MSE News: Half a million could lose disability benefits

bigboybrother

nannytone wrote: »

.

i also have had hb reduced, due to having an extra room that i dont use and dont want. but there are no 1 bedroomed properties where i live, and my disability means that it is impossible for me to move, as my support network is here and i wouldnt manage in an unfamiliar place.

Are you seriously saying that there are no 1 bed flats or studios to rent in your area? Tell you what give me the first part of your post code and I am sure that I could find something.

scootw1

clemmatis wrote: »

Given dktreesea's commemts about other people's money/the money of strangers I doubt he'd support you! and shouldn't, in good faith.

But let me answer you. The best way to combat fraud is to stop the benefit being given to claimants who don't meet the requirements but have managed to get it by fraudulent means. And -- and I really do believe this -- assessing individual needs and meeting them properly would cost more than DLA does; OTOH some needs would be misassessed or overlooked..The infrastructure to provide them is not in place.

And then, too, why should disabled people be refused cash benefits when others receive them? Why should child benefit and state pensions, e.g., be paid in cash rather than in kind?

I agree that the fraudsters should be weeded out. I don't believe it would cost more to assess individual needs as this would form part of the dla assessment so no additional costs. On your last point, dla is to meet additional needs, child benefit and pensions are to pay for food and bills, two different things so administered in different ways (or should be). Though I do think child benefits need to be restricted but that's another discussion.

dktreesea

mazza111 wrote: »

I said lie on the form because that's what you said you had been advised to do. Told to say you need someone with you, when you say you can walk up stairs albeit slowly. That would be fraud imo. If you're entitled to it, you will get it without lying. And at the end of the day. It would be your name signing the form not anyone else's.

I'm glad of every penny my lass gets from them. It makes her quality of life so much better. In an ideal world, services would be better and she wouldn't need to spend most of her money on taxis, but as they are at the moment. She's got a wee bit of a life. Without it, she'd have very little quality. Only being able to go out when her old mam is able to take her.

It's more subtle than that. I would have days when someone helps me up the stairs. But at the same time, on those very days, if a person was not with me to help me, I would still have to get up the stairs. The way it was put to me was when you apply for DLA, you focus on what you can't do well, not what you can do. Yes, I get the logic. I can't walk up stairs reliably. If I want DLA, I have to say so. If someone can walk 40 metres, they can also walk 80 metres. So why is it some people who have trouble walking get DLA and some fail? This phsyiotherapist trying to pressure me to apply for DLA was telling me that they see a lot of disabled people - obviously; it's their job - and "can tell which ones qualify for help". But what she really meant was that they have sufficient evidence, over a long period of time, to support the claim. For a health professional (as opposed to ATOS, who are incentivised differently) getting a person they think qualifies to receive the money they are entitled to is a win.

But it's not help, is it. It's someone else's money. Depriving someone else of their money just so one can have a better life may well be lawful, and not involve lying at all, but it doesn't make it right. I thought it was immoral and said so. You know what her boss told me? It's immoral not to apply, because every person who should be getting DLA but chooses not to makes it harder for all the rest to get it. So much for "indpendent assessment".

dktreesea

clemmatis wrote: »

I am reluctant to reply to you again given that

-- you wasted the time of a number of us by giving the impression you knew more or less nothing about DLA: and did not exactly hurry to correct that

???? I am not sure how you formed that impression. Just because people are disabled it doesn't follow that they go onto to claim DLA. Arthritis sufferers are a good case in point. They number in their millions, but less than a million receive DLA. That's because the rest, by and large, don't claim it.

clemmatis wrote: »

-- you use rhetoric ("the money of strangers") suggesting a deep antipathy to welfare states, but do not argue that openly

And what is welfare if not other people's money? Welfare should be what is was originally intended for, last resort money for essentials, not a means for some sections of the population to live even better than people on the FT NMW. Yes, I think it's scandalous that someone earning as little as the FT NMW should be asked to pay income tax, to pony up so that other people can have a chunk of his or her earnings.

clemmatis wrote: »

(having you and Andy in the same thread is quite something).

Still, I'll spell the point out, using your example. Yes, the person on JSA gets as hungry as the disabled person. So, we give them the same amount of that kind of benefit. But the disabled person has other needs/expenses; and if they succeed in claiming DLA we make a contribution towards the extra costs. Clearly some will not incur the costs -- and some on JSA will need less food -- but economic efficiency dictates that we cut corners rather than cater to each individual's needs.

Saying a disabled person has other needs and expenses is a huge generalisation. I can't speak for other disabilities, but if you have arthritis it generally takes longer to do everything, for sure. A ten minute shower for an able bodied person can take an hour for an arthritic one. Its a physically painful condition. Arthritic people have to pace themselves. But to say a person with the condition is deserving of so much more money from the taxpayer than they would get if they were able bodied, especially if the person doing the paying earns less than the person with the condition.... - well, it may be legal, but that doesn't make it right.

dktreesea

scootw1 wrote: »

But surely if the extra needs were paid by the state rather than give extra money which can be spent on anything, and often is, it would stamp out some of the fraud going on. Lots of people spend dla on beer and gambling (and yes I know this for sure) so it's obvious those people do not need it. Lots of people need it, lots don't but still get it.

