.

The reason benefit income increases at pension age, as you say doubles, is that it is assumed that people of pensionable age are no longer in a good position to work in order to increase their income.

It isn't really an anomaly as such because ALL people of pensionable age will be entitled to the same. At the moment with DLA not ALL 66 year olds are entitled to the mobility element, just some of them.

sunnyone

krisskross wrote: »

The reason benefit income increases at pension age, as you say doubles, is that it is assumed that people of pensionable age are no longer in a good position to work in order to increase their income.

It isn't really an anomaly as such because ALL people of pensionable age will be entitled to the same. At the moment with DLA not ALL 66 year olds are entitled to the mobility element, just some of them.

People as disabled as me cant work in order to increase their income so thats a straw man argument.

There are lots of other age related anomalies in benefits and it should be the same for everyone, thats you argument about HRM and people disabled post 65, what about children and benefits or the anomalue WRT tax credits?

It also needs to be factored in that its so much easier to get AA in relation to DLA.

beadle2

my husband is 65 next year
Ive just read that over 65 he will not get the HRM
currently he has a motability car.
Does that mean he will have to give it back
if it does he will lose his independence
I have n`t told him this yet
can any one advise?:eek:

krisskross

sunnyone wrote: »

It also needs to be factored in that its so much easier to get AA in relation to DLA.

Is it? Well no one need worry about losing their care component of DLA then. Presumably it will be a level playing field for all post retirement.

And to be honest it is most unfair to be saying that because you have had the mobility needs for a while pre retirement that they should take precedence over anyone else with mobility issues.

If it is good enough for my husband to be confined to the house with no assistance for mobility then why shouldn't it apply to everyone?

krisskross

skcollobcat10 wrote: »

The difference with DLA recipients on High Care and High Mobility from childhood to under 65 years of age is that a large proportion of them have been unable to have a working life. Therefore they will not have the likes of a private pension for example or the ability to be able to save from working for their retirement.

Most of their money is used for carers, disability equipment and a vehicle so that they are mobile.

Over 65 years of age AA is issued the reason being that most illnesses in this age group are age related and a normal process as we go into our 70's , 80's etc.

None of the illnesses that affect my husband's mobility are age related. In fact he has had RA for almost 40 years although he was in remission for a lot of this time.

My husband has always been an 'ordinary Joe' working in factories so didn't build up huge pension rights apart from the state provision.

So again why does he get no help with mobility simply because he has passed the magic 65? Not exactly old is it?

I find it most odd that you all thought it was fine for him to get no mobility help past age 65 even though you could, but dreadful and not right now you are going to be the same. You obviously do not want this wrong to be righted.

Invalidation

krisskross wrote: »

But they will get the same pension etc as others who have to pay for their own mobility needs. What's unfair about that?

Because of rheumatoid arthritis and heart disease as well as COPD my husband has extremely poor mobility and often can't get out for weeks at a time. Why other pensioners and not him for help with mobility? Why should his needs be less than anyone else's just because they have claimed for a while?

No I see the reforms as making it fair for all. No one to get mobility help after retirement age instead of just some as it is at present.

What a disgracefull but sad way of thinking. WE dont get it, so why should YOU !

Sad, very sad.

krisskross

Invalidation wrote: »

What a disgracefull but sad way of thinking. WE dont get it, so why should YOU !

Sad, very sad.

Sorry but how is this any different from the people who do get it thinking WE have always got it even though YOU don't so it's not fair to stop it for us.

Bit 'I'm alright Jack' isn't it? Well you used to be, perhaps for not much longer.

parsons

sunnyone wrote: »

People as disabled as me cant work in order to increase their income so thats a straw man argument.

There are lots of other age related anomalies in benefits and it should be the same for everyone, thats you argument about HRM and people disabled post 65, what about children and benefits or the anomalue WRT tax credits?

It also needs to be factored in that its so much easier to get AA in relation to DLA.

Unfortunately it isn't any easier to get AA instead of DLA.
My wife suffers from Chronic Arthritis to most joints. She can't get in or out of the bath, can't dress herself, can't get upstairs to the toilet quick enough etc etc.

A tribunal decided that she should have rails on the bathroom walls and a walking frame to help with moving around, standing etc and a comode downstairs somewhere so she doesn't need to go to the toilet upstairs or fit a stairlift.

I haven't bothered with any as we live in a home not a geriatric hospital ward and certainly don't want a comode in the lounge!

After that decision she has given up!