MSE News: Half a million could lose disability benefits

skintmacflint

dktreesea wrote: »

Some countries have better services and care (Scotland) than others (England). Some NHS trusts fund medicines (Scotland) that aren't available in other countries (again, England).

And some drug treatments available in England aren't avaialable in Scotland. Bearing in mind Scotland has a tenth of the population of England and Wales that could be part of the reason for the disparities on both sides. .

Dunroamin

dori2o wrote: »

It would be far beter to scrap the benefits in exchange for providing services/therapies/medications which actually benefit disabled/sick people.

I pay for acupuncture, reflexology, massages and a charity is due to start funding counselling sessions for me, all because I cannot get these on the NHS.

I always argue this in DT and get shouted down by every other disabled person on there!

The more we throw dribs and drabs of money at people (allowing them to spend it on whatever they want, whether health related or not) the less money there'll be to provide the level of services that would actually benefit people.

We ought to have a new slogan - "Services, not benefits!" and then increase taxes to cover it.

Dunroamin

danielanthony wrote: »

In most Northern European countries they don't have the NHS we have here and better healthcare is funded by insurance paid for out of your salary. If you don't work for whatever reason then you get state funded treatment which isn't as good as you get in this country for 'free'.
.

That's not necessarily true. France has a system like you describe and it's the insurance that's provided for free if your income is low - the treatment you receive is the same as everybody else gets.

~Chameleon~

Dunroamin wrote: »

I always argue this in DT and get shouted down by every other disabled person on there!

The more we throw dribs and drabs of money at people (allowing them to spend it on whatever they want, whether health related or not) the less money there'll be to provide the level of services that would actually benefit people.

We ought to have a new slogan - "Services, not benefits!" and then increase taxes to cover it.

OMG!! Something I actually agree with you on

wattdallas

Dunroamin wrote: »

I always argue this in DT and get shouted down by every other disabled person on there!

The more we throw dribs and drabs of money at people (allowing them to spend it on whatever they want, whether health related or not) the less money there'll be to provide the level of services that would actually benefit people.

We ought to have a new slogan - "Services, not benefits!" and then increase taxes to cover it.

In the case of my daughter ,it would cost alot more ie sevices etc that what she receives in DLA .

365days

Dunroamin wrote: »

I always argue this in DT and get shouted down by every other disabled person on there!

The more we throw dribs and drabs of money at people (allowing them to spend it on whatever they want, whether health related or not) the less money there'll be to provide the level of services that would actually benefit people.

We ought to have a new slogan - "Services, not benefits!" and then increase taxes to cover it.

Agree with this. Currently dealing with a crisis situation with my ASD son. I want some help and support, not money. As the help and support is not forthcoming except for people asking me 'Are you claiming DLA?' I will have to find/pay for it myself. If my claim for DLA is succesful the money will be 'spent' on allowing me to reduce my hours. If services were available I wouldn't need to, I'd work more, pay more tax, yada yada.

welshee

Its about time some of my tax was raked back in !
I cannot sit in the ale house as i see a lot who "cannot walk" do.
Not everyone but 1% is enough.

scootw1

Dunroamin wrote: »

I always argue this in DT and get shouted down by every other disabled person on there!

The more we throw dribs and drabs of money at people (allowing them to spend it on whatever they want, whether health related or not) the less money there'll be to provide the level of services that would actually benefit people.

We ought to have a new slogan - "Services, not benefits!" and then increase taxes to cover it.

Totally agree. If they did that there would not be the situation where so-called `disabled` people can spend all day lounging about in pubs getting drunk and throwing money in fruit machines. And there are a lot of people out there doing that (far more than so-called official figures suggest). Btw, I am not having a go at actual genuine disabled there just the frauds.

dktreesea

wattdallas wrote: »

In the case of my daughter ,it would cost alot more ie sevices etc that what she receives in DLA .

So what's the solution? The current system, of paying the disabled off with a token sum of money, when what they need and deserve are services tailored to their needs?

How is it, if you need, for example, dialysis, you get it, whatever the cost, but if you need a bionic limb, a limb that would ensure you stay a part of the work force and pay income tax for however many working years you have left, you can't get one?

Money received to live on should be just that, to live on, and not some token compensation because you have a disability that the NHS don't want to attend to.

It's about time we paid anyone who isn't working the same amount. Disabled and non disabled alike both need to eat and stay warm.

nannytone_2

because dialysis keeps people alive.
having a bionic limb, however desireable, doesnt stop someone dying

the reason that sick/disabled people get a higher rate of benefit than the unemployed is because they are likely to have to survive on the benefit long term, and not just as a 'stop gap'