MSE News: Half a million could lose disability benefits

Dunroamin

clemmatis wrote: »

My apologies. I'm not sure it affects my point, though.

It doesn't but it's good to be accurate.

nannytone_2

DLA os NOT incomme. it has been brought before a court and it is LAW.
so before you start accusing me of massaging the facts, please make sure that what you are claiming is actually LEGALLY correct.

all of the DLA and more is usedd for its intended purpose.

mazza111

dktreesea wrote: »

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".

I'm not even going to read that. Cos it's only terminal conditions that automatically qualify for DLA. DLA is awarded on care and mobility needs. Not by condition. So while someone may claim because they are deaf, I doubt they would be awarded it for being deaf. Unless they couldn't sign. I doubt that would be their only problem.

dori2o

Dunroamin wrote: »

I'm certainly not trying to make you feel guilty but I do wish that you'd stop trying to fiddle the figures. Someone in your situation receives £230 per week which is equivalent to someone non disabled earning a salary of £13,500 on which income you wouldn't be eligible for WTC or any other benefit and out of which they'd have to pay fares and other work related expenses.

I don't begrudge the money to anyone in your situation and, obviously, most people would prefer not have the disability but you have at least the same income as someone earning this sort of wage. I just like to get the facts straight.

Actually you're wrong there.

GlasweJen

Dunroamin wrote: »

Incorrect, I'm afraid. You can claim DLA (or AA for that matter) under the "Special Rules" for any terminal condition, not just cancer.

Thanks for this. Cancer seems to have a monopoly in people's minds, no harm to cancer sufferers but there are other serious and deadly illnesses out there but the public perceive cancer as being more serious.

I was told 3 days before transplant that I should think myself lucky I don't have cancer, at that point I had 48 hours to live and was drowning in my own body fluids.

Xign

This thread has degenerated into a similar tone as that of the thread a few weeks back about 'permitted work being unfair' or something.

Bryando

I am more than happy to be re-assessed at the end of the day, the fact people have been left for years on DLA without assessment is surely not right?

Currently going through the tribunal process in regards to DLA. Was awarded low rate mobility. Appealing as think it should be high rate and the same for care. Was previously on low mobility and high care.

What strikes me is the way the tribunal is gathering additional information. They have requested a medical to be done on myself, as my consultant's report was lacking. He is a Doctor, so don't blame him for the lacking report on reflection.

This medical will be done by a GP with NO medical file on me, so it simply comes down to whether he/she believes me. Surely the most logic approach would be to submit questions the tribunal want answered by the consultant with full access to case notes etc?

If it was not for the care of my partner I would be costing the NHS/police many many thousands of pounds per month. I think they people that will have their DLA taken from them, or more so refused PIP will just become a strain on local services. Therefore costing more for services.

Dunroamin

dori2o wrote: »

Actually you're wrong there.

I ran the figures through entitled to and that was the result, although I know it isn't always 100% accurate. What amounts did it give you?

Dunroamin

mazza111 wrote: »

I'm not even going to read that. Cos it's only terminal conditions that automatically qualify for DLA. DLA is awarded on care and mobility needs. Not by condition. So while someone may claim because they are deaf, I doubt they would be awarded it for being deaf. Unless they couldn't sign. I doubt that would be their only problem.

According to http://www.deafsign.com/ds/index.cfm?scn=article&articleID=27 middle rate care is the appropriate benefit for someone whose only disability is deafness.

"Where deafness is the only disability, the middle rate for frequent attention throughout the day is appropriate."

Dunroamin

GlasweJen wrote: »

Thanks for this. Cancer seems to have a monopoly in people's minds, no harm to cancer sufferers but there are other serious and deadly illnesses out there but the public perceive cancer as being more serious.

I was told 3 days before transplant that I should think myself lucky I don't have cancer, at that point I had 48 hours to live and was drowning in my own body fluids.

Tell me about it! There is so much extra help in place for cancer sufferers but virtually nothing for people with other severe or terminal conditions.