MSE News: Half a million could lose disability benefits

Morlock

dktreesea wrote: »

If you are correct, why are there so many recipients of DLA for a bad back?

How many claimants receive DLA for a 'bad back'?

Dunroamin

nannytone wrote: »

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

I know it's the rules - that doesn't make it any more sensible. Rather like being able to claim DLA Mobility for severe agoraphobia or when bedbound.

Dunroamin

Morlock wrote: »

How many claimants receive DLA for a 'bad back'?

According to the Guardian, about 150,000 for those without a specific diagnosis.

Morlock

dktreesea wrote: »

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.

This is effectively what the government is already doing, except it is not raising minimum wage, just cutting benefits. Work will obviously 'pay' when the alternative, claiming benefits, is increasingly unsustainable even at subsistence levels.

Make work pay, something is better than nothing.

Morlock

Dunroamin wrote: »

According to the Guardian, about 150,000 for those without a specific diagnosis.

And how many according to the Daily Mail?

KxMx

I don't get DLA so maybe this is a moot point; but the Drs are still trying to find out what's wrong with me. You may view me as exception (tests 3-4 years been sick longer than that) but as an undiagnosed person the more I reach out to find others the more I find. It's actually quite shocking. Science in 2013 ain't all it let me tell you.

I've obviously got something quite exotic because a couple of treatments for non-specific inflammation (which is the most Drs can tell me) didn't work, i've never known inflammation to be higher after 39 days of steroids than before, neither have my Drs!

mazza111

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?

Because they don't get it because they have a bad back or arthritis. They get it because they have care or mobility needs because of the arthritis or bad back. It's only automatically given when there is terminal cancer or sometimes other terminal conditions.

Dunroamin wrote: »

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."

I'd like to see that on a government site tbh. Or maybe I just can't imagine a deaf person needing that much care. But maybe I'm being naive in thinking that. You only miss a sense when you've lost it, and although the fella calls me a deaf old bat, I'm not, I just choose to ignore him

Dunroamin wrote: »

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

I've actually wondered about that one too, but maybe it's because they can't go out on their own due to severe panic attacks or some sort of phychosis (es) not sure on the plural of that one :rotfl:

DLA is often given when a diagnosis isn't present. It was with my daughter, but then she was very obviously HMS.

clemmatis

Dunroamin wrote: »

According to the Guardian, about 150,000 for those without a specific diagnosis.

First, it's "Other (diagnosis)/Precise Diagnosis not Specified". Second, they do not get it *for* a bad back. Third, of the 150,000, 68,000 receive LRC and 25,000 receive Mobility only.

dori2o

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 amazes me that people willingly stick the boot into people claiming DLA when they are completely unclear as to how and why the benefit is awarded.

Here's some facts the disabled bashers need to understand before they start to abuse those with disabilities.

DLA is not and never has been an out of work benefit. You can get it regardless of your employment/work status.

DLA is not awarded on individual diagnosis except in the special cases which are normally terminal cancers etc. Those people get fast tracked onto the benefit to ensure they have the benefit of being able to use the money to help with care in their final days/months.

Nobody other than those people are awarded DLA on diagnosis alone. Having Arthritis, or being a paraplegic does not automatically mean you get the benefit, it is how the conditions you have affect your ability to live a normal life.

I could have a condition that affected my life to such an extent that I couldn't walk, or feed myself, or be left alone without supervision. I would likely be awarded DLA for this. Someone else could have exactly the same condition and not have the same prblems and be able to lead a normal life. They wouldn't get the benefit. It isn't the name of the condition you have that matters when claiming DLA.

Bad Backs. Do you people actually realise that this very vague description of a medical complain could mean a number of things for people sufferring from a 'bad back'.

I have a bad back along with my other condition. It is partly a consequence of the way I walk, I have not mentioned it on my claim forms as it doesn't sufficiently affect me bad enough to bother with. I receive no treatment for it and have no medical history in respect of it. However, it is also likely a due in part to a hereditory condition my brother has been diagnosed with, that my Dad has, that my Grandfather had, and so did his Dad etc etc. The conditions causes the spine to crumble as you get older.

My Dad suffers with this very badly. He also has 5 prolapsed disks which cannot be treated, he has ankylosing spondilosis and sciatica plus another condition which affects his nervous system which I cannot presently remember the name of.

He cannot feel the bottom of his legs (though he's not paralysed), he has no feeling down his left side of his upper body due to the pressure being put onto his spinal coloumn. He cannot walk without pain, he cannot sit for more than 20 minutes at a time, this is a real problem for travelling/driving.

He has, as you would put it, a 'bad back'. He gets DLA.

Despite what you choose to believe getting DLA is not at all easy. I very nearly had a breakdown with the stress and pressure caused by the application/appeal/tribunal process. It took me more than 12 months to be awarded it from the date I submitted the forms. I had to write 'war and peace' as an accompanyment to my claim. i submitted copious amounts of evidence and still they denied the claim. Only at Tribunal where the panel could see first hand how I was affected did I get awarded what I was legally entitled to.

Maybe those who bash the disabled for claiming this benefit should take a minute to try and step into their shoes. It's not the party you believe it to be. I'll gladly give you MY money in exchange for you also taking my disability and giving me a pain free, actively mobile life.

Deal?



Thought not.

Dunroamin

Morlock wrote: »

And how many according to the Daily Mail?

I have no idea, you're the one with the DM fetish.;)