MSE News: Welfare reforms 'to hit disabled'

Muttleythefrog

FBaby wrote: »

You have made this point clear a number of time, but I think you are confusing explaining the rationale of DLA and justifying it. However well you explain why DLA operates the way it does, it doesn't provide a reason why it is right to operate this way. The only counter-argument is that it would be more expensive to operate on the basis of assessing actual needs rather than perceive need. Not only do I not believe this has to be true, even if it is, it still doesn't mean it is right and should be changed.

I don't know many people in receipt of DLA, but ALL the ones I know do admit that they use the money for their everyday living rather than for their benefits. If DLA as a benefit is hiding as a mean for additional resources to people with disability (ie. the fact you are disabled entitles you in itself to benefits), then do treat it like Child Benefits and give it to every one, with a scale depending on the severity of the disability (as opposed to the number of children), and ignore that non sense business of care and mobility need...oh and of course, make it means tested too...

OR, if it is considered to be about needs (after all, that is what is being assessed to be entitled), then make sure the person NEEDS the financial benefit for their disability. On that basis, there is no doubt that many people would still be entitled. The single man who needs to pay for carers etc... would most certainly fall in that category... hoever, the mum who claims high rate DLA because her child wakes her up once or twice at night and needs a bit more supervision than a 'normal' child, but whose child goes to mainstream school and is able to lead a 'normal' life then shouldn't be able to claim £100s a month that just goes to treat the whole family.

The highlighted bit. I think DLA operates very poorly.. I think PIP will probably be even worse. So I'm the last person to argue for the current system... I think it is appallingly designed and appallingly run and will probably be a cause of much disability. But I've not seen any proposals that overcome the greater cost objection to improving the system... whatever people seem to suggest implies more frequent assessment, more professional assessment or more invasive and ongoing scrutiny and administration. I've given details (previously on MSE) of a system I would design that would have low frequency of testing in order to facilitate quite expensive and skill demanding front loading of the system with intimate investigation via professionals within the environment of the claimant... and indeed in the presence of the DWP DM. Decisions would be made there and then.. via negotiation and agreement.. reducing appeals.. reducing misunderstanding.. offering opportunity for the players to all give their position and opinion and examine and collect the facts in the most relevant place possible.

Second paragraph... agree.... but the means testing issue would be a serious problem.... I would expect there to be a legal problem... because this is about giving extra resources to meet the cost of disability.. if you say a disabled person isn't entitled because they have sufficient resource then you are discriminating against them... you would very specifically be putting them on unequal footing from the perspective of state (which bears the expectations of the law).. although in reality they may appear to be more than equally footed. But otherwise what you state in this paragraph is what happens... care and mobility are just general areas with specific concepts to test this scale of disability in day to day life. PIP will introduce similar and again be narrowly defined to these two areas. Some disabled people as such won't get any DLA and for PIP even fewer will probably end up on the scale of disability.

3rd paragraph, that surely would cost far too much. DLA is a cheap (yes the figures may be large but it could be much worse.. disability like old people are a notably increasing drain on society's resources.. I would have other plans to deal with this... well outside the scope of discussion here) gesture to the idea of disability and associated costs... the human rights and equality of disabled people... PIP will be a smaller gesture. If the system looked to actually pay to meet the costs of the needs then it would be sunk.

Doom_and_Gloom

Dunroamin wrote: »

The same for us. To live a distance from your GP when you're elderly or disabled is madness.

We live closer to the hospital than the doctors I go to - the doctors is nearly twice the distance than the hospital is. If I really need to see someone about my disability the hospital is the best bet anyway as my doctor can't really do much with my disability. My doctor sees me to find out if my condition is stabilised or deteriorating and referring me when needed for whatever but that is about it. For some it is madness to live near the doctors instead of a hospital, certainly when you can't get a same day appointment at most doctor's surgerys now.

krisskross

Doom_and_Gloom wrote: »

We live closer to the hospital than the doctors I go to - the doctors is nearly twice the distance than the hospital is. If I really need to see someone about my disability the hospital is the best bet anyway as my doctor can't really do much with my disability. My doctor sees me to find out if my condition is stabilised or deteriorating and referring me when needed for whatever but that is about it. For some it is madness to live near the doctors instead of a hospital, certainly when you can't get a same day appointment at most doctor's surgerys now.

Doesn't it take some time to be seen at a hospital?

On odd occasions when my husband has been really struggling with joint pain I have phoned his Consultant's secretary to get an urgent appointment. However if there is no space in a clinic, particularly the specific clinic he needs, then he can't be seen. If this happens we pay to see the Consultant privately which can usually be organised for the next day. This however costs, it was £250 the last time plus the cost of the taxi there and back, so about £300 in total.

A&E would be of no use as he needs specialist treatment neither would it be an appropriate use of emergency facilities.

