This sort of thing annoys non disabled people

adouglasmhor

zaksmum wrote: »

Ridiculous! You haven't used any foul language and I can't see the slightest harm in saying "We British"! For God's sake...I don't believe some people.

Exactly.

clemmatis

krisskross wrote: »

My husband is often unable to walk because of a relapse of Rheumatoid Arthritis. Nothing at all to do with being over 65.

I agree with this kind of point. Currently if someone who is very physiologically "young" for their age, which is, say, just 65, develops a condition unrelated to age, that causes mobility problems, they cannot claim for them. But if someone just a few days younger does, they can. If someone with mobility DLA enters a nursing home with state funding, they can keep the DLA; other residents over 65 cannot obtain it. It is unfair. And as many (though not all) now "age" more slowly, also, as the retirement age is raised, it becomes more obviously unfair.

This is not something politicians want to see. My MP wrote me a good and full reply on DLA/PIP, and some of the concessions she assured me would be made (for example, simple, very simple, paper re-assessments for some) have been announced. But she simply ignored my point about mobility elements for claimants over 65; they know it would cost, not too much, but more than they are prepared to pay.

We use a lot of his AA payments to pay for taxis or he simply wouldn't be able to get to doctor/chiropodist/dentist appointments. And he does like to get out of the house for pleasure as well!

I know all about this. I personally see nothing wrong in your doing this given that you don't need the money for care needs, and that your husband clearly has care needs, even though the money is not intended for that. But, I have seen you attack DLA claimants for not spending their money on care needs and also for -- according to you, and of course it could be true -- exaggerating their needs and, oh horror, getting help with filling in the form. And I do wish you would not do that. Really, it is, in my view, unseemly.

And here in this thread, well, really, your argument that mobility needs can give rise to care needs is irrelevant as a claimant with care needs will be (should be, anyway) awarded AA on the basis of those care needs alone.

Errata

I guess the answer to all this is that people didn't create the system and if they can use it to their own advantage and get away with it they do.

clemmatis

zaksmum wrote: »

It doesn't matter how you spend your AA - that's your business. You could spend it on whisky if that's what makes you feel better!

The issue is not what she spends it on, not to me, anyway. The issue, set out very clearly in the posts to which I linked, is whether when she applied for AA and was awarded it

a) she described her condition as though every day were the very worst, as, it seems, she said she had and as she advised others to do

b) she, feeling people over 65 should be able to get mobility benefits, claimed on the basis of alleged care needs then, but with the aim of getting mobility benefits.

Unfortunately, margaret deleted her posts. But the others' posts are there, and I will link to them again

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=10279255&postcount=33

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=10345571&postcount=34

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=10352531&postcount=36

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=10382371&postcount=38

clemmatis

Errata wrote: »

I guess the answer to all this is that people didn't create the system and if they can use it to their own advantage and get away with it they do.

The real story to me is that some of the people who do that also benefits-bash on these forums.

L0RRY

clemmatis wrote: »

I agree with this kind of point. Currently if someone who is very physiologically "young" for their age, which is, say, just 65, develops a condition unrelated to age, that causes mobility problems, they cannot claim for them. But if someone just a few days younger does, they can. If someone with mobility DLA enters a nursing home with state funding, they can keep the DLA; other residents over 65 cannot obtain it. It is unfair. And as many (though not all) now "age" more slowly, also, as the retirement age is raised, it becomes more obviously unfair.

dla mobility component is aimed at people with physical disabilities not age related mobility deterioration so theres no unfairness just good 'luck' (if you can call reduced mobility luck :eek:) if your age related reduced mobility occurs before 65.

This is not something politicians want to see. My MP wrote me a good and full reply on DLA/PIP, and some of the concessions she assured me would be made (for example, simple, very simple, paper re-assessments for some) have been announced. But she simply ignored my point about mobility elements for claimants over 65; they know it would cost, not too much, but more than they are prepared to pay.

this country is struggling to afford the benefits bill at the moment so there is no way on earth they will ever be able to afford to give dla mobility to over 65s because virtually all of them will at some point develop sufficent mobility needs to allow them to claim.


I know all about this. I personally see nothing wrong in your doing this given that you don't need the money for care needs, and that your husband clearly has care needs, even though the money is not intended for that. But, I have seen you attack DLA claimants for not spending their money on care needs and also for -- according to you, and of course it could be true -- exaggerating their needs and, oh horror, getting help with filling in the form. And I do wish you would not do that. Really, it is, in my view, unseemly.

And here in this thread, well, really, your argument that mobility needs can give rise to care needs is irrelevant as a claimant with care needs will be (should be, anyway) awarded AA on the basis of those care needs alone.

reply in red

krisskross

[QUOTE=clemmatis;56223971,

But, I have seen you attack DLA claimants for not spending their money on care needs and also for -- according to you, and of course it could be true -- exaggerating their needs and, oh horror, getting help with filling in the form. And I do wish you would not do that. Really, it is, in my view, unseemly.
[/QUOTE]

No no. What I think is completely wrong is those that claim for care needs on the basis of needing care both day and night and put absolutely nothing in place to meet those supposed needs. I still do not understand how this works. How anyone can have such imperative care needs and yet can continue to survive without them being met?

To continue to use my husband as example he would probably be dead in a week if his claimed for care needs were not met. He would have no idea how to work out his insulin requirements and he would simply forget to do it anyway. So he has no need to exaggerate his care needs to qualify for the benefit. The diabetes is just one aspect of his life where he has care needs, I could mention many more but won't.

krisskross

L0RRY wrote: »

reply in red

So would you consider Rheumatoid Arthritis to be something that only affects the over 65s? My husband has actually had it since he was in his 40's but it was manageable with drug therapy until he just turned 65 when the exacerbations became much more acute and difficult to control.

It is just bad luck I accept but certainly nothing to do with him reaching the grand old age of 65.

L0RRY

krisskross wrote: »

So would you consider Rheumatoid Arthritis to be something that only affects the over 65s? My husband has actually had it since he was in his 40's but it was manageable with drug therapy until he just turned 65 when the exacerbations became much more acute and difficult to control.

It is just bad luck I accept but certainly nothing to do with him reaching the grand old age of 65.

no absolutely not, it can even affect children. a good friend of mine also developed it in her 40s but weirdly, she is much better now in her 60s than shes been since it developed!

theres no distinction as to what conditions are age-related with dla but there has to be some sort of cut off because it would cripple the country to have all oaps with a motability car on their drive! :eek: for most of us, we're not even guaranteed a pension much less a mobility car! :shocked:

krisskross

L0RRY wrote: »

no absolutely not, it can even affect children. a good friend of mine also developed in in her 40s but weirdly, she is much better now in her 60s than shes been since it developed!

theres no distinction as to what conditions are age-related with dla but there has to be some sort of cut off because it would cripple the country to have all oaps with a motability car on their drive! :eek: for most of us, we're not even guaranteed a pension much less a mobility car!

I agree that there has to be a cut off. Far too expensive otherwise but nonetheless very galling to see my neighbour doing his own gardening etc and then getting into the mobility car he has had for 20 years while my husband is housebound for days on end.

Perhaps the DLA mobility component should stop at 65 then it is fair for all.