Confused about PIP guidelines on mobility

CTcelt1988

satarical wrote: »

Hi JS. I don't agree with you. 20 metres is a fair way of checking if someone is able to mobilise or not. 50 metres was way too far. I would say that if you can mobilise the 50 metres wheelchair, stick, crutches, walking etc then you clearly are not unable to mobilise.
As for changing the descriptor after the pilot and review, that would be most unfair on those in the pilot and new claimants that may have failed under the descriptors that now exist whilst others later on are given more distance and a more relaxed test. What starts in the pilot must carry on, you can't just change the goalposts halfway through and tell those in the pilot that it was tough on them that they had to be tested much harsher.

What is motability? Is that the car thing that the disabled get? If so what has it got to do with them?

Sorry, but I don't agree with you. 20m is too short and will leave thousands of people who have mobilty problems missing out on the higher rate, some who work and may not be able to if they lose their Motability car. 50m should have stayed, but the Government changed the goalposts at the last minute so fewer people will get enhanced rate, thus saving them money. It's all about cost cutting, not helping disabled people.

It has plenty to do with Motability, if less people get enhanced rate then there will be thousands no longer eligible for the scheme.

schrodie

CTcelt1988 wrote: »

Sorry, but I don't agree with you. 20m is too short and will leave thousands of people who have mobilty problems missing out on the higher rate, some who work and may not be able to if they lose their Motability car. 50m should have stayed, but the Government changed the goalposts at the last minute so fewer people will get enhanced rate, thus saving them money. It's all about cost cutting, not helping disabled people.

The government have already decided how many people will loose their entitlerment to DLA via the PIP route; so for this tory lead coalition to say there are no targets in the system is just a joke.

Also if they say they're targeting more support at those who need it why are the PIP rates the same as the DLA rates!

CTcelt1988

I can see lots and lots of appeals happening, costing taxpayers even more money.

dori2o

satarical wrote: »

Hi Bella. I can't see why you say that? You don't have to be in pain or discomfort to qualify for DLA. Pain is the least of my problems, I am only able to walk a few steps because of physical problems, not mental difficulties or pain. Pain seems to be being used as an excuse that DLA should be awarded. With todays modern science pain can almost in every case be relieved. Mobility should only be considered for those that physically have a problem with movement which in my opinion does not include pain, hence why I am so much in favour of the new PIP descriptors and in total agreement with Sunnyone.
As for the ESA appeal, I am appealing because of physical and mental reasons, none of which include pain.Many times my GP and Consultant have said that they don't know how I am managing to do what I do in life. Like I said to them willpower and drugs get me through it. My GP said that most if not all patients with a medical case as mine would be in bed or complaining of constant pain.
Who is Andy?

And which institution provided you with your medical degree? The University of the Diddymen?

I suppose such conditions as Fibromyalgia and CRPS/RSD don't exist?

To say all pain can be cured is plainly stupid, and clearly shows your intellegence or more to the point, the severe lack of it.

For one, not everyone can tolerate strong medications.

Not everyone metabolises drugs at the same rate, and for some the rate of metabilism is so fast that no amount of drugs help them.

Some people don't have the enzymes in their liver needed to make the drugs work.

Opioid medications are amongst the most dangerous available, both in terms of further problems with internal organs, and with the very high risk of addiction.

But that is not all, there's Tolerance to think about. The more of these opioids you pump into your body them more your body accepts them as part of it's natural cycle. This means you have to increase the dose to continue getting relief.

From starting out on 10mg, 20mg, 30mg a day, you can very quickly spiral to 200mg, 300mg, 1000mg just to get a tiny amount of pain relief.

Official statistics confirm that the majority of people taking medications to control the effects of chronic pain are rewarded with less than a 30% reduction in their pain levels. I personally get approx a 5% reduction in pain, but it's enough so that it allows me to do certain things at certain times of the day, i.e. getting to and from work.

I suggest taking a little time to read about Chronic Pain might enlighten you to the actual FACTS of what it is, how people react, what medications are used, and the success rate of those medications.

zzzLazyDaisy

satarical wrote: »

People seem to be confusing what I have said. I believe that pain by itself should not be a reason to give ESA or DLA as you can have two people with the same problem, one takes the drugs and is able to handle pain better and the other doesn't and can't. Why should the one who can cope with the pain not get a benefit over the other? There is nothing fair in that. Pain is in the head, some choose to use it as an excuse, others won't. Each will be finacially better off. It doesn't pay to be brave or take medication then if all you want is an extra £100 a week.
I am not a troll or whatever. If you can help which it seems you can I would appreciate it.

I am one of the people whose pain, in your view, 'all in the head' and 'just an excuse to get an extra £100'. Frankly, I find your views offensive, and - Troll or not - I have no wish to spend my precious time and energy helping you.

Daisy

satarical

schrodie wrote: »

Why not make it 10m then or better still 0m, afterall why allow anyone who can walk any disatnce the right to have PIP!

As for Motability may I suggest you Google 'Motability' then [hopefully] you'll be enlightened!

As for moving the goalposts try telling that to the tories!

Hi. 10 metres is a possibility! 0 metres is being daft. There has to be a line drawn in the sand and a fair figure in my opinion is 20 metres. That is the width of three average terraced houses or across a dual carriageway including both hard shoulders and central reservation, 63 feet.
It is a bit more realistic than the 160 feet that DLA gives. That is the equivalent of crossing three dual carriageways including the hard shoulder at both ends and the central reservation.
Do you suggest that being able to go that distance gives you the right to say that you cannot virtually mobilise?
I've just had a look at that site. Yes it is what I thought it was. A car for those that are still able to walk 160 feet, but yet say they can't walk.

belladonna13

starical,

I cannot answer any better than dorio2o above regarding pain.

I can answer though your question who is Andy?...ermmm, YOU. I was about 90% certain before your latest replies, now I am 100%.

I must admit you are a very hardworking troll, so many attempts to change your identity and dumb down any knowledge of benefits, but not very successful.

schrodie

satarical wrote: »

Pain is in the head...

And sometimes in the a**e, just like some people!

BTW welcome back!!!

satarical

schrodie wrote: »

The government have already decided how many people will loose their entitlerment to DLA via the PIP route; so for this tory lead coalition to say there are no targets in the system is just a joke.

Also if they say they're targeting more support at those who need it why are the PIP rates the same as the DLA rates!

Hi. Surely the answer is clear. There is a reduced amount of money available, 80% of what is being paid out currently for DLA. That smaller budget is to be targeted at the most vulnerable quite rightly. There are no targets as to who will lose out, just that the qualifying criteria has been made more difficult.

schrodie

satarical wrote: »

Hi. Surely the answer is clear. There is a reduced amount of money available, 80% of what is being paid out currently for DLA. That smaller budget is to be targeted at the most vulnerable quite rightly. There are no targets as to who will lose out, just that the qualifying criteria has been made more difficult.

Yes I agree the answer is very clear...