FBaby

Muttleythefrog wrote: »

. Decisions would be made there and then.. via negotiation and agreement.. reducing appeals.. reducing misunderstanding.. offering opportunity for the players to all give their position and opinion and examine and collect the facts in the most relevant place possible.

I'm not sure how negotiation would work well in practice. How would you base the negotiations? Negotiations is based on compromises and this can't be a mean to agree on an a fair amount. You can't make a funding decision using tax payers money based on opinions.

Second paragraph... agree.... but the means testing issue would be a serious problem.... I would expect there to be a legal problem... because this is about giving extra resources to meet the cost of disability.. if you say a disabled person isn't entitled because they have sufficient resource then you are discriminating against them...

Using this reasoning, I can't see why it wouldn't apply equally to parents. CB is to meet the extra cost of being a parent, in which case ALWAYS come with an extra costs, no negotiation or argument about this, children have needs that DO cost money. I don't understand why it is discrimination in the case of disability but in the case of parenthood, unless you bring in the issue of choice, but this is about money, not choice, and even more complex, one could argue that some disabilities are brought on by some bad lifestyle choices, whilst some children are genuine accidents...

3rd paragraph, that surely would cost far too much. DLA is a cheap (yes the figures may be large but it could be much worse.. disability like old people are a notably increasing drain on society's resources.. I would have other plans to deal with this... well outside the scope of discussion here) gesture to the idea of disability and associated costs... the human rights and equality of disabled people... PIP will be a smaller gesture. If the system looked to actually pay to meet the costs of the needs then it would be sunk.

Why? Surely if there is significant savings to be made by only funding those who can evidence a financial need to meet their disability needs, why can't it be funded from these savings if it means a fairer system?

LunaLady

Its okay to live near your GP if you live in the city, but what about more rural areas? My Mum lives 4 miles from her nearest surgery.

Doom_and_Gloom

krisskross wrote: »

Doesn't it take some time to be seen at a hospital?

On odd occasions when my husband has been really struggling with joint pain I have phoned his Consultant's secretary to get an urgent appointment. However if there is no space in a clinic, particularly the specific clinic he needs, then he can't be seen. If this happens we pay to see the Consultant privately which can usually be organised for the next day. This however costs, it was £250 the last time plus the cost of the taxi there and back, so about £300 in total.

A&E would be of no use as he needs specialist treatment neither would it be an appropriate use of emergency facilities.

Yes I suppose it does take time to be seen at a hospital but needs must. If my condition deteriorates very fast I will need an MRI or CT scan so they can see my spine and the cord to find out why, something not possible by going to the GP! There are certain situations I have been told to go to the hospital without hesitation to do with my condition. It could easily be a waste of resources to see the GP for SOME.

As I said for SOME living near the doctors instead of the hospital is madness. Even going to the nearest hospital may still need a transfer to a different hospital with specialist equipment in some cases.

Dunroamin

Doom_and_Gloom wrote: »

We live closer to the hospital than the doctors I go to - the doctors is nearly twice the distance than the hospital is. If I really need to see someone about my disability the hospital is the best bet anyway as my doctor can't really do much with my disability. My doctor sees me to find out if my condition is stabilised or deteriorating and referring me when needed for whatever but that is about it. For some it is madness to live near the doctors instead of a hospital, certainly when you can't get a same day appointment at most doctor's surgerys now.

But the hospital won't make a home visit, which was what I was referring to, and you certainly won't get a same day appointment with your consultant or clinic.

Dunroamin

LunaLady wrote: »

Its okay to live near your GP if you live in the city, but what about more rural areas? My Mum lives 4 miles from her nearest surgery.

Most doctors would travel four miles to make a home visit, even in urban areas.

maccanut

can i just put my penny worth in iam a stay at home carer who had to give up a career to care for my lovely dh who is house bound and in a wheelchair and chronic pain 24/7 and yes im on :call: 24/7, i used to pay for 2 home helps to come in in the morning at the cost of £20 an hour it was getting expensive just for that and yes we live in scotland and as dh is under 65 no personal care for him.I PAID taxes as did dh we still don't qualify for alot of things we have had to cut things out, yes we use his money to pay for taxis to doctor appointments,hospital appointments and it is flipping expensive, and yes no doubt we will be the ones to lose out when they bring this new pip in but what about the addicts and the ones with a drink problem do you think they will be going for them no i don't think so as always it is the diabled person being kicked when they are already down.
gail

krisskross

Muttleythefrog wrote: »

Second paragraph... agree.... but the means testing issue would be a serious problem.... I would expect there to be a legal problem... because this is about giving extra resources to meet the cost of disability.. if you say a disabled person isn't entitled because they have sufficient resource then you are discriminating against them...

But anyone who is still entitled to ESA on paper because they are not well enough to work will lose the benefit because of means testing. This is happening, so is this not discrimination?