PIP, and the shrinking of motability/HRM.

uponahill

Brassedoff wrote: »

There are many who should not get HRM/HRC based on some strange illnesses. Of course, genuinely disabled should get assistance in ensuring they get the right help.

I can see the 2nd hand market in wheelchairs going through the roof. It is so annoying when you see some using an EBay special apart from when at hospital.

I just love that comment. Knowing the British public, yes there will be a ready market for second hand cheap wheelchairs, maybe on a rent now, hand back tommorow basis just to get through the assessment. Believe me many will come up with all sorts of tricks to try and get round the regulations.

Reading it, as someone unable to dress, cook or hold a plate from the kitchen to the dining table, I only get LRC. I suppose I could appeal but there is a fear of losing the current award I want to leave it B.

Then there are the really hard illnesses that the pro's cannot disprove, two of which are now on the highest increase. I would be frurious to think someone with one of these illnesses get away with saying they cannot walk or wheel their EBay special and get the highest rates, thereby further reducing the needy's pot.

Again, a very good comment!! I don't know why the whole damn country doesn't go down with these conditions, which as you say, seems to be at epidemic proportions. I do seriously wonder if the Water companies have been putting things in the drinking water to have caused this epidemic of non provable illnesses!!

I hope the only wheelchair taken into account is a proper hospital issued one. Anything else is for convenience. If you need one for medical reasons, they would get you one, the fight I had proved that, although I am now told there would be no question if I were to apply now. Secondly, if you lose your HRM, you lose and hand back your blue badge, that includes those with the ability to run around a supermarket.

Looking at the posts, not being able to walk more than 5 metre unaided, assisted wheelchair after that. Not being able to dress, shower or climb the stairs. Or be able to hold a conversation and remember many aspects of what I am about to say (an elderly relative said my Alzhiemers was worse than my aunts), I would not know what points I would score.

I won't score enough for the mobility part as I don't do myself any favours by going against medical advice and work out in a gym every week. If I was to listen to the medical profession and take their advice, I would get the higher rate of mobility under PIP, but I don't as I want a life away from stagnation and living in bed 24/7!

Anubis_2

uponahill wrote: »

You will have to prove that with that scenario that it applies for more than 50% of the days (not time).

So stating that you can't dress yourself for 2 out of 7 days will get you nowhere, stating that you can't for 4 out of 7 will, but it will have to be backed up with a professional medical report!

Of course... but a report will focus on all things in general, not specifically dressing. For example: report states that patient has a variable condition, and 80 percent of the time is unable to mobilise, wash, dress and walk without support.

Therefore this would cover the needing help 5 days out of 7 to get dressed.

uponahill

melbury wrote: »

Are the only people totally opposed to PIP the ones who are on HRM and have Motability cars?

Surely weeding out the ones who shouldn't have this benefit is a good thing isn't it? The really genuine cases should not be affected at all.

No!! I am all for it!! PIP will be a good thing for the truly disabled.

Yes I do have a Motability car at the moment, and yes I will lose it under PIP.

That is small change to me if I can see that the new PIP benefit is only given to those that truly deserve it!

Anubis_2

uponahill wrote: »

I won't score enough for the mobility part as I don't do myself any favours by going against medical advice and work out in a gym every week. If I was to listen to the medical profession and take their advice, I would get the higher rate of mobility under PIP, but I don't as I want a life away from stagnation and living in bed 24/7!

You are very lucky to be on HRM/MRC and go to the gymn for a workout each week.

Aside from that, you are fortunate you can move out of bed to get to said gymn and you feel well enough to do so.... I don't want a life in bed 24/7 but have little choice. I can barely make hospital appointments and have to cancel on several ocassions, let alone a gymn!

I missed award ceremonies for my children at school, 90 percent of parent evenings throughout for the four of them, having to arrange discussion over the phone, and when my son moved out to Uni, I could not travel to see him off, I couldn't even get downstairs that day to see him through the door. Do you think, if I had a choice, I would purposely miss important times in my children's lives?

When my daughter was in hospital I could not even visit her....

I am beginning to see Andy...

uponahill

Denny_Crane wrote: »

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. So all that suffer pain and damage to their bones are faking it and should be forced to walk, and do not deserve to have Mobbility allowance?
Come and live in my body for a few days, and see what walking does to my Charcot foot. Won't walk? I wish that was the situation! I would love to be in a position to walk to the shops, to the nearest bus stop, to be able to go out to the local for a drink without it taking hours and substatial pain to do so. Your comments remidn me of the balck night in Monty Python, "I am happy to cause myself pain and damge, so everyone should be diong this"
More objective? what part of inflexible do you not get?
That fact that the government will be paying its pet outside company the french ATOS to carry out these "assessments" in the region of £500 MILLION over 7 years with the express requirement to reduce the amount claiming by 20% means that they descriptors as laid down will be what these ATOS goons will be doing, no flexability from the laid down proceedure in section 11, as every appeal is more money into their pockets.

