MSE News: Welfare reforms 'to hit disabled'

Dunroamin

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... you would very specifically be putting them on unequal footing from the perspective of state (which bears the expectations of the law).. .

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.

FBaby

maccanut wrote: »

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

Exactly! Unlike what I've been accused of, I am not a disability basher, or against disability benefits. I really really wish families like maccanut had more support. It really annoys me to think that some disabled people can't afford to pay for things that would help them just relieve the pain they have to live with 24/7, yet others use the money to go on holiday, justifying that it helps them with their disability. It might be true, but as a society with limited funds, I don't think there is much hesitation seeing who is in more needs of the fund.

LunaLady

monkeytrumpet wrote: »

It is all about the extra money and perks people on DLA get. People who could and should work have been creative with the truth and are about to be found out and will find themselfs on JSA.

DLA is not an out of work benefit.

LunaLady

No, its used to help pay for the extra costs associated with disabilities, not that you would understand that, as you seem to have swallowed a book on 'Benefit Stereotypes'.

Muttleythefrog

FBaby wrote: »

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.



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...




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?

Negotiation is perhaps a strong word... best I could think of. I would look to having claimant, DWP DM, claimant support person of their choice (be it carer, friend, partner, nobody), medical professional(s) with specific expertise on the illnesses affecting the claimant (the expensive bit and bit demanding of professional resource.. lots of psychiatrists I imagine) and a disability specialist. The idea would be that this will mean the claimant and their homewould be in the presence on those covering legal, medical and disability expertise. All can ask relevant questions... the DWP DM will make a recommendation of decision there and then... if disagreement then the disagreeing party can explain why.. if this can't be resolved within reasonable time then automatic appeal will be lodged. The event will be recorded for an appeal tribunal to consider admitting evidence thereof. The tribunals that are required will therefore have possibility of accessing signficant facts and opinions and the disagreements. The idea of all this is that good decisions will be made, fewer appeals will be necessary, appeals that are necessary will have powerful source material. Admin costs would be reduced. This is the sort of thing I have in mind. Claimants won;t be left saying 'if only they could see how things really are for me then they'd understand', assessments would be infrequent and legal requirement to report changes maintained. Fraud would obviously be tackled by the invasive nature of investigation.

"You can't make a funding decision using tax payers money based on opinions." - that's what ESA, DLA and PIP (will) do. I get ESA because of the opinion of a nurse I've never met.. she bases her opinion on the opinion of a nurse I did once meet. DLA is awarded to me due to opinion of a DWP DM who looked at two peices of evidence... my opinion and my psychiatrist's opinion (which was my opinion that they conveyed..lol).. the DWP DM opinion contradicts mine and my psychiatrist's.

On your next point. Disabled people are protected in law. There may be a legal argument to be had regarding child benefit.. I don't know. For disability it is clearer though.. we're signed up to the ECHR and CRPD.. there's specific demand on the state to equalise life for disabled people.

On your last point I very very very much doubt it. The cost of actual care is huge... imagine someone getting HRC of DLA.. let's say £80p/w currently. That one person needs care day and night 7 days a week. Let's imagine £10 per hour for a carer (actual rates I understand typically much higher) 7 days a week let's just say 11.5 hours a day (could be double that in reality).. 80 hours a week £800 a week care. This means that an extremely conservative estimate would mean that in order to balance the books for every ten claimants identified as having care needs of HRC by DLA, under your system only 1 would be found to need comparable care with the rest none at all. The actual cost of care makes the idea of a DLA replacement actually providing for actual care needed totally unrealistic unless the overwhelming majority of claimants are getting grossly exaggerated awards. The system would definitely be fairer... lol.. but not on the tax payer.

Pincher

Somebody made a good point on radio recently, that pet owners refuse to put down old dogs and horses that are suffering old age symptoms.

We need to overcome this guilt reflex and do the right thing for people who can no longer live independent lives, who drag down the loyal people who are locked-in by their sense of duty. A quick injection, an end to long term suffering, for both the disabled, and the carer: and huge savings for George Osborne.

krisskross

Pincher wrote: »

Somebody made a good point on radio recently, that pet owners refuse to put down old dogs and horses that are suffering old age symptoms.

We need to overcome this guilt reflex and do the right thing for people who can no longer live independent lives, who drag down the loyal people who are locked-in by their sense of duty. A quick injection, an end to long term suffering, for both the disabled, and the carer: and huge savings for George Osborne.

Don't think this will be a vote winner:rotfl:

System

Pincher wrote: »

Somebody made a good point on radio recently, that pet owners refuse to put down old dogs and horses that are suffering old age symptoms.

We need to overcome this guilt reflex and do the right thing for people who can no longer live independent lives, who drag down the loyal people who are locked-in by their sense of duty. A quick injection, an end to long term suffering, for both the disabled, and the carer: and huge savings for George Osborne.

Wow...ever considered being a Tory MP? :rotfl: :eek:

ani_26

In my view, welfare reforms, not only to the disabled, are going to have far more reaching consequences. More poverty, more criminal activity and anti social behaviour, more addicts, whether alcohol or drug related, more mental health problems, more suicides. You name it. There will be more of it.

I watched a programme last week, where someone had jumped a considerable height from their living room, and left a note asking for their dog to be looked after. In some areas, the police say 70% of policing is social policing, where the police have to act as social workers, and 30% is criminal policing. There aren't enough funds to give people the help they need.

Arguably, you could say these people don't " deserve " help. They are drinking their benefits, or their chosen "vice". But why? They should help themselves? In an ideal world, everyone would be able to. But realistically, not everyone can, and sometimes it's not diificult to see why people end up with addiction. It blanks out real life, if only, on a short term basis?

And it can happen to anyone. Yes. Anyone.

krisskross

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?