MSE News: Half a million could lose disability benefits

clemmatis

mazza111 wrote: »

Who's that aimed at?

I wondered that too. Obviously welshee (I thank my lucky stars I'm only half Welsh...) doesn't realise DLA is not an out of work benefit, or that there's a shortage of jobs, etc..

dktreesea

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)

The government appear to be of the opinion all disabled people should work, based on the amount of people they are taking income support style disability payments from via ATOS. Not to mention the people being told they are not disabled at all so therefore not entitled to any extra help.

It needs to make up its mind. Whether they like it or not, someone who, for example, has bowel or bladder control problems for whatever reason may not be able to take a job working away from home even if they could get such a job. If it believes a disability is not something the taxpayer should fork out for over and above what it would pay for, say, JSA or ESA then it should cancel the extra payments and provide appropriate services instead. As it is we have plenty of disabled people being left in limbo, being told they are capable of working, and being made to jump through endless hoops as a result.

We are constantly being told by the government that the taxpayer cannot afford to continue to provide the current services/payments, but their way of dealing with that is completely unfair to the people who are being personally targetted for reduction of payments. They should either raise taxes to cover the costs or cut the costs, for everyone.

speedfreek1000

Dunroamin wrote: »

I don't think most of us consider going shopping as a social interaction

I hope you use all this time/seniorority you keep saying you've spent/have on here to tell the 2 ATOS HCPs and the 4 DWP Decision Makers who've decided my ESA claims that :money:

As I have 6 reports/letters from the DWP/ATOS stating Social Interaction is not precluded due to being able to go shopping once a week :j

Dunroamin

speedfreek1000 wrote: »

I hope you use all this time/seniorority you keep saying you've spent/have on here to tell the 2 ATOS HCPs and the 4 DWP Decision Makers who've decided my ESA claims that :money:

As I have 6 reports/letters from the DWP/ATOS stating Social Interaction is not precluded due to being able to go shopping once a week :j

I think you've misunderstood this. They seem to be saying that as you can get out to the shops once a week, you could go out and socialise. Well, that's how I'd take what you've said.

speedfreek1000

Dunroamin wrote: »

I think you've misunderstood this. They seem to be saying that as you can get out to the shops once a week, you could go out and socialise. Well, that's how I'd take what you've said.

No!

Paying for a fare on a bus is counted as social interaction!

Talking to the ATOS HCP is also classed as social interaction.

Surprised me this one but no Tribunal rulings back this up to. Being able to say thank you to a shop assistant is enough to fail you.

mazza111

dktreesea wrote: »

The government appear to be of the opinion all disabled people should work, based on the amount of people they are taking income support style disability payments from via ATOS. Not to mention the people being told they are not disabled at all so therefore not entitled to any extra help.

Preaching to the choir on that one. I have agreed several times that the WCA is not fit for purpose, nor are ATOS the right people to do it.

It needs to make up its mind. Whether they like it or not, someone who, for example, has bowel or bladder control problems for whatever reason may not be able to take a job working away from home even if they could get such a job. If it believes a disability is not something the taxpayer should fork out for over and above what it would pay for, say, JSA or ESA then it should cancel the extra payments and provide appropriate services instead. As it is we have plenty of disabled people being left in limbo, being told they are capable of working, and being made to jump through endless hoops as a result.

We are constantly being told by the government that the taxpayer cannot afford to continue to provide the current services/payments, but their way of dealing with that is completely unfair to the people who are being personally targetted for reduction of payments. They should either raise taxes to cover the costs or cut the costs, for everyone.

While I agree they are cutting in all the wrong places. Cutting what they give those disabled is not the answer. Yes it can mean that those who are perhaps part of a couple may be quite well off, but for those in the position of my dd, who use their DLA as it was intended... I find it really unfair.

I've already been through the battles of ATOS with her, and expect to need to do it again soon. I only hope that they will look on her and do a paper award like they have done with me. In all honesty I'm dreading that letter coming through every time.

The disabled services in our area are pretty good in all honesty, 5 miles down the road at my mam's it's a totally different story. Like most things these days it's a postcode lottery.

dktreesea

mazza111 wrote: »

Preaching to the choir on that one. I have agreed several times that the WCA is not fit for purpose, nor are ATOS the right people to do it.