We are not saying you are faking it, but many manage to work through the pain. Many like me would prefer to keep fit in any way possible, and maybe at the risk of my own life!
my wife has awful arthritis, but her GP is right - you must walk through it!! Keep everything mobile.

With one of my conditions I see, hear and know through many dedicated forums that other sufferers just give up, refuse to walk - because it hurts - refuse to exercise because there may be consequences - they just sit/sleep and wait to die, and of course claim every possible benefit they can to live like that!

So yes it is the can't walk - won't walk brigade!

Lacking willpower, giving in, is the weakness, the strength is doing something, maybe sometimes against medical advice, and feeling alive - but then, that will cause them to lose their benefits - oh we can't do that can we?

uponahill

GlasweJen wrote: »

I still can't work out how I'd fair on PIP but I do agree it is much needed as DLA was too subjective, professional claimants could get DLA for spraining an ankle!

Hey we agree!!!

The definition of being unable to get about (mobilise) should be restricted to those than cannot walk and cannot self wheel a wheelchair.

Only those that are wheel chair bound AND have to either have someone else to push it or use an electric one themselves should be given the higher rate of mobility and hence the opportunity if they so wish, of a Motability car.

That is how it was before DLA came in.
I am thinking of the polio victims, the thalidomide victims, the quadriplegic sufferers and such like - they are the truly disabled who are unable to mobilise.

Yet we will have those that have arthritis saying that they too fit alongside those people - sickening!

zaksmum

What will happen regarding the DLA descriptor about being VIRTUALLY unable to walk due to "severe discomfort"? At the moment, all walking which causes such discomfort has to be disregarded for the assessment of walking.

Even sitting in a wheelchair would be painful to me due to RTA injuries including severe damage to my hip.

Would this descriptor be scrapped?

Anubis_2

uponahill wrote: »

Hey we agree!!!

The definition of being unable to get about (mobilise) should be restricted to those than cannot walk and cannot self wheel a wheelchair.

Only those that are wheel chair bound AND have to either have someone else to push it or use an electric one themselves should be given the higher rate of mobility and hence the opportunity if they so wish, of a Motability car.

That is how it was before DLA came in.
I am thinking of the polio victims, the thalidomide victims, the quadriplegic sufferers and such like - they are the truly disabled who are unable to mobilise.

Yet we will have those that have arthritis saying that they too fit alongside those people - sickening!

That would apply to me then even though I was not born disabled or have any of the conditions you describe, but do have more than arthritis (which is a painful condition)

In fact at my recent wheelchair assessment, I a only allowed an electric chair with dual control so that the carer can take over. I have several painful conditions plus a heart condition - are you stating that pain and heart conditions are not worthy and that you have to be able to see the disability to qualify?

moose1982

Anubis wrote: »

I am beginning to see Andy...

It is indeed him, again...

LadyMorticia

Anubis wrote: »

Can you define "strange illnesses" opposed to "genuine disabled?"

What do you feel are strange illnesses and what is your view of what "genuine disabled" is?

What are the "two" hard illnesses that cannot be disproved and are on the increase?

Re the wheelchair.... Utter rubbish. You do know each NHS wheelchair service, while having general regulations to follow has its own regulations on who gets what and money is very tight so not everyone who NEEDS one can get one?

In my area I have to wait over two years due to cutbacks.... and I have bought my own previously because I NEEDED it, it was NOT for show at all.

A poster on here who does need a wheelchair was refused because her NHS service requires applicants to use them 4 hours a day, 4 times a week minimum IIRC. As she is too ill to go out that length of time, she doesn't get one.

As for fighting for one, some are too I'll to fight.....

That was me.

My GP asked me to ask the OT I saw to refer me to Wheelchair Services because I need a wheelchair when outdoors due to severe M.E. I do already have a wheelchair given to me by a friend (someone on this forum, infact) but it isn't suitable for my needs. However, the Wheelchair Services criteria here is that you need the wheelchair for 4 hours a day, 4 days a week, but because I am too ill to go out most of the time and when I am, it's not for that long at all, I wasn't eligible and when I do go out, I am bedbound for days, even weeks afterwards. It is no life. I'm 25. I should be out with my friends or working in my dream job. Not severely ill in bed.