MSE News: Disability and carer's allowance claimaints to suffer as inflation falls

FBaby

But the point is disabled people may have barriers higher than non disabled e.g there is a theory (more like a model) referred to as spoon theory

You say it yourself MIGHT have barriers higher. But it is not always the case, yet DLA despite on what it says is not based on actual need and that is what makes it totally wrong in the first place.

For instance, a good friend of mine is disabled since birth meaning that she can't run and struggles at time to walk long distance. She has done extremely well though, has a high paid job which even involves travelling abroad. 2 years ago, she decided to claim DLA and was awarded the highest component of mobility. She decided to get a nice car (pays the difference but still makes a nice difference). She only uses it during the week-end as she is able to walk to her office albeit slowly (hence why she never bothered with a car before). She doesn't NEED the car, physical or financially.

When I became a single mum, working full-time and my two were still at nursery, my job relocated 45 minutes away (often 1 hour). There was only one nursery open in my town that allowed dropping/picking up within the hours I worked....as long as I drove. If I had to take a bus to nursery, drop them off, then take another bus to work, I just wouldn't have been able to do my contracted hours. I would have had to reduce my hours (which probably wouldn't have been granted), give up work (and rely on benefits), get my kids to travel with me to a new nursery (except my job meant that I travelled to meetings, often in the other direction), or move house and nursery (except that I wouldn't have been able to afford a place in the expensive town the office moved to, and there was the risk of being relocated once again, which indeed, happened 2 years later!). So ultimately, I really did NEED a car. Did that entitled to me to non means tested benefits? NO it didn't.

To make it clear, I would never have expected benefits, it is to illustrate the point about the lack of direct link between an actual need for a car and the entitlement to it. Perceive needs should not entitled people to benefits to do what they want with it, actual needs should be taken into consideration. If Froggy came here, he would say that changing the policy to support the above wouldn't be affordable. That is most likely right, but it is still doesn't make it right, and still means that some people who are in actual need of a car will inevitably build resentment towards the person who gets the car on the basis of perceived need only.

FBaby

Being a parent is a choice. Having a disability which means your insurance costs more, isn't.

You said this before, and it comes across as very bitter. I understand your point when you consider disabilities from your own experience, but you seem to forget that not all disabled people suffer from it as you do and many can live a very 'normal' fulfilling life as a result of the many choices they made. Not everyone has the choice to have children, some would like to and can't. You can't make generalisation about choice just based on one's own experience only.

Indie_Kid

FBaby wrote: »

You said this before, and it comes across as very bitter. I understand your point when you consider disabilities from your own experience, but you seem to forget that not all disabled people suffer from it as you do and many can live a very 'normal' fulfilling life as a result of the many choices they made. Not everyone has the choice to have children, some would like to and can't. You can't make generalisation about choice just based on one's own experience only.

The people I know who are disabled and do live as normal life as possible, aren't, rightly, entitled to DLA.

I think you misunderstood my point. Those who have children, made that choice. I did not choose to be born with a list of rare and serious medical issues.

I am also one of those people who can't have children.

SnooksNJ

belladonna13 wrote: »

My friends son could not drive so used his mobility benefit to buy a 'shiny' white mobility scooter because he could hardly walk. Which left him some money over to buy the odd pack of baccy. He was far too ill to go on holiday or to go very far at all.

Its OK though for the taxpayer is now saving money because he died last year at the age of 36 and joined his brother who had died 3 years previously at the age of 38 or so with MS. I am sure many disabled live comparatively short life spans to the non-disabled.

It amazes and sicken me that people can begrudge or be jealous of those who are disabled using their benefits to 'lease' a car.


!

It amazes and sickens me that you think people who work want people dead to save taxpayer money.

Scully38

specialboy wrote: »

The employed who are stumping up their cash week in week out to pay for the benefits aren't getting rises so why should everyone else?

I haven't had a pay rise for years. What ticks me off is the politicians patting themselves on the back and giving themselves an 11% pay rise, and they have the gaul to treat us like 2nd class citizens and 'scroungers'. It ticks me off that they cut our benefits because they have to reduce the debt, then go and give themselves a pay rise that's over 100% over inflation... our tax payments at work!!

*reluctantly steps off her soapbox*

FBaby

The people I know who are disabled and do live as normal life as possible, aren't, rightly, entitled to DLA.

Living as a normal life as possible isn't part of the assessment though? To be fair, my friend doesn't think she will meet the PIP enhanced criteria when she is reassessed at some stage.

Those who have children, made that choice.

But what does this have anything to do with entitlement to DLA? You could turn it around and say that people chose to have children, but children don't chose their parents. That doesn't mean that if they get crap parents, they get automatic entitlement to extra benefits.

rogerblack

FBaby wrote: »

Living as a normal life as possible isn't part of the assessment though? To be fair, my friend doesn't think she will meet the PIP enhanced criteria when she is reassessed at some stage.

