MSE News: Half a million could lose disability benefits

KxMx

While Dunromain's idea has some merit; surely this would be a regressive step whereby disabled people were "hidden away" because they had no money of their own but had to use whatever "help" there may be out there. They would be totally at the mercy of others. Even more so than today with the benefit cuts.

Too similar to a Workhouse scenario for my liking.

Maybe a solution lies somewhere between Dunroamin's idea and state financial support.

dktreesea

nannytone wrote: »

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'

If we want disabled people to work, then we have to provide them with the services they need in order to work. There are people receiving dialysis who work. They are able to work because they get the service they require, notwithstanding that without it they could die. That shouldn't be the criteria as to whether disabled people can get access to the services they deserve.

What about people, for example, who have lost their sight? There are possibly implants that could help them. Good luck to anyone getting even the tests to see if they would be suitable for an implant, let alone getting one. Yes, people may well not die from blindness, and maybe their natural sight is beyond saving, but if there is a possibility of them being able to see using some kind of electronic device or implant, then why shouldn't they get what they need?

Sick and disabled people might not have to survive on the benefit long term if they get the services and help they need. Plenty of sick people recover and go back to work after major operations. Just because natural recovery is unlikely - people do spontaneously regain their sight from time to time, though so far they don't appear to be able to re-grow limbs - doesn't mean we should put the person on permanent hold and not treat the affliction with the best medical skils/equipment the profession has to offer.

nannytone_2

i receive direct payments and my PA helps me to do what i want to do, when i want to do it ( im the same way that non disabled people do)
im not talking about going to the gym, whicj is something that a lot of people cant afford.
more like the basic things such as having my dinner when im ready to have it.
it'd be awful if i had to eat when i could be 'fitted in' rather than choosing what i eat and when

dktreesea

KxMx wrote: »

While Dunromain's idea has some merit; surely this would be a regressive step whereby disabled people were "hidden away" because they had no money of their own but had to use whatever "help" there may be out there. They would be totally at the mercy of others. Even more so than today with the benefit cuts.

Too similar to a Workhouse scenario for my liking.

Maybe a solution lies somewhere between Dunroamin's idea and state financial support.

Why can't they get the same as other unemployed people as a direct benefit? AND the services they need to function in today's society?

nannytone_2

dktreesea wrote: »

If we want disabled people to work, then we have to provide them with the services they need in order to work. There are people receiving dialysis who work. They are able to work because they get the service they require, notwithstanding that without it they could die. That shouldn't be the criteria as to whether disabled people can get access to the services they deserve.

What about people, for example, who have lost their sight? There are possibly implants that could help them. Good luck to anyone getting even the tests to see if they would be suitable for an implant, let alone getting one. Yes, people may well not die from blindness, and maybe their natural sight is beyond saving, but if there is a possibility of them being able to see using some kind of electronic device or implant, then why shouldn't they get what they need?

Sick and disabled people might not have to survive on the benefit long term if they get the services and help they need. Plenty of sick people recover and go back to work after major operations. Just because natural recovery is unlikely - people do spontaneously regain their sight from time to time, though so far they don't appear to be able to re-grow limbs - doesn't mean we should put the person on permanent hold and not treat the affliction with the best medical skils/equipment the profession has to offer.

i a, blind, so i know firsthand how difficult it is to find an employer ( even with adaptations)
i wasnt disagreeing with your sentiment. just pointing out that dialysis has to be prioritised as it stops people dying.
treatment for life threatening conditions have to be put higher on the shopping list than eui[tment or adaptations that might be desireable if cost were not a consideration

wattdallas

dktreesea wrote: »

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.

To be honest id rather have the sevices .We get none at the moment other than hospice every few months.

mazza111

dktreesea wrote: »

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.

Because disabled people may have much more expenses than an able bodied person. If my dd was able bodied, she could walk up to the bus stop and access the bus to go to town (nearest one about a mile away), there's no way on earth she could self propel to that bus stop. So it's taxis every time she needs/wants to go out. Especially when I'm not available. I'm going into hospital for a minor op next month and won't be allowed to drive for 6 weeks. I am calling all favours in with family, not to help me recover, but to help her while I'm recovering. She will need to help out with their petrol costs.

Then there's the heating issues. Many disabled people feel the cold more than an able bodied person. Luckily my dd isn't one of them But it's easy for an able bodied person to do something active to warm themselves up, it's not so easy for a person with limited mobility.

Now we can go to incontinence issues. How much more laundry would that give a disabled person? Yes, there are pads and nappies etc. But if you've ever had a wiggly child, you'll know that nappies don't always contain what they should.

These are just the ones I'm thinking of offhand. In an ideal world none of us would be disabled, we'd all be able bodied and be able to contribute to society.

Yes, I admit, there are people out there who don't use their DLA awards for what it was intended. But then there's people like my DD who use every penny of it what it was intended. Apart from the LRC. That also gets spent on mobility (taxis and petrol)

Dunroamin

KxMx wrote: »

While Dunromain's idea has some merit; surely this would be a regressive step whereby disabled people were "hidden away" because they had no money of their own but had to use whatever "help" there may be out there. They would be totally at the mercy of others. Even more so than today with the benefit cuts.

Too similar to a Workhouse scenario for my liking.

Maybe a solution lies somewhere between Dunroamin's idea and state financial support.

Could I just point out that actually it was dorio's idea - I was just agreeing with it and taking it a bit further.

Dunroamin

mazza111 wrote: »

Because disabled people may have much more expenses than an able bodied person. If my dd was able bodied, she could walk up to the bus stop and access the bus to go to town (nearest one about a mile away), there's no way on earth she could self propel to that bus stop. So it's taxis every time she needs/wants to go out. Especially when I'm not available. I'm going into hospital for a minor op next month and won't be allowed to drive for 6 weeks. I am calling all favours in with family, not to help me recover, but to help her while I'm recovering. She will need to help out with their petrol costs.

Then there's the heating issues. Many disabled people feel the cold more than an able bodied person. Luckily my dd isn't one of them But it's easy for an able bodied person to do something active to warm themselves up, it's not so easy for a person with limited mobility.

Now we can go to incontinence issues. How much more laundry would that give a disabled person? Yes, there are pads and nappies etc. But if you've ever had a wiggly child, you'll know that nappies don't always contain what they should.

These are just the ones I'm thinking of offhand. In an ideal world none of us would be disabled, we'd all be able bodied and be able to contribute to society.

Yes, I admit, there are people out there who don't use their DLA awards for what it was intended. But then there's people like my DD who use every penny of it what it was intended. Apart from the LRC. That also gets spent on mobility (taxis and petrol)

You could perfectly well supply transport in the form of special taxi services, Dial a Ride buses and specific utility tariffs for the disabled. You could extend the latter to the elderly and withdraw the WFA.

(Can't you introduce your daughter to internet shopping for groceries and etc.?)

nannytone_2

i dont use internet shopping as it takes me 10 times as long as visitng the supermarket!
but something as simple as visitng the shops can be the only social interaction some disabled people het.
having the money instead of the 'service' gives disabled people choice.
we have a mini bus scheme where i live. but economics dictae that it should be run at capacity.
so a trip to the nearest tesco ( which takes 15 minutes to drive to) takes upto 1 and 1/2 hours each way by the time it has picked up and dropped off.
i said it is nice to go and do your own shopping... but it isnt my choice for a day trip!