MSE News: Half a million could lose disability benefits

clemmatis

krisskross wrote: »

My point always has been that if someone says they have substantial care needs and are applying for extra money because of those needs then how are they still managing without these substantial care needs being met?

I know that's what you say. You say it despite the explanations you receive,

My husband has substantial care needs. They are met in full. In fact he must be one of the most cossetted men on the planet. The fact that I personally meet those needs is neither here nor there. He would die quite soon without the care. How many of those claiming extra money for care, but not receiving any care could say the same?

Ah yes. You really do want to compare your husband with someone who receives the DLA equivalent of his AA but has fewer needs, when it is obvious that a simple banded system like DLA/AA will lump different levels of need together. Well, that's how it is. Different levels of need will inevitably be lumped together. Other claimants do not have to be able to say the same as your husband. We are not engaged in a worthiness contest here.

ineed

Anubis wrote: »

This is what many who are currently healthy don't appear to realise. Mine was gradual but I went from being an extremely active and energetic workaholic to a wheelchair in less than two years. Now I am for the most part, bedbound.

My friends used to always comment how agile I was and a "picture of health." We really shouldn't be complacent as far as health is concerned but I suppose it's natural.

Very true, I know I took my health for granted before I became ill. My illness came on quite suddenly, one minuet I was a promising student, top of my class with distinctions and honours, next minuet I'm collapsing outside my doctors surgery and a nurse is having to get me a wheelchair so I can make it inside the building.

It's easy for a small number of narrow minded people to pass judgment on things they don't understand, let's hope those people never have to experience illness or disability themselves. I don't think they'd cope.

krisskross

clemmatis wrote: »

Ah yes. You really do want to compare your husband with someone who receives the DLA equivalent of his AA but has fewer needs, when it is obvious that a simple banded system like DLA/AA will lump different levels of need together. Well, that's how it is. Different levels of need will inevitably be lumped together. Other claimants do not have to be able to say the same as your husband. We are not engaged in a worthiness contest here.

Oh I agree. However many explanations I am given I still do not understand how someone can claim extra money for their perceived substantial care needs throughout the day and night and suggest they are in physical danger because of these needs yet put nothing in place with the money received to attempt to alleviate these substantial needs.

It honestly makes no sense.

I have absolutely no problems with extra money being given to disabled people. I simply think if they are claiming the extra money for care then they should get at least some care with the money rather than it being just extra money.

I know you have a huge issue with my husband claiming AA but at least he gets the care he says he needs. It's not just a paper need to get more money.

anguk

I don't normally bite when someone is deliberately trolling and trying to get a reaction but today has been a really bad day. A vascular surgeon told us this morning that nothing could be done to save my husbands leg and he will be getting it amputated in the next couple of weeks. He had his first leg amputated 8 years ago and now he's losing his remaining leg, this is on top of his other health problems which includes dialysis for 5 hours a day, 3 times a week.

So yes we are those "scroungers" who will do anything to avoid work, those scroungers who you seem to hate and would like to see shipped out of this country. Maybe I should hide my husband away in a cupboard somewhere so your sensitive eyes don't even have to see a man with no legs because that will just remind you how despicable we are to scrounge from good tax payers like yourself? :mad:

As for your assumption that people get disability benefits because in their childhood they couldn't tie a shoelace! My husband could tie his laces when he was a child but unfortunately he can't now because he's had all the fingers on his left hand amputated. But that's actually the least of his problems and not the reason he gets any benefits.

Oh and everyone has to pay water rates, even those nasty scroungers like ourselves. We pay exactly the same water rates as the family of 5 working adults who live next door.

Anubis_2

anguk wrote: »

I don't normally bite when someone is deliberately trolling and trying to get a reaction but today has been a really bad day. A vascular surgeon told us this morning that nothing could be done to save my husbands leg and he will be getting it amputated in the next couple of weeks. He had his first leg amputated 8 years ago and now he's losing his remaining leg, this is on top of his other health problems which includes dialysis for 5 hours a day, 3 times a week.

So yes we are those "scroungers" who will do anything to avoid work, those scroungers who you seem to hate and would like to see shipped out of this country. Maybe I should hide my husband away in a cupboard somewhere so your sensitive eyes don't even have to see a man with no legs because that will just remind you how despicable we are to scrounge from good tax payers like yourself? :mad:

As for your assumption that people get disability benefits because in their childhood they couldn't tie a shoelace! My husband could tie his laces when he was a child but unfortunately he can't now because he's had all the fingers on his left hand amputated. But that's actually the least of his problems and not the reason he gets any benefits.

Oh and everyone has to pay water rates, even those nasty scroungers like ourselves. We pay exactly the same water rates as the family of 5 working adults who live next door.

So sorry to hear about your husband Ang

My FIL went through similar although perhaps for a different reason but unfortunately had to have three amps on one leg, two on the other but that was a few years ago.

