ESA - does this sound right?

Mojisola

tea-bag wrote: »

I find it amazing the amount of couples who are disabled or are disabled and have disabled kids, some people are very unlucky!

In my case, after years of poor health, almost everyone who is left as a friend has some illness or disability - most fit and able people get caught up in their active lives and lose contact with those of us who can't do the same activities.

If I hadn't been married to my lovely husband before I became ill, I would probably either be single or have a disabled partner.

nannytone_2

FBaby wrote: »

Only going by what OP said himself in his thread. If it is the case that OP is terminal, then my heart truly goes to him, but that's different to agreeing that they should be entitled to even more benefits than what they are already receiving.

I don't agree that very few people receive such high benefits. Why would it be any different for others in the same situation which is not that unusual?

My experience of people I know who claim disability benefits, especially those who are disabled themselves and have a disabled child(ren) is that they are entitlement to that amount and more when you add all the additional benefits that can be claimed, it is just that the larger public isn't yet aware of it.

the OP has always worked and probably earn in excess of the amount they are receiving in benefit. it has been pointed out that they are receiving the maximum.
as someone diagnosed with a terminal illness and fast tracked, they are unlikely to be receiving this amount of help for long.

children, regardless of disability, attract a ridiculously high amount of benefit.
i would like to see you relinquish your eyesight and be happy on the benefit i receive as recompense.
money can't compensate, but it can make life more tolerable

nannytone_2

fbaby knows too many people with disabled children that are receiving more than they spend out.
she doesn't understand the costs of disability on single adults that live alone.
i spend every penny of my disability benefit on things that enable me to live in the 'real world' rather than be isolated at home on my own.

some people consider this to be a luxury.
but maybe some people don't know what its like to spend from 2pm friday until 11 am monday totally alone, with no human contact, existing on toast because that is all you can safely make on your own.
i know what that was like and wouldn't wish it on anyone

FBaby

Nanny I do agree with you a big disparity between single disabled people and families. As I've said many times I don't think the benefit budget should be reduced as a whole but vetted reallocated based in financial need not perceived need.

Understandably the disabled people who respond are those who do not fall into the category I refer to.

Indie_Kid

FBaby wrote: »

Nanny I do agree with you a big disparity between single disabled people and families. As I've said many times I don't think the benefit budget should be reduced as a whole but vetted reallocated based in financial need not perceived need.

Understandably the disabled people who respond are those who do not fall into the category I refer to.

That wouldn't work when for some, they don't have the same costs every single week.

FBaby

the OP has always worked and probably earn in excess of the amount they are receiving in benefit

Just to comment on this, what makes you think that?

children, regardless of disability, attract a ridiculously high amount of benefit.

Indeed, and with disability even more despite the fact that many of these children do not occur additional costs. Many of these families end up with an income they would only dream off if it wasn't for their children, and the reason why many come to post very worried once their children become adults.

i would like to see you relinquish your eyesight and be happy on the benefit i receive as recompense.

DLA is not compensation for a disability, it is to respond to a need, but as said before, it really comes down to how much of disabled benefit is actually spent on the disability. For some, like you who employ a carer and skcollobcat10 who spends it on their wheelchairs (although it annoys me that this is not available to you on the NHS, it would be in my local area so again, some disparity amongst claimants).

I feel fbaby that there is a slight grudge towards the disabled, forgive me if I have misunderstood you.

I truly do not have a grudge towards the disabled, I wish many got much better access to healthcare, and were much more included in society and especially were much more included in the workforce. What I begrudge are those families who maximise their income from benefits, who pretend to care for each other for 35 hours when they provide no more care to each other than they would if they were not disabled, who spend DLA money on luxuries they could never have afforded if it wasn't for the benefits they receive. Families who are much better