MSE News: Half a million could lose disability benefits

shedboy94

Broke_n_Broken wrote: »

DIDN'T YOU KNOW???

All disabled people are lying, cheating, benefit scrounging scum.

Not one disabled person works.
They are all happy to sit on their backsides raking in thousands of pounds a week!

All disabled people are experienced fraudsters, with law degrees, who dedicate their lives to cheating the poor defenceless government out of tax payers hard earned money.

Some even chew through their own arm or leg so they can claim more money!

The poor, underpaid ministers, who work their backsides off 52 weeks a year are trying their bestest, to defend the tax payer.
Spending their own meager salary & never claiming benefits or expenses they are committed to reducing taxes for all hard working bankers!
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

No, they just pass on tips on this forum on how to pass medical examinations......!!!

I do agree that some people incur additional expenses because of their medical conditions........but why does EVERYONE on DLA get additional money?

Junkies and alcoholics get additional money - I'm sure they don't use it to buy drugs and alcohol.......

Mobility cars........I know plenty of people who work FT and can afford a car, but the nice givernment gives them money to get a free one.

Again, we have the most generous benefit system in the world. and the easiest to claim..........no wonder everyone is moaning about it being reviewed.

heather66

i agree there are a few who know the in's and out's of the sysyem and theese are the ones who are needing a kick up the backsides but many people with illnesees / disabilities are under enough stress without fearing that if they do or say one wrong thing their DLA will be taken away from them
i know someone who got DLA top rate for 5 years yet .is an instructer with the Duke of Edinburgh taking the kids for assesments eg hillwalking orienteering etc ..yet claims he cannot walk the lenght of his path or stairs without being in so much pain to the dr's

rogerblack

shedboy94 wrote: »

I do agree that some people incur additional expenses because of their medical conditions........but why does EVERYONE on DLA get additional money?

There is of course the slight problem with this.
If you're going to assess care costs reasonably required to allow them to cope with their disability, this can considerably exceed current awards.

If someone is adjudged to require 24 hour care by DLA - they are paid 70 quid a week or so.

This falls somewhat short of the 2000 or so that it'd cost to employ staff at agency rates.

ineed

DomRavioli wrote: »

I receive DLA, and I am more than happy to be assessed or re-assessed. The way I see it is that I have nothing to hide, and would give the world not to be disabled. If it makes people who don't need the help no longer have it, then so be it.

Well said, i have no problem with being assessed either; I have nothing to hide. I've never actually had a DLA assessment, then again I haven't really been on DLA very long compared to others. But I do see doctors almost every week regarding my conditions and have tests etc, so I guess DLA have been using their reports to assess me. But i've no problem so long as they can do home visits .

Weary_soul

Well I'm sure a lot of people said that when ESA was introduced, and look how well that went.

BJV

I live not too far away from Liverpool which is ( according to stats I was given by motability ) the disability capital of Europe.

Disability living allowance is there to help people who need help and not as it is sometimes used in Liverpool as a cottage industry for topping up income. The system has to be reviewed so that people who really need the top up should get it but also to eliminate fraudulent claims.

I pay a lot of tax's and do not begrudge anyone who has a real need but I do take offence to fraudulent claims. We just need to make the system fair for all.

FBaby

DLA should be treated in the same way as child benefit. It is easy to assume that having a child will always incur - steep!- additional costs, so it is fair to be deemed not necessary to assess that the income is indeed being spent on the children (how parents than budget is their choice).

People in receipt of DLA should have to show evidence of a financial need specifically associated to their disability. It should then be reduced if the household earns over £50K and terminated if over £60K.

shedboy94

FBaby wrote: »

DLA should be treated in the same way as child benefit. It is easy to assume that having a child will always incur - steep!- additional costs, so it is fair to be deemed not necessary to assess that the income is indeed being spent on the children (how parents than budget is their choice).

People in receipt of DLA should have to show evidence of a financial need specifically associated to their disability. It should then be reduced if the household earns over £50K and terminated if over £60K.

I also feel Tax Credits should have been like child benefit - less money for additional children, not the same amount for each one. The more you have the cheaper it is for each one - you are still paying the same amount in rent/mortgage/utilities, the only additional costs are food and clothing - food can be bought and cooked in bulk which can actually work out cheaper, and children grow out of clothes so quickly then most hand-me downs are like new anyway.

Better_Days

DLA fraud is very low, well under 1% according to the DWP. So if the government wishes to save 20% it will have to change the criteria for the mobility and care awards.

Changing the criteria does not mean that 20% of current claims are fraudulent. It simply means that after the goalposts have been moved 20% fewer people with physical and mental health disabilities will qualify for DLA/PIP.

The principle of regular assessment sounds fine in principle. But assessments should be fair and review periods proportionate.

This has not been achieved in the changeover from IB to ESA. 40% of appeals against ESA decisions are found to be wrong by tribunals.

If there is such a high rate of error in ESA awards then is this the time to go down the same road with DLA, costing the taxpayer (not Atos) a great deal of money dealing with a high volume of appeals? In addition the tribunal service is currently overwhelmed by the number of appeals so that it takes between 6 months and a year for claimant to get their appeal heard.

One of the problems with ESA is that the opinions of the claimants medical team (GP, OT, Consultant etc) are ignored in favour of the opinion of the Atos doctor/nurse who will only have seen the claimant once for a short period, or not at all. In my case neither the Atos Doctor (Oct 2011) nor the Atos nurse (Mar 2012) assessed me in person.

Review periods are short so that claimants are caught in a seemingly endless loop of assessment, appeal and re-assessment.

Reviews should also take into account the underlying reason for the claimants disabilities. If they have a degenerative illness, or a genetic disorder then it is very unlikely that they will improve and review periods need to take this into account.

Unfortunately it is the most vulnerable and the most in need who will have the greatest difficulty in navigating the changeover.

clemmatis

rogerblack wrote: »

There is of course the slight problem with this.
If you're going to assess care costs reasonably required to allow them to cope with their disability, this can considerably exceed current awards.

If someone is adjudged to require 24 hour care by DLA - they are paid 70 quid a week or so.

This falls somewhat short of the 2000 or so that it'd cost to employ staff at agency rates.

Precisely. And the DWP surely knows this.