This sort of thing annoys non disabled people

zaksmum

clemmatis wrote: »

Yes indeed. And obviously if they had a partner, the issue of lacking help might not arise, and then they could draw the benefit and spend it on, yes, taxis! without anyone complaining that they didn't spend the money on care.

It's hard being disabled and if you can get a bit of financial help because of it, life might become that little bit less harsh and exhausting.

zaksmum

krisskross wrote: »

His RA relapsed just after he got to 65. At one point prior to that he probably would have qualified because of heart disease but he didn't claim as hopefully his heart was going to be mended, which it was.

He receives the higher rate AA which is equivalent to HRC DLA which i think is probably a good reflection of his physical difficulties but there is no mobility element in AA.

We get none of the disability premiums either because we don't get pension credit.

We are not complaining, very fortunate to be in receipt of extra money to help especially as his care needs do not cost anything except my time. It is quite an anomaly though that some pensioners get financial help with mobility whilst others don't.

Your husband's case does illustrate that if you think you MIGHT qualify, you should claim the DLA. The DWP will be very quick to knock you back if you're not eligible, and it's true to say that the only pensioners who do get the DLA just went ahead and claimed it!

You can't really complain that it's unfair your husband doesn't get it if he might've qualified but didn't claim.

krisskross

zaksmum wrote: »

Your husband's case does illustrate that if you think you MIGHT qualify, you should claim the DLA. The DWP will be very quick to knock you back if you're not eligible, and it's true to say that the only pensioners who do get the DLA just went ahead and claimed it!

You can't really complain that it's unfair your husband doesn't get it if he might've qualified but didn't claim.

He would have claimed for a different condition. One that was cured so he would have had to give up any disability benefit relating to that condition anyway.

L0RRY

krisskross wrote: »

You obviously have no idea that auto immune diseases CAN be drug controlled and thus the full impact is sometimes not felt until those drugs don't work anymore.

This doesn't make it an age related illness. Had my husband's RA relapsed so spectacularly just 1 year earlier then he would have been entitled to DLA mobility and you wouldn't have considered that he had an age related problem. Simply a mobility problem.

but the fact his body was a lot younger would no doubt have helped the drugs to work & now his body is aging, i would imagine they are no longer able to work without the help from his own body. its an indisputable fact that our bodies fail as we age and we cannot afford to hand out mobility cars to everyone as that happens.

i can understand its incredibly frustrating when you just fall short of cut offs but you agreed they need to exist and to want to make others suffer by taking away their dla at 65 is rather mean spirited especially as they would have spent at least the last 25 years with severe mobility problems while your husband was still able to get around without the need to apply for support from dla.

krisskross

L0RRY wrote: »

but the fact his body was a lot younger would no doubt have helped the drugs to work & now his body is aging, i would imagine they are no longer able to work without the help from his own body. its an indisputable fact that our bodies fail as we age and we cannot afford to hand out mobility cars to everyone as that happens.

i can understand its incredibly frustrating when you just fall short of cut offs but you agreed they need to exist and to want to make others suffer by taking away their dla at 65 is rather mean spirited especially as they would have spent at least the last 25 years with severe mobility problems while your husband was still able to get around without the need to apply for support from dla.

But it could have been just 1 month before they got to 65 couldn't it?

margaretclare

clemmatis wrote: »

Oh no, margaret, this is not an answer to the posts I linked to, or even to questions put here. As AA does not have a mobility component, it can only be claimed on the grounds of care needs. But if mobility problems give rise to care needs sufficient to justify an AA claim, then of course it can be awarded for the care needs. Krisskross' point is a red herring: her husband has (I simply accept her account) care needs that amply justify an award of AA for care.

I too believe it unfair that there is no mobility benefit for people over 65. But that's something to try to change, not something to try to evade, or obfuscate.

Highlighted in red. Yes, that's exactly what happened to me. Although the mobility problems did not start post-65, in fact they started when I wasn't even 50. And they have got worse, will continue to get worse - another revision of R hip is definitely on the cards, L hip been revised twice. The posts you've highlighted repeatedly are from 4 years ago.

I was told some years ago that the reason for no mobility component in AA as opposed to DLA is that 'it is assumed that you'll be immobile anyway at your age'. Similarly, there is no recognition of difficulty in cooking yourself a meal, as there is in DLA because 'you can always have meals on wheels'. Now, as to that, there was a report quite recently in our local paper about a man who was on meals on wheels because of mobility problems. He's younger than me, but can't get out of the house to go shopping so he can't make himself a meal. If DH and I didn't have enough income to keep the car going then we'd not be able to get out of the house to go shopping either. We'd have an extremely restricted life if it wasn't for the car.

I am not going to answer posts that are 4 years old, no matter how often you post the links. Nothing has improved since then, and in fact things are getting worse.

zaksmum

krisskross wrote: »

But it could have been just 1 month before they got to 65 couldn't it?

Sadly there's nothing you can do about it now.

Enjoy your week in Portugal!

L0RRY

krisskross wrote: »

But it could have been just 1 month before they got to 65 couldn't it?

some of them could have but the vast majority would have suffered for years, many since birth and you suggesting removing mobility component from all of them. its bloody good luck to those who just make the cut off and incredible bad luck for those that dont but you agreed there has to be a cut off somewhere!

the amount of extra suffering disabled people are going through (the frequent re-assessments & worry of benefits being removed by ATOS, application forms of epic proportions, choice of mobility cars reduced, stigma etc) just through jealousy/spite & fraudulant claimants/government giving a bad name has reached entirely ridiculous levels. :mad:

seven-day-weekend

[QUOTE=zaksmum;56228727]Obviously they manage without the help they "need". But possibly the AA compensates them in other ways, like being able to get a taxi instead of waiting for the bus.[/QUOTE]


So they don't need the help then.

24skins

clemmatis wrote: »

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

Basic psychology (projection).

In the same way people that feel shame about homosexual leanings will be publicly homophobic, people that are ashamed of claiming benefits will project that shame onto others; which is how we've got to the situation on this board of people with disabilities claiming benefits insulting other people with disabilities claiming benefits.