MSE News: Half a million could lose disability benefits

~Chameleon~

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.

Because frequently, the costs of treatments and services needed by many people far outweigh the amount of DLA received, therefore would cost the State even more. Yes, some people might not 'need' their DLA money as much as the next person, but many need more than they actually receive so it all balances out.

And to introduce a system which would allocate payments in what you perceive to be a fairer way would be prohibitively expensive to implement.

wattdallas

mazza111 wrote: »

Pssst Why are we all continuing to answer Andy?

And Princessdon - very clever troll

mazza111

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

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!

I agree with you on that one tbh. I live in a small town. Where there were only 5 one bedroom properties available to rent (last time I looked.) But we do have at least one gym (council run) and one of the new great big gyms within 2 miles. Not to mention all the zumba/pilates/yoga classes that seem to pop up wherever there's space

Our shops are a bit naff in all honesty. We do have a big Tesco though but the main street is like a ghost town most days.

clemmatis

scootw1 wrote: »

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.

I think assessing individual needs and the necessary provision for them properly would cost more -- and so would meeting the needs. Currently many DLA/AA high care recipients assessed as needing day and night care are "underpaid". Currently "needs assessment" is pretty broad brush and crude. If services and equipment and treatment were to be supplied instead of cash, home visits, extra medical assessment, etc., would be required.

(I see Chameleon's answered you -- I'm sleepy today and missing things -- I'll leave my reply anyway.)

Dunroamin

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

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!

Your idea of a very rural area and mine are obviously totally different.

Dunroamin

clemmatis wrote: »

I think assessing individual needs and the necessary provision for them properly would cost more -- and so would meeting the needs. Currently many DLA/AA high care recipients assessed as needing day and night care are "underpaid". Currently "needs assessment" is pretty broad brush and crude. If services and equipment and treatment were to be supplied instead of cash, home visits, extra medical assessment, etc., would be required.

Does it actually matter if it costs more? All this proper assessment would mean more jobs, disabled people would get the services they require and those who fake or exaggerate their disabilities would have no reason to do so. The system needs to change but because of the need to change attitutes, not to save money.

dktreesea

clemmatis wrote: »

I think assessing individual needs and the necessary provision for them properly would cost more -- and so would meeting the needs. Currently many DLA/AA high care recipients assessed as needing day and night care are "underpaid". Currently "needs assessment" is pretty broad brush and crude. If services and equipment and treatment were to be supplied instead of cash, home visits, extra medical assessment, etc., would be required.

(I see Chameleon's answered you -- I'm sleepy today and missing things -- I'll leave my reply anyway.)

So what if it costs more? Do you think any able bodied person who, say, is climbing in the Cairngorms, has an accident, needs airlifting out and has three operations in hospital before they are back in good health gives a toss what it costs? They wouldn't care, and neither would I, because it's a service they needed.

Someone with mental health issues needs proper care and treatment - what the Danish call talking therapies would go a long way to re-establishing their good health. Instead people have to wait weeks to see someone and often that professional is bored/can't be bothered/would rather get on with seeing their private patients because they pay more/doesn't need to do NHS work but only does it because of the quid pro quo arrangements many professional helath care specialists gain with their local NHS trust via prioviding care to NHS patients. Mental health care is one area where the NHS is definitely not "fit for purpose".

As for physiotherapy, imagine having a doctor who recognises you are going to need ongoing care, but when you go for your session you are made to feel like you are being greedy for taking up more that the 3 months of care the NHS wanted to allot to you. Just because they are overstretched and underfunded. There's 750,000 people with arthritis in Scotland, a figure that is expected to rise to 1.5 million in the next decade. They will probably all need care. Yes, for sure, I expect the government to foot the bill for the care they need, even if at the expense of lining individuals pockets with extra money.

Extra money directly into their pockets might be nice for the disabled to have but I doubt if it enables them to buy sufficient care to meet their needs, even if they were inclined to invest it directly into their therapy.

We would be a far wealthier country than we are if the government legislated something similar to Australia, ie for UK income/corporate tax to be paid on all UK based earnings and outlawed transfer pricing. The tax collected from Starbucks, Google and Amazon alone would probably be enough to meet all disabled persons needs for several years.

mazza111

dktreesea wrote: »

Someone with mental health issues needs proper care and treatment - what the Danish call talking therapies would go a long way to re-establishing their good health. Instead people have to wait weeks to see someone and often that professional is bored/can't be bothered/would rather get on with seeing their private patients because they pay more/doesn't need to do NHS work but only does it because of the quid pro quo arrangements many professional helath care specialists gain with their local NHS trust via prioviding care to NHS patients. Mental health care is one area where the NHS is definitely not "fit for purpose".