Welcome to the 21st century welfare state British style. Need doesn't come into it. The buzz word is entitlement. Lots of people receiving any kind of benefit fritter it away, not just those on DLA.

skintmacflint

dori2o wrote: »

.

I do, and have, tried almost everything there is available to help control my condition. The NHS in my area refuses to fund chinese acupuncture. A GP in our surgery offers it but even by his own admittance it is only a very basic understanding that he has. I therefore have to pay for this myself. I believe it has helped me to maintain a level of pain relief that allows me to function enough to be able to get to work. These sessions are £35 a session. I have 1 or 2 a month.

I also have reflexology sessions. Again the NHS refuses to pay for these, so I have to pay for them myself. These cost £25 a session and I have 1 a month.

Massages. I have a deep tissue massage on my legs and on my back. These cost £18 a session and I try and get one a month depending on finances.

Perhaps different in your area, however the NHS Pain consultant in ours frequently refers patients with chronic pain condition for NHS acupuncture, reflexology sessions, aromatherapy oil massage as well as the other more traditional treatments, and distraction tecniques..All organised under the umberella of the hospital Pain Clinic Dept.

They are also more flexible than GP's or consultants usually in which type or combination of pain medication they will prescribe.

dktreesea

clemmatis wrote: »

I'd have thought being disabled was a rather good reason for "helping ourselves to other people's money" i.e. making use of the welfare state. I assume you do make use of that; clearly you use NHS hospitals. We have got, I'd have said, to a rather civilised stage; but we are going backwards.

The difference is no one in their right mind would use an NHS hospital unless it was an emergency. An NHS hospital is a last resort, only used when other options have failed. Even going to the doctor - most people only go to a doctor if they absolutely have to. The NHS may well provide very good serivce when you need it, but it is only funded for people who absolutely need it. And even then not always adequately funded.

Being disabled is different because it is based on entitlement. The money is compensation for a change in lifestyle, not for the better, caused by your condition. Do I support funding the services disabled people need to manage their condition? For sure. I'd rather see people who need bionic arms and legs getting them, rather than people who don't actually need the money (notwithstanding they get a huge boost to the quality oftheir life from having the money) getting it just because they are entitled to it. Every pound of benefit spent on unnecessary things like drinking, smoking, gambling, travelling in taxies when the bus would do, is, imho, a slap in the face to people who are blind/limbless/have cancer etc, who are treated with inferior medicines or not given the right treatment that is available because it is too expensive.

If we really restricted direct welfare benefits just to what people need, and did things like restrict the number of children supported, not to mention means tested every benefit, maybe this would be the norm rather than the exception:
http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Dialysis-man-wins-benefit-cut-U-turn/story-18531156-detail/story.html#axzz2RL6chc6B

mazza111

princessdon wrote: »

They'd probably provide it free if you ask too

No both local colleges charge £6.

Dori that's a shame. Cos it may have allowed you to go a couple of times a month. The college I go to doesn't offer the deep tissue massage as advertised, but when I went and explained my problems, the lass said, right deep tissue it is then.. And has been ever since

dktreesea - Seriously, now you expect everyone to go private? We've all paid for the NHS through the years, and yes some of us will use it more than others. That's the beauty of it. If u can afford to go private, then by all means do it, I don't begrudge u that. But many of us can't afford to do that. Especially not when on benefits. More so those that have been struck down early in life with disability who haven't had a chance to build up a rainy day fund.

I think I'm gonna need to pay to get someone in for the DD when I have my op, cos the bro's away one week, and my sis is really not fit to do it all. Rest of the family will be working Or maybe in some people's eyes I should just let her rot.

~Chameleon~

Dunroamin wrote: »

But you've said before that you're within walking distance of the gym and shops. (although how you manage to have a gym and shops in a very rural area beats me.

You're unbelievable! Just because something doesn't exist in your world you assume it can't happen anywhere else!

I also live in a very rural area and have a gym within reasonable walking distance, plus another two miles away and two more within a 4-8 mile distance!

Do you think people in the countryside don't like to keep fit too? We also have numerous community classes and bootcamps going on in the village too!

Oh yes, we also have these things called shops too and even a petrol station!

~Chameleon~

princessdon wrote: »

It's because i DO understand I'd rather see money thrown at employers. I can get 60 hrs per month flexi built up (15 with no flexi on system), work from home often. Being honest I use more in parental need than disability, but following a major operation 2 years ago worked 4 months at home (other jobs would have been sick).

It's why I hugely support working, attempting to work and changing employers and policy into what can be done.

How do you propose a vet works from home then? Should we invite clients to bring their pets to our home for treatment and do operations on the kitchen table when we're too ill to be in work?

It's amazing how many people judge others based on their very limited knowledge and experience of life. None are willing to understand people's lives and experiences are very different indeed.