MSE News: Half a million could lose disability benefits

nannytone_2

it isnt all about 'care', as in someone doing things for you.
i have my PA. her purpose isnt to 'dp' things for me, but to enable me to do them for myself.
as far as dunroamin is concerned i should get my PA to do my food shopping online rather than dare to want to do it for myself.
my idea of socialising isnt sitting in a mini bus in the company of pensioners and other disabled people. i like to go shopping with my friends, just like everyone else does!
a lready justify every penny of the direct payments, and rightly so.
but to start doing the same with disability benefits is unworkable, unless people do the same thing on the same day every week.
and the idea of these payments is to give people choice

nannytone_2

Dunroamin wrote: »

I meant as opposed to someone who has a job!

Anyway, sitting on a mini bus to buy groceries obviously is a normal thing for those who use the service or else it wouldn't be provided, would it? Or do you think it more "normal" to be driven round by someone who's paid to look after you?

mainly disabled pensioners/
pensionsers.

princessdon

nannytone wrote: »

it isnt all about 'care', as in someone doing things for you.
i have my PA. her purpose isnt to 'dp' things for me, but to enable me to do them for myself.
as far as dunroamin is concerned i should get my PA to do my food shopping online rather than dare to want to do it for myself.
my idea of socialising isnt sitting in a mini bus in the company of pensioners and other disabled people. i like to go shopping with my friends, just like everyone else does!
a lready justify every penny of the direct payments, and rightly so.
but to start doing the same with disability benefits is unworkable, unless people do the same thing on the same day every week.
and the idea of these payments is to give people choice

But surely you are Eutopia. This should be available to everyone who needs it.

If you had a partner, not working and claiming CA you wouldn't this.

You'd have less need for DLA

Why should you be given the same DLA as someone who has a partner available to them, at more hours that DP?

It's this that I don't get, for me (simplified I know), but your DP are like CA, paying for help. If you had a carer you'd not need them.

nannytone_2

i didnt get anything when i had a pertner. and he worked full time and wouldnt have been able to claim CA as i only get LRC.
it would seem a good idea to
do away with DLA/AA and fund everyone along the lines of direct payments, and assess everyone individually.
but then people who have partners could then choose to pay their partner.
i dont know if i find that unacceptable or not to be honest.
if a partner is providing the care ( obviously it would have been classed as care over and above what is normal in a relationship) then why should a stranger be paid £8 an hour ( or whatever the rate is) yet a relative who cannot work is expected to do the same for £58 a week?
as i said. im really not sure what i think,,, possibly just that carers are really undervalued because they save the country a fortune

clemmatis

princessdon wrote: »

But does it NEED to be flawed? How easy would it be to pay extra to those that pay more and pay less to those that don't?

if someone's needs are purely care and this is paid via CA why get DLA?

Also why is CA means tested? I'd argue that partners like my friends should be able to claim CA despite working = balanced out by loss of DLA

Yes. I think the flaws are inevitable. And on your second point, CA alone is far less than the cost of (paid) care. (When partial care -- meals on wheels, one food shop weekly, a carer to cook an evening meal -- was arranged for me temporarily, some years ago, I had to pay £100 a week.)

I'm not sure your point about non-means tested CA as a replacement for DLA makes much sense. But perhaps I've missed something.

princessdon

nannytone wrote: »

i didnt get anything when i had a pertner. and he worked full time and wouldnt have been able to claim CA as i only get LRC.
it would seem a good idea to
do away with DLA/AA and fund everyone along the lines of direct payments, and assess everyone individually.
but then people who have partners could then choose to pay their partner.
i dont know if i find that unacceptable or not to be honest.
if a partner is providing the care ( obviously it would have been classed as care over and above what is normal in a relationship) then why should a stranger be paid £8 an hour ( or whatever the rate is) yet a relative who cannot work is expected to do the same for £58 a week?
as i said. im really not sure what i think,,, possibly just that carers are really undervalued because they save the country a fortune

I honestly don't have an answer. I would never claim CA even if the £100 pw was not in place as what I do is what any granddaughter does, nothing more really now she has carers in the morning and night, so would be wrong. Same with those in a relationship I guess, the lines are blurred.

Take today, was my mother birthday, so took Gran. Of course I did, I'd not tell her to get the train for 2 hours driving past her house! Nor getting her buffet (got OH too and not disabled). Plus I don't do 35 hours a week now on average etc.

but I do think changes need to be made, not sure how best to implement them, but genuinely feel that those who have CA paid have more disposable DLA than those who don't and this doesn't sit easy with me given the passported benefits.

nannytone_2

you choosing not to claim would be fine. but unlike you, a lot of people are unable to work ( or work minimally) because their caring responsibilities are so great.
i am astounded at times, by the amount of benefits that can be claimed, but at the same time... if peoples needs are deemed to be so great, it really seems wrong to them tell them they need to struggle financially as well

mazza111

princessdon wrote: »

I do think it is strange that we often give money via DLA when it isn't actually needed for the disability. I get needing Taxi's for Mazza's daughter (hope you don't mind me using this as an example) but let say she could drive or had a partner who drove and a mobility car then the taxi bill would be far less (maybe zero), yet they both get paid the same. One person using all and more of DLA on transport and the other - well it's spending money. It's this that I find really bizarre about our current system if honest.

Course I don't mind

But if she could drive (which is in the planning stage atm, trying to find an automatic school that has a car she can get in and out of.) Her DLA money would then fund her car through the motability scheme. So what's she's now spending on taxis would completely go on a car, + perhaps her LRC to pay for fuel. Buying an older car, like I have wouldn't be an option really because she wouldn't have the funds to pay for maintenance etc.

I won't look at the married side of it cos I don't want to even think that way right now :rotfl:I've already shown that because of the non dependent deductions that she could move someone in and still live rent free. But has to pay for having a spare room that she can't access. Which I think is a bit bonkers.

I do agree with what you're saying about those who can completely save their DLA or AA, because they don't need it. But I feel if we go down that road, we'll have more and more people who do need it, who won't get it. Because no matter what way the government try to change things, there are always people who lose out.

welshee

Amount of hours spent on here telling us what people can or cannot do means that you are quite able of working albeit in a advisory role.
Try it and then you could sign off and be a proud person .

mazza111

welshee wrote: »

Amount of hours spent on here telling us what people can or cannot do means that you are quite able of working albeit in a advisory role.
Try it and then you could sign off and be a proud person .

Who's that aimed at?

Not that I need to justify myself, but spend 10 mins at pc at a time before getting up to stretch out.