As for physiotherapy, imagine having a doctor who recognises you are going to need ongoing care, but when you go for your session you are made to feel like you are being greedy for taking up more that the 3 months of care the NHS wanted to allot to you. Just because they are overstretched and underfunded. There's 750,000 people with arthritis in Scotland, a figure that is expected to rise to 1.5 million in the next decade. They will probably all need care. Yes, for sure, I expect the government to foot the bill for the care they need, even if at the expense of lining individuals pockets with extra money.

Extra money directly into their pockets might be nice for the disabled to have but I doubt if it enables them to buy sufficient care to meet their needs, even if they were inclined to invest it directly into their therapy.

We would be a far wealthier country than we are if the government legislated something similar to Australia, ie for UK income/corporate tax to be paid on all UK based earnings and outlawed transfer pricing. The tax collected from Starbucks, Google and Amazon alone would probably be enough to meet all disabled persons needs for several years.

MH services are seriously lacking I agree with you there. Over a year my daughter waited to see someone. She has a lot of issues going on. But thankfully her GP is not the type to hand out AD like smarties. And it was tough going for a while, but thankfully her psychologist is getting somewhere. Although it's going to be a long process to get her "better". I'm quite sure you can agree even being confined to a wheelchair at her age, is enough to deal with, not to mention the other stuff that's a bit more personal to her.

Physios here have been great with both my DD and myself on the NHS. The only thing I would say is, that they should look at the body as a whole instead of just a few joints. Because my dd had gone through the physio herself before me, I could then make a start while waiting for my physio to start. Some simple things like wearing high top trainers to support the ankles, which is really making a bit of difference to my knees, which lets the physio concentrate on my hips and hands

Any extra money my dd gets, goes directly on her mobility needs. It's spent as soon as it comes in. She can't get buses. She couldn't self propel to the nearest bus stop. So should she just sit and rot? Dial a bus (or my bus i think it's called now) is great, but it's so over used it's hard to book it, unless you're doing it at least a week in advance, so if you need an emergency appointment with the GP or an A&E visit (thankfully that doesn't happen as often now ) there is no option but to use a taxi. So it's not throwing extra money at the problem, it's enabling disabled people to do the things that able bodied people would be able to do. You may not feel the need to claim DLA with your problems, nor do I, but there are plenty of people who are worse off that do. As I've said, we'll need to pay someone to go and do for my daughter all the things I normally do when I go in for a minor op next month. Either that or she'll need to sit and eat ready meals or pizzas for the month I'm not allowed to drive.

I do agree with your last part that these corporations should be paying tax.

clemmatis

Dunroamin wrote: »

Does it actually matter if it costs more? All this proper assessment would mean more jobs, disabled people would get the services they require and those who fake or exaggerate their disabilities would have no reason to do so. The system needs to change but because of the need to change attitutes, not to save money.

It doesn't matter to me that it costs more. Proper provision following proper assessment is fine by me. But I think many people don't realise it would cost more.

But the question arises why *the disabled* should be singled out in this manner. Why not also give parents vouchers for their children's food and clothing? Why not do the same with pensioners? "Because fraud" is not to me an adequate answer. Stricter assessments will prevent much fraud.

It's also true that my experience of a care package arranged by social services -- I had to pay, but that's irrelevant -- was not good. I didn't mind the Meals on Wheels lunch tasting horrible (I'll eat anything) or being poor nutritionally (the arrangement was temporary); I did mind that *every day*, a large part of it clashed with my then medication. ( I explained; they told me what the other option was; that clashed too. (The social worker who arranged the package knew about the possible problem. I don't blame her. She was great. She had limited resources. The care company was good too, and three of the carers were great.

Anyway. In Utopia, people would get the services they require and yet retain dignity and choice.

I missed the bit abour proper assessment providing more jobs. So, claimants would be assessed by comparatively unskilled "practicioners" like -- but less experienced than -- the social worker, OT? who told my very elderly, very shaky, neighbour that if she couldn't reach things she should get up on a stool (end of expert assessment).

clemmatis

dktreesea wrote: »

So what if it costs more?

It's fine by me if it costs more. Your stuff about people helping themselves to other people's money/the money of strangers suggested it wasn't OK by you. Didn't you say we can't afford current benefits? You didn't then add that we could if we made corporations pay tax.

There remains the problem of assessment, of deciding what services someone receives. My city has an ortho-rehab ward. (Had? I haven't heard anything about it lately.) The consultant's very proud of it. Which elderly patients who've broken hips get to go there, to get decent physio? The ones who are already doing very well without it. (That's -- someone in high places told me -- because it has to justify its existence by getting good results.)