MSE News: Half a million could lose disability benefits

dktreesea

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.

Okay, I'll bite. So how is it, according to the statistics, over 500,000 people receive DLA for their arthritis? Arthritis may not be curable but it isn't terminal. If you are correct, why are there so many recipients of DLA for a bad back?

Dunroamin

dktreesea wrote: »

Okay, I'll bite. So how is it, according to the statistics, over 500,000 people receive DLA for their arthritis? Arthritis may not be curable but it isn't terminal. If you are correct, why are there so many recipients of DLA for a bad back?

It's getting mobility DLA for mental illness that always puzzles me.

welshee

Dunroamin wrote: »

It's getting mobility DLA for mental illness that always puzzles me.

Your lucky the whole bloody lot puzzles me.

dktreesea

nannytone wrote: »

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.

It may not be assessible for tax and may not be legally defined as "income" but nevertheless it forms part of what people in receipt of it have to live on.

Someone on the minimum wage, full time (37.5 hours a week) living alone and entitled to a one bedroom flat would clear £213 after tax, and get a further £7.66 a week in WTC plus £17.34 in housing benefit (the area where I live, if entitled to one bedroom), for a net income of £238.21 a week after tax. (source: Directgov benefits calculator)

If the government were really serious about reform, and £213 after tax isn't enough to live on without resorting to benefits, then the government should raise the full time minimum wage up sufficiently to ensure that earning the FT NMW means you earn too much to qualify for HB/LHA, CTC and WTC.

If the government is serious about making work pay, it should then cut benefits sufficiently so that they are capped at, say, 75% of the FT NMW after tax. For everyone on benefits. Including the disabled.

How can you "make work pay" if there are a raft of benefits available that pay you more not to work, i.e. the current situation?

nannytone_2

dktreesea wrote: »

Okay, I'll bite. So how is it, according to the statistics, over 500,000 people receive DLA for their arthritis? Arthritis may not be curable but it isn't terminal. If you are correct, why are there so many recipients of DLA for a bad back?

mazza was talking about automatically receiveing DLA under the 'special rules'
this is for people with terminal illness.

as far as i am aware arthritis isnt a terminal condition, so you are talking about something completely different

nannytone_2

Dunroamin wrote: »

It's getting mobility DLA for mental illness that always puzzles me.

it's for supervision.
why should that be puzzling>

nannytone_2

'make work pay'?
i agree that employers are allowed to pay an unlivable wage whilst the taxpayer makes up the shortfall.
this isnt an issue with benefit rates... it is an issue with employers being allowed to take advantage of the system.

cutting benefits to people unable to work or at a serious disadvantage if finding work is a good idea how exactly?
make them starve and they will siddenly be well enough/less disabled?

i know blind people work, and i worked up until 5 years ago even though i was registered vlind in 1996.
but until that time i had some 'usavle' sight' now i dont.
blind people that hold down full time jobs tend to be at managerial of higher levels.
it isnt so easy for the 'non experinced' blind to find employment

Dunroamin

nannytone wrote: »

it's for supervision.
why should that be puzzling>

"Supervision" seems to me to be about care, not mobility.

nannytone_2

Dunroamin wrote: »

"Supervision" seems to me to be about care, not mobility.

if it is outdoors, then it is classed as mobility,

trouble with walking indoors ( risk of falling) is a care issue.
thats just the rules

clemmatis

dktreesea wrote: »

Okay, I'll bite. So how is it, according to the statistics, over 500,000 people receive DLA for their arthritis? Arthritis may not be curable but it isn't terminal. If you are correct, why are there so many recipients of DLA for a bad back?

Nobody gets DLA "for their arthritis". As we have told you, it is given for care/mobility needs. However, claimants are required to list all conditions (and all medication etc. and all medical personnel consulted, etc.).

As more than one poster here has told you, only terminal illnesses -- only diagnoses that state a patient is terminally ill -- give automatic entitlement to DLA. In all other cases, claimants must demonstrate care/mobility needs.

The "bad back" claimants may have pretty severe problems but no diagnosis -- though they may have a diagnosis: the category in the Guardian table's "Other (diagnosis)/Precise Diagnosis not Specified". They may have other conditions (many on DLA do). They may be people whose pain is caused by physical and psychological stress/tension but who have not received appropriate help and treatment (John Sarno of NYU's School of Medicine is an expert on this; I don't buy his entire theory but that's another story).