MSE News: Half a million could lose disability benefits

FBaby

Weary_soul wrote: »

Oh dear god there's an understatement If ever I heard one.

I mean It's so bloody obvious whats going on here. It's just another big con, getting the public to support the incredible rubbish/lies that the government spin doctors are putting out there. It happened when IB was made into ESA and it's going to happen with this.

It's not about helping anyone. I don't get why people even believe that. It's only about saving money and throwing as many people off any kind of benefits as possible.

Once again punishing the poor and sick and unemployed and rewarding the rich and the damn banks.

Oh and of course dishing out tasty little contracts to private companies to organise those appalling 'so called' medical's that they'll keep sending claimants to every five seconds.

Awful.

How is changing the criteria for DLA rewarding the rich? The rich are getting their child benefit taken away, how is this punishing the poor and sick and unemployed?

If it is 'yet another scam', why was it introduced in the first place? Yet, the recession is prompting the need to review this benefit which became way to lenient and a way to avoid seeking work for many. I personally would be delighted to see the entitlement go up for all those meeting the high level of care/mobility after being reassessed under the new criteria and those who clearly benefited from a much too lenient system, not having been reassessed for years loosing out.

wathowl

chanz4 wrote: »

Not getting at you, but if you are self employed are you insured to use your car for business use?

Yes I am if you ring R.S.A. and ask them they will tell you that you can use it for business use I could send you a copy of my insurance if you wish

Weary_soul

after being reassessed under the new criteria and those who clearly benefited from a much too lenient system, not having been reassessed for years loosing out.

Sorry imo If you believe that you'll believe anything. It's all about getting 20% of claimants off benefits whether they need them or not.

It will just be repeat of the heartless scandal that was ESA and the 8 million a year paid to ATOS to carry out those so called medicals by staff who wouldn't recognise a truly sick person If they fell on them.

It’s a funny thing D.L.A. we had “call me Dave” quite rightly claimingD.L.A. for his disabled son Ivan even though he and his wife are millionaires,and bearing in mind as the leader of the opposition in 2010 he would have been paid £130,00 per year add to that his wife’s income which was estimated to be largerthan his, but still he needed the money from the state in the form as D.L.A.for his son,

Yeah funny that. Now he's busy trying to deny this same benefit to those who aren't bloody millionaires and who genuinely need it. Hows that for being a 'scrounger?'

Not that I imagine he or his government care of course. They just hope the general public just cary on swallowing their propaganda until It's all far too late.

DomRavioli

clemmatis wrote: »

Good, because, as a DLA recipient, you can be.

Sorry who died and made you god? I have been re-assessed twice since being on the benefit, and have had no change in my award. I'm not a 'scrounger', 'festering' or any other imperative word you can wish to think of.

I really do hope that you aren't someone who needs DLA to enable carers to assist you with basic things, or that it never happens because then you may see how hard it is to decide what does and does not get done because money is tight.

wathowl

FBaby wrote: »

How is changing the criteria for DLA rewarding the rich? The rich are getting their child benefit taken away, how is this punishing the poor and sick and unemployed?

If it is 'yet another scam', why was it introduced in the first place? Yet, the recession is prompting the need to review this benefit which became way to lenient and a way to avoid seeking work for many. I personally would be delighted to see the entitlement go up for all those meeting the high level of care/mobility after being reassessed under the new criteria and those who clearly benefited from a much too lenient system, not having been reassessed for years loosing out.

D.L.A. is paid to cover your needs to help you live a life with your disabilities, its not a benefit paid to people who dont work its paid to anybody who meets the rules and suprise surprise many people me included do work

Anubis_2

I have no problem with being reassessed. In some ways I think PIP may offer a better way to determine someone's needs (note I did say "some ways.")

However, I do have a problem with assessments being fair, and ALL evidence taken into consideration, not just a pick and choose rubber stamp system as appears to be the case for ESA.