I really do think some people are not capable of imagining what it can be like for others, as they may feel they are infallible health wise.

My MIL looks after him 24/7 and is in her mid 70's, she doesn't claim carers or anything. Inbetween various stages of his problems my FIL worked all his life as did MIL.

His conditions are now such that it's affecting her health and she had a stroke last year but still doesn't claim and carries on. My MIL is everything to me, I adore her and respect her so much.

My FIL never thought he would get ill and was, if I am honest, complacent, but it can and does happen to anyone at any given time. Life has that way of turning upside down suddenly.

I know from your previous posts what you do for your husband and its admirable. I think that carers can get the short end if the stick. Everyone goes on about disabled persons rights but carers tend to be shoved in the background in such debates.

Many are undervalued I feel. It takes a strong marraige to weather the storm of one partner becoming disabled and having to be dependant on the other. It would be good if we could do a disability/carers swap temporarily with healthy people who have the attitude of posters like business man. It might make them realise a few things.

We are fortunate to live in a country that supports us financially, however things are becoming difficult and I fear the outcome for those who genuinely cannot support themselves. I can also hope and pray that my children are able to support themselves in the years ahead.

clemmatis

krisskross wrote: »

I know you have a huge issue with my husband claiming AA but at least he gets the care he says he needs. It's not just a paper need to get more money.

You may think you know I "have a huge issue with" your husband claiming AA; you may, rather, find it convenient to suggest to posters here that I have; but it is, as anyone who has read my posts on this will know, not true. It is not true. Simply on the basis of what you've said on this forum, I support it fully.

And I do not "have a huge issue with" you and your husband claiming a Care benefit you do not need, or with your spending that benefit on items for which it is not intended, like expensive specialist headphones that are not actually essential, and taxis. That is fine by me.

So, what do I object to? I object to your attitude to other claimants, and for example, your comments about how they spend their DLA and whether or not they should be re-assessed. You apply one set of standards to yourself and another to other claimants. I "have a huge issue" with that.

Broke_n_Broken

krisskross wrote: »

[/B]

Oh I agree. However many explanations I am given I still do not understand how someone can claim extra money for their perceived substantial care needs throughout the day and night and suggest they are in physical danger because of these needs yet put nothing in place with the money received to attempt to alleviate these substantial needs.

It honestly makes no sense.

I have absolutely no problems with extra money being given to disabled people. I simply think if they are claiming the extra money for care then they should get at least some care with the money rather than it being just extra money.

I agree, in principle. Give help, not hand-outs, teach a man to fish & all that...
That said, how do you know what people are spending their money on?

Having extra money to spend may be enough to keep someone alive & just plodding along.

"Free" calls to charities like Samaritans aren't free on all mobile networks.
New clothes may be enough to keep someone out of a depression, for a few days.
Going to the pub may be the only time someone gets out the house.

It won't cure the problem, that's the trouble, but where do they go for help?
Not everyone knows.
Not everyone feels comfortable asking for the help they need.
Some people have trust issues, some don't like using the phone, some just don't like talking to people.
Some get the wrong "help" then give up.
Some (like me) ask for help & get ignored.
(ETA: I don't (yet) get DLA, though I have applied.)

You know what I wish I could say?... KEEP YOUR DAMN MONEY, GIVE ME MY LIFE BACK

rogerblack

anguk wrote: »

Oh and everyone has to pay water rates, even those nasty scroungers like ourselves. We pay exactly the same water rates as the family of 5 working adults who live next door.

There is actually some truth in this rant.

In Scotland, water rates are based on the council tax band.
In some cases (if you need an extra room, or a larger property due to your disability), you may be eligible to be dropped a council tax band.

In addition, if you have a disability that means you need to use a lot of water, and are on a water meter, there is a seperate scheme which may cap your water use. http://www.water.org.uk/home/resources-and-links/paying-for-water/jargon#Sure

(Also applicable to those with three children under 19)

Anubis_2

rogerblack wrote: »

There is actually some truth in this rant.

In Scotland, water rates are based on the council tax band.
In some cases (if you need an extra room, or a larger property due to your disability), you may be eligible to be dropped a council tax band.

In addition, if you have a disability that means you need to use a lot of water, and are on a water meter, there is a seperate scheme which may cap your water use. http://www.water.org.uk/home/resources-and-links/paying-for-water/jargon#Sure

(Also applicable to those with three children under 19)

Lot of criteria for the concession though, and they still pay towards the water from what I can see, and it only applies to Scotland so not everyone is entitled.

jamespir

krisskross wrote: »

How about adding in the housing costs paid if no one works? I am sure many families claiming benefits because of a disabled person receive £20K+ in total benefits. As I said enough to pay for a care home for the disabled person, then the non disabled person is free to work and support themself.

why should people be split up because one has a disability ? and why do disabled people need to go in a home ??