While I agree they are cutting in all the wrong places. Cutting what they give those disabled is not the answer. Yes it can mean that those who are perhaps part of a couple may be quite well off, but for those in the position of my dd, who use their DLA as it was intended... I find it really unfair.

I've already been through the battles of ATOS with her, and expect to need to do it again soon. I only hope that they will look on her and do a paper award like they have done with me. In all honesty I'm dreading that letter coming through every time.

The disabled services in our area are pretty good in all honesty, 5 miles down the road at my mam's it's a totally different story. Like most things these days it's a postcode lottery.

I find services aren't always fit for purpose. There's a lady in our street, in her 30s, who has a carer come in with a meal for her. But the carer has a ten minute turnaround. How can you even heat up a meal and get the lady organised in ten minutes, let alone make sure she gets fed? The carer said to me they are doing their best but stretched to the limit (an understatement, to be sure) and "why aren't the lady's family helping her"? Who knows why that is - maybe they just can't cope with working full time and being a carer. But it really isn't the point. This lady has been assessed as needing care, including making sure she gets a meal. "Gets a meal", to me, doesn't mean turning up, dumping the food, and skeddadling off to the next person on the list. I know it's not the carer's fault. They can only do what the council let them do.

mazza111

dktreesea wrote: »

I find services aren't always fit for purpose. There's a lady in our street, in her 30s, who has a carer come in with a meal for her. But the carer has a ten minute turnaround. How can you even heat up a meal and get the lady organised in ten minutes, let alone make sure she gets fed? The carer said to me they are doing their best but stretched to the limit (an understatement, to be sure) and "why aren't the lady's family helping her"? Who knows why that is - maybe they just can't cope with working full time and being a carer. But it really isn't the point. This lady has been assessed as needing care, including making sure she gets a meal. "Gets a meal", to me, doesn't mean turning up, dumping the food, and skeddadling off to the next person on the list. I know it's not the carer's fault. They can only do what the council let them do.

That sounds almost like meals on wheels. If she was assessed as needing help to prepare and cook a meal and didn't want meals on wheels type of thing she would probably get it. Usually the meals are put in microwave for a minute or two and served. If this lady thinks she needs more time, then she should ask to be reassessed.

However, what I've found is, the carers' schedules are so tight that the clients aren't getting the full time that's awarded to them. My mam has someone goes in every morning for an hour. If she has someone who walks between clients, my mam's time gets cut so she can get to the next client in time. Of course my mam complained about it, and now always gets someone who drives, but she always gets her full time these days. Families usually do what they can, but often it's just not enough.

dktreesea

mazza111 wrote: »

Cutting what they give those disabled is not the answer. Yes it can mean that those who are perhaps part of a couple may be quite well off, but for those in the position of my dd, who use their DLA as it was intended... I find it really unfair.

I've already been through the battles of ATOS with her, and expect to need to do it again soon. I only hope that they will look on her and do a paper award like they have done with me. In all honesty I'm dreading that letter coming through every time.

The problem from the taxpayer's point of view is that the DLA seems to be a payment to compensate people for being disabled, regardless of whether or not the DLA is actually needed to relieve the disability directly. This list is from May 2011, but take a look at some of the conditions that qualify for disability allowance:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jan/18/disability-living-allowance-data
All of those conditions may well make the people who suffer from them miserable. And may also mean they cannot function at the same level as an able bodied person. But where do you draw the line? At what point does the taxpayer's interests override the right of the person with an impairment to help themselves to the taxpayer's money?

And the numbers receiving DLA are increasing, in spite of the government's best efforts to restrict eligibility.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statistical-update-disability-living-allowance-claims
Of course they are increasing. It's so financially rewarding to be labelled "disabled".

nannytone_2

my father in law was assessed as needing help with washing, shaving, dressing and all meals. the only thing he managed was his medication ( in blister packs) he was given 20 minutes x 3 daily. mybe the tea time visit ( a dandwich) was sufficient, but breakfast and dinner time vertainly werent long enough to make him a proper meal and to help him wash, dress and wat breakfast