MSE News: Welfare reforms 'to hit disabled'

LunaLady

Bykerlass wrote: »

Gobsmacked!

Think you we're born 70 years too late mate and in the wrong country.

Remember disability can affect anyone at anytime, wonder if your views would be different if it was yourself or your child who were unfortunate enough to become disabled?

God help us all.

But he does claim MRC, so is he advocating his own Euthanasia?

clemmatis

krisskross wrote: »

Are DLA payments intended to address specific needs or are they simply some sort of financial compensation for being dealt a poor hand health wise?

Dunno. Are AA payments intended to address specific needs or are they simply some sort of financial compensation for being dealt a poor hand health wise?

(Christ. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.)

clemmatis

LunaLady wrote: »

But he does claim MRC, so is he advocating his own Euthanasia?

No. He'll selflessly kill himself (again).

Muttleythefrog

Dunroamin wrote: »

I can't see how that could be a legal problem as several EU countries means test disability benefits and take the stance that, if a person has certain needs, then you provide for these (at least to a certain extent) rather than just handing out extra money to the client to do with as they choose.

That seems to me to be a far better way of doing things.

Disability benefits probably have to be looked at in wider context of other services (such as from local authorities) and ultimately of course whether they could be challenged. I can't really give opinion on what other countries are doing as I haven't got any details... certainly none of means tested disability benefits at hand. Obviously the ideal system is one that identifies needs with clarity and addresses them directly.

Muttleythefrog

krisskross wrote: »

Are DLA payments intended to address specific needs or are they simply some sort of financial compensation for being dealt a poor hand health wise?

Neither... and I think you know that. DLA is monetary gesture to the idea that disability carries with it often extra costs in order to enjoy the same expectations of life that others have.

Janep

Even if you receive higher rate mobility you can still apply for funding for travel to and from work ie taxi fare

Dunroamin

keet83 wrote: »

As in not known about until the person actually informs you about their disability.

Interesting....

Muttleythefrog

FBaby wrote: »

That' fair enough, indeed, currently, the decision is based on the opinion of a health professional, but the alternative being the opinion of the claimant, his family/partner, a carer, or even a benefit supporter is not certainly no better because the decision then takes into account personal and emotional circumstances and that's unlikely to be fair as a whole. It would mean someone with a very supportive family, who gets therefore a knowledgeable right supporter etc... would have more chance to make a case than someone on their own with limited knowledge of the system or ability to express their feelings. When you get the two confronting each other, you rarely reach a reasonable agreement, more a compromise on who shouts the loudest, and that could take a very long time to reach in any case.



Again, that's assuming that those on high rate DLA automatically need to pay for a carer. The whole argument is that in many cases, they receive that care without having to pay for it, that is if they actually trully require that care in the first place.

Well what I propose would ensure there is some balance.. there'll be only the claimant and someone else to support them... if that is nobody then by default someone such as a benefits advisor or someone from charity could be used. You'll have 2 other people at least who will be independent and then the DWP DM. Remember I wouldn't be looking to find some financial award here but rather reaching of a technical decision... that may be on something similar to the descriptors for PIP. I wouldn't expect too much debate.. and there would be the vested interest in the claimant reaching a decision.. getting things done and dusted and avoiding appeal and the associated risks. When I was banding such an idea around before I talked about how those technical decisions that were agreed could be used to make interim decision pending appeal on the disagreed parts... thus reducing complexity of appeal. It may end up being in many cases that the disagreements do not actually make any meaningful difference to award... such as like with PIP... there'll be ranges of points per benchmark...what could be done in such cases is that the award is made, no appeal and remarks recorded in the decision of the disputed descriptors in case the issue becomes important at later date or assessment. Also in mind is the fact that the NHS carries some burden regarding benefits.. providing evidence etc.. in fact the only reason I've been engaging the NHS is because of the demand I have in relation to benefit claims.. I'd like to remove that.. at least from mainstream consultation. I'm tempted to say that supporting medical evidence be rejected from the process to keep claimants on as level a playing field as possible... and that factfinding from claimant in document form be very simple sufficient to identify if exceptional circumstances may apply (like terminal illness) and what medical issues the claimant has. This shouldn't be an exercise of determining fittest to deal with the process and pressing the right buttons... but to determine actual legal entitlement.

THe value of seeing a claimant within their own environment and being able to interrogate their precise circumstances is opportunity that couldn't be underestimated. My constant criticism of the NHS regarding my consultations is that I've never been seen in the environment where I spend 99.9% of my time... therefore they're studying a fish out of water and of course as a result I get a load of rubbish written about me.. for ESA where at first assessment I did have a medical then again the circumstances of the event led to probably an unjustified conclusion (albeit one that has subsequently favoured me).

On your second paragraph.. I still think you'd find the costs of a totally different scale. I'd work on the assumption that around 90% of DLA claimants would have to be moved off disability support completely to fund it... one way or another. I'm also conscious that support from local authorities is being cut back too... this has implications.

Bykerlass

LunaLady wrote: »

But he does claim MRC, so is he advocating his own Euthanasia?

I am tempted to say "so be it" but I would then be as morally inept as he is.

I find it repugnant that we as a supposed civilised society can be so discriminatory. Have we learnt nothing?

keet83

Dunroamin wrote: »

Interesting....

It's interesting when filling out application forms online that don't allow you to select more than one of the listed disabilities, have to put other and explain it's both epilepsy and dyslexia.

Interesting how the Grammar Police seem to judge everyone by their literature skills alone