The companies who are bidding to do the assessments seem very questionable, and their history record doesn't look good and the contracts are worth at least a billion pounds.

We have amongst the bidders securit Guards G4S who are apparently a forensic medical arm for catching pedophiles and rapists.
According to the news, In 2010, three G4S security guards were bailed after the death of an Angolan refugee while in their supervision.

Serco is another heavy security type company, who run prisons, detention centres and immigration removal centres in the UK and abroad. It is alledged a Serco training manual showed how to use pain via punches and kicks to subdue asylum seekers.

Capita runs the Criminal Records Bureau on behalf of the Home Office has been involved in a number of less than successful public service contracts in the past, including Individual Learning Accounts which were subject to! fraudulent claims on an unprecedented scale and which were shut down after just one year according to reports..

Anyone see a "criminal" theme running here? If assessments are to be made, then qualified health reps should be used, surely! Not the proposed bunch above....

VT82

Broke_n_Broken wrote: »

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!

You talk about MP's defending the tax payer with heavy sarcasm. But defending the tax payer is one of their main remits; for them to not attempt to do this just so they can have an easy life by doing what's popular, well, that's the slippery slope that got us in the mess we are in now.

I don't know the ins and outs of the argument, but I think it's important not to jump down their throats when they suggest reviewing something that is potentially very broken, just because it involves the emotive subject of disabled soldiers etc. etc.

clemmatis

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

krisskross seems to be making the very valid point that some people claim extra welfare because they insist they need this money to pay for their extra care; but then they don't use that money on care as they can manage without it.

It's really rather complicated though, isn't it? Krisskross can manage without the care money (AA) her husband claims because she's a nurse. The money he receives would not cover the care, if it were paid care. They spend the money on non-care items. Others who have no spouse or close relation may also choose to spend their care DLA/AA on general "make life easier" items. Should they be stopped from doing so, should they have their DLA/AA withdrawn, because they "can manage without it"?

My answer is no. Though DLA is given for care/mobility needs, claimants do not have to be receiving the care when they apply, nor, later. DLA is a contribution towards the extra costs associated with disability, it is not intended to meet those costs in full. And a successful claimant may spend the money as they wish.

The Government has confirmed that this will be the case for PIP, too.

krisskross

clemmatis wrote: »

It's really rather complicated though, isn't it? Krisskross can manage without the care money (AA) her husband claims because she's a nurse. The money he receives would not cover the care, if it were paid care. They spend the money on non-care items. Others who have no spouse or close relation may also choose to spend their care DLA/AA on general "make life easier" items. Should they be stopped from doing so, should they have their DLA/AA withdrawn, because they "can manage without it"?

My answer is no. Though DLA is given for care/mobility needs, claimants do not have to be receiving the care when they apply, nor, later. DLA is a contribution towards the extra costs associated with disability, it is not intended to meet those costs in full. And a successful claimant may spend the money as they wish.

The Government has confirmed that this will be the case for PIP, too.

My point always has been that if someone says they have substantial care needs and are applying for extra money because of those needs then how are they still managing without these substantial care needs being met?

My husband has substantial care needs. They are met in full. In fact he must be one of the most cossetted men on the planet. The fact that I personally meet those needs is neither here nor there. He would die quite soon without the care. How many of those claiming extra money for care, but not receiving any care could say the same?

krisskross

clemmatis wrote: »

The maximum care rate for DLA, High Rate Care, High Rate, is £77.45 a week. As for "everyone says would cost thousands", according to AgeUK, the average cost of a care home is £500 a week, of a nursing home, £700. And as for "the rest of the family", IME that's one person, currently paid at most, Carer's Allowance. If they got a job, would their taxes really amount to more than the difference between the care home fees and DLA Care/AA +Carer's Allowance?

How about adding in the housing costs paid if no one works? I am sure many families claiming benefits because of a disabled person receive £20K+ in total benefits. As I said enough to pay for a care home for the disabled person, then the non disabled person is free to work and support themself.