It sort-of is.
If you need help with cooking, bathing, social activity - that is counted in PIP.

Scully38

Tropez wrote: »

My friend does a lot more than cooking. She does cook, she also cleans, she has to manage all of her relative's appointments, bills, telephone conversations etc., she has to help her relative move about, several times a night I believe as well so her sleep is also very disturbed. She cannot leave the house for more than an hour because of the needs of her relative. She has to help her relative wash and get dressed too.

I think you may have a simplistic view of what a carer actually does.

Well said! I think quite a few people who don't 'care' for others have a rather simplistic view. I base this on my family rather than anyone elses. I cared for my dad when he had terminal cancer 10 years ago, and for my mom 9 years ago as my mom was paraplegic due to breaking her neck.

I used to work extended hours, 12 hours over 3 days so that I could be there for the majority of the time. Both my parents needed completely different care, mobility needs, medication, dietry requirements, hospital, doctor, pallitive appointments, but that's ok as all you do as a carer is sit and chat with the person you're caring for. Not only that, but carers never have to get out of bed in the night, because the person you care for is able to sleep for minimally 8hrs a night. So your sleep is never disturbed, you don't need to hoist them onto the commode at 3 in the morning, or roll them over in the night as they're screaming in pain, or give them extra medication, or even do several different meals because the chemo makes your dad/mom/sister/brother/aunt/uncle/friend etc makes them nauseous, or make them vomiting because of the smell. And to go outside and got to various appointments or taking the person you care for out for a few hours so they don't go stir crazy looking at the same 4 walls. Sure it only takes a few hours to get them read, get the equipment ready then get yourself ready......

But we didn't/don't do very much do we Tropez (and other carers)

*gets of her soapbox*

Morglin

wildwestfan wrote: »

I get so cross about people complaining about the amount of tax free money they receive because they are disabled. Add in rent, council tax payments plus help with dental and optical benefits and it will amount to a whole lot more than someone working full time on NMW who has to pay work related costs and their own housing costs.

Come on nanny and indie kid tell us how much you get week in week out. Then try and persuade us that you are so hard done by. People with disabilities are extremely well looked after in this country.

I don't normally get involved with these threads, but you seem a little misinformed.

Not ALL disabled get means tested benefits - hubby and I don't because we worked for years and built up private pensions etc.,

We get no help with CT, rent, teeth, glasses or anything else.

We pay tax - at the same rate as everyone else - and we have both been paying tax since we left school......years and years ago.

Our sickness benefits were and are contributory - we paid in.

We were both (different incidents) left permanently disabled by the NHS and it's crappy treatment/diagnosis........but didn't sue, which was nice of us.

We are, or would be, entitled to actual council support, with carers, via extra Direct Payments, but we choose mot to do that, and pay for whatever we need ourselves, from our pensions, benefits, or savings.

We get DLA and yes we have had Motability cars - which we need. We pay a deposit and then lease them.

I have been fit, done the tough years with kids, working hard, and know it's not easy - but, if i could go back to that and be healthy, then i would, in a heartbeat - I am disabled 24/7, not just when i am spending all the benefits lol.

Oh, and, yeah, we have a couple of decent holidays a year.

Don't begrudge disabled people what they get - it's really no compensation for being unhealthy/disabled.

Lin

wildwestfan

Morglin wrote: »

I don't normally get involved with these threads, but you seem a little misinformed.

Not ALL disabled get means tested benefits - hubby and I don't because we worked for years and built up private pensions etc.,

We get no help with CT, rent, teeth, glasses or anything else.

We pay tax - at the same rate as everyone else - and we have both been paying tax since we left school......years and years ago.

Our sickness benefits were and are contributory - we paid in.

We were both (different incidents) left permanently disabled by the NHS and it's crappy treatment/diagnosis........but didn't sue, which was nice of us.

We are, or would be, entitled to actual council support, with carers, via extra Direct Payments, but we choose mot to do that, and pay for whatever we need ourselves, from our pensions, benefits, or savings.

We get DLA and yes we have had Motability cars - which we need. We pay a deposit and then lease them.

I have been fit, done the tough years with kids, working hard, and know it's not easy - but, if i could go back to that and be healthy, then i would, in a heartbeat - I am disabled 24/7, not just when i am spending all the benefits lol.

Oh, and, yeah, we have a couple of decent holidays a year.

Don't begrudge disabled people what they get - it's really no compensation for being unhealthy/disabled.

Lin

You totally misunderstand me.

I have no issues at all with disabled people having a decent standard of living paid for by benefits. What I do object to is the constant complaints that it isn't enough.