PIP - Consultation on the PIP assessment Moving around activity

CTcelt1988

tokenfield wrote: »

Don't be silly. The test is walking 50 metres - where does it say that you would be expected to walk another 50 metres to get back to where you started - it could be a 50 metre circle!

OF course it was the benchmark, but things have had to change. There is less money available so isn't it common sense to say that it is only fair that the most serious of the disabled will get first pickings of it?
Of course it is all to do with a reduced budget. Everyone is having to get by on a reduced budget so why is it wrong to say that the disabled should as well? You think that they should be exempt?

If so why shouldn't the hard working taxpayers be exempt from not having pay rises for years? Even our armed forces are not exempt - but hey those claiming DLA are a special case?

Get real - live in the real world of austerity.

You seriously think PIP will save money? If people lose the higher rate, then they will have to get support in other ways. Access to Work,NHS, Social care will have to offer support instead, meaning their budgets will have to increase. All they are doing is saving one department money but increasing another. In the long run, it won't save them a penny.

dori2o

CTcelt1988 wrote: »

You seriously think PIP will save money? If people lose the higher rate, then they will have to get support in other ways. Access to Work,NHS, Social care will have to offer support instead, meaning their budgets will have to increase. All they are doing is saving one department money but increasing another. In the long run, it won't save them a penny.

They're not even saving money.

The cost of setting up PIP and transferring people from DLA is £700m.

The Government expect the PIPm caseload will cost an annual amount of £13Bn. £1Bn more than is paid out in DLA

So PIP saves no money at all, it costs money, and other Government departments face the potential of Hundreds of millions of pounds in additional costs in order to provide support to those who no longer qualify.

tokenfield

dori2o wrote: »

That is where you are wrong.

How can you possibly argue for or against something when you don't have a clear understanding about what it is you are arguing for/against.

But I do! Far too much money goes out in welfare handouts every year. Time for it to be curtailed.

dori2o

tokenfield wrote: »

But I do! Far too much money goes out in welfare handouts every year. Time for it to be curtailed.

Having an opinion on whether or not welfare is hoo high (despite the fact that as a %age of GDP the UK pays out a lower amount than most other European economies) and having knowledge of the regulations of a certain benefit are not the same thing.

It is clear you do not know what the PIP regulations are in relation to mobility.

tokenfield

dori2o wrote: »

Having an opinion on whether or not welfare is hoo high (despite the fact that as a %age of GDP the UK pays out a lower amount than most other European economies) and having knowledge of the regulations of a certain benefit are not the same thing.

It is clear you do not know what the PIP regulations are in relation to mobility.

Of course I do, I am waiting for my call to be assessed in October 2015. There is little that I don't know or understand about the benefit and the background that goes with it.

But I for one will not attempt to pick bits out that can be twisted or misinterpreted to gain an award.
Enough of that goes on at the moment with ESA and DLA.
As I have said before I will either be granted it based entirely on the assessment and medical evidence submitted or not. If not - no sweat - I have made plans for the alternative.

To me it's either you can or can't walk the 20 metres. When you start arguing about how it leaves you, can it be repeated etc, you are attempting to water down what the intention was - to find those that simply can't walk that distance - end of.

I do hope that they make it extremely hard for the claimant to prove anything other than the physical fact that you can or you cant.

Far too much is spent on Welfare payments in this country. It should instead be channelled to those that are self supporting and wanting to do something with their lives and get off benefits. Handing out cash year in year out solves nothing.

Personally a medical should be carried out similar to the one used in the armed forces on every male & female under the age of 35 that isn't working and supporting themselves financially. Those that fail the medical are paid an allowance similar to ESA. There is no appeal system - you pass/you fail are the only two answers.
Those that pass are then recruited into the armed forces to undergo training as an apprentice and also having to serve with the regulars in theatre. They will not be released from their 'time' until they have qualified and have found a full time job in 'civvy street' that supports them fully financially with no need for any welfare top ups. Those that can't find a job or don't qualify will continue to work for their 'benefits' in the forces until they do.

dori2o

tokenfield wrote: »

Of course I do, I am waiting for my call to be assessed in October 2015. There is little that I don't know or understand about the benefit and the background that goes with it.

But I for one will not attempt to pick bits out that can be twisted or misinterpreted to gain an award.
Enough of that goes on at the moment with ESA and DLA.
As I have said before I will either be granted it based entirely on the assessment and medical evidence submitted or not. If not - no sweat - I have made plans for the alternative.

To me it's either you can or can't walk the 20 metres. When you start arguing about how it leaves you, can it be repeated etc, you are attempting to water down what the intention was - to find those that simply can't walk that distance - end of.

I do hope that they make it extremely hard for the claimant to prove anything other than the physical fact that you can or you cant.

Far too much is spent on Welfare payments in this country. It should instead be channelled to those that are self supporting and wanting to do something with their lives and get off benefits. Handing out cash year in year out solves nothing.

Personally a medical should be carried out similar to the one used in the armed forces on every male & female under the age of 35 that isn't working and supporting themselves financially. Those that fail the medical are paid an allowance similar to ESA. There is no appeal system - you pass/you fail are the only two answers.
Those that pass are then recruited into the armed forces to undergo training as an apprentice and also having to serve with the regulars in theatre. They will not be released from their 'time' until they have qualified and have found a full time job in 'civvy street' that supports them fully financially with no need for any welfare top ups. Those that can't find a job or don't qualify will continue to work for their 'benefits' in the forces until they do.

Your opinion on what the test should be, and what it is, are 2 different things.

The test as it is not does, include the reliably, repretedly and safely elements as stated in the regulations for PIP.

It is clear you have no intention of debating the matter properly on this topic, instead you merely use these forums to name call, and put down people who do exactly what you do, i.e. claim benefits.

In your own mind you beleive yourself to be above everyone else, you have the right to claim benefits but others don't and are scroungers. You are the worst kind of benefit basher.

I've never had the need to use the ignore function before on any forum. That however is likely to change.

schrodie

tokenfield wrote: »

But I do! Far too much money goes out in welfare handouts every year. Time for it to be curtailed.

Over 40% of the welfare bill goes to pensioners. Also don't forget that many working people get welfare payments.

Homework time I think poppet.

tokenfield

schrodie wrote: »

Over 40% of the welfare bill goes to pensioners. Also don't forget that many working people get welfare payments.

Homework time I think poppet.

Yes Pensioners account for over 40% in fact - they have paid in and worked for most of their lives.
But yes I will agree, the amount paid to them should be fixed at say £160 a week each with no top ups. If you want more, save for it in a private pension or maybe continue to work.

Of course working people get welfare benefits only because they haven't got the ability to get another job that will take them out of benefits.

The age old argument - why work 50 hours when you get the same by claiming WTC and only working 30 hours??

schrodie

tokenfield wrote: »

Yes Pensioners account for over 40% in fact - they have paid in and worked for most of their lives.

Not necessarily. Again a sweeping ill-thought out generalisation probably gleaned from years of reading b0ll0cks in right wing rags like the daily mail.