I HATE the name of this forum - Disability and Dosh !

densol_2

I've always hated it. It suggests the disabled get the dosh ! It annoys me every time I click on it. It's not like disabled peeps have a choice either as to whether they are disabled

Rant over

lemontart

I agree, we are cast as the baddies by government, press and such like as it is.

billywilly

densol wrote: »

I've always hated it. It suggests the disabled get the dosh.... It's not like disabled peeps have a choice either as to whether they are disabled....

You may hate it, but to be honest the disabled do get extra dosh - PIP/DLA/Attendance Allowance. Additionally and if they also receive a means tested benefit they get double dosh - the actual benefit for being disabled + a premium for getting that benefit. - double bubble as they say. So why do you hate it?

Well not all disabled people had no choice in being disabled. Should we talk about alcoholics and druggies? What about extreme sportsmen, drink drivers - in fact there are many categories where self abuse was the cause.

In my case, alcohol played a major part in my disabilities as did my own dangerous actions that I carried out in life. Was I responsible for my own actions that made me disabled? Yes. Should I be compensated with extra dosh for them?

SingleSue

Some disabled do not get the dosh, either through choosing not to claim or because they get turned down.

Doesn't make them any less disabled though.

To Billywilly - no alcohol or dangerous actions here, just a hereditary condition which we didn't know was until eldest son was diagnosed, we just thought we were a family of bendy people! Eldest claims no disability benefits despite dislocating daily (several times) both major and minor joints and a heart condition. Middle son claims no disability benefits despite also dislocating, having Aspergers, partially deaf, brain damage which has an impact on his verbal understanding and short term memory and a bowel disorder.

Youngest does receive disability benefits but I don't think anyone would like to have his life, he has complex autism, severe asthma, the same dislocating joints condition, bowel disorder, social anxiety, gross food intolerances and multiple food allergies plus sensory processing problems. He struggles big time every single day and the DLA (soon to be PIP), goes towards but does not cover all the therapies and special items he needs....certainly not quids in!

I finally, after having to use a wheelchair for the last 3 and a half years, put in a claim for PIP late last year as carers/helpers will be needed once middle son goes to uni in September and for that, I need the financial back up to get them. If I don't get it though, I will still be mobility impaired and thus disabled as are my two older children.

Blackpool_Saver

The disabled do not get extra dosh, they have to spend it on their extra costs

Errata

densol wrote: »

I've always hated it. It suggests the disabled get the dosh ! It annoys me every time I click on it. It's not like disabled peeps have a choice either as to whether they are disabled

Rant over

The name is puerile and better suited to a Sun headline.

Blackpool_Saver

I never liked it myself, time it was changed

billywilly

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

The disabled do not get extra dosh, they have to spend it on their extra costs

Not back on that topic again?

It would be quite helpful that instead of just saying that, maybe people could give a breakdown on what these extra costs are. To me they are quite mythical. I had DLA HRM & MRC for 19 years and have to admit that I would be hard pushed to account for what those extra costs were on current rates of £110 a week.

billywilly

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

The disabled do not get extra dosh, they have to spend it on their extra costs

Not back on that topic again?

It would be quite helpful that instead of just saying that, maybe people could give a breakdown on what these extra costs are. To me they are quite mythical. I had DLA HRM & MRC for 19 years and have to admit that I would be hard pushed to account for what those extra costs were.

I have heard people say that they used the mobility element to rent a car. Disabled or not I always had my own car, although I did try Motability for 18 months but had the car taken off me. So that won't wash, because most people have a car anyhow.

cakenom

Go to Scopes website then /campaigns/extra-costs/what-are-costs

There are probably a lot more places which indicate the different costs that disabled people face, over able bodied/minded people.

Some would say the cost of alcohol is an extra cost for an alcoholic. Not that I agree with it, but if we're classing it as a disability then it must be - because I don't know any recovered alcoholics that still consider themselves disabled. Perhaps they tend to damage more of their clothing or need to replace more carpets around the house from damage.

But I wouldn't say the examples of disabled people you gave are even remotely representative of DLA/PIP claimants as a whole.

Also if you've been keeping up with things DLA is only for kids now, and adults need to apply for PIP and only get the rate of allowance that suits their particular extra costs as seen by the government. Previously it was just averaged out and split into two groups, so some people were getting less than was needed to cover their extra costs and some will be getting more (although not that many I'd imagine, the whole idea of the changes is to save money, not to help disabled people).

Perhaps disabled people spend more time at home in the winter, or are less able to deal with the cold and so need more money to pay for heating than non-disabled people? Maybe they need to buy more expensive food for special diets?

Disabled people could certainly do without your misinformed bias and intolerance.

billywilly

cakenom wrote: »

Disabled people could certainly do without your misinformed bias and intolerance.

I'm certainly not biased. I am also disabled, the only difference is that I am now assessed by the DWP as not disabled enough for PIP, but was for DLA.

Neither am I intolerant. I appreciate that some disabled people are very restricted and any help that can be given should be given.

My point was in reply to an earlier poster that said, amongst other things, that ALL disabled people have extra costs. I dispute that as I never did and still don't. So it is NOT ALL people - some do and some don't. Which begged the question that should those who don't have these extra costs actually be awarded these benefits? Then the question arises as to how they became disabled. Should the taxpayers financially support those that became disabled through their own fault? Just the same as the NHS having to fund the cost of medical treatment for say alcoholics and druggies? Surely if you are willing to put your life and well being at risk because of actions that you voluntarily undertook, should some form of insurance have not been taken out which would cover the cost of any NHS treatment as well as providing an income should you become disabled because of those actions?

Disabilities and their causes needs to be researched a lot more and the dwindling amount of money that the government have should be targeted at those that had NO choice in how they ended up disabled and by reference to what the extra costs actually are.
Doing that would save a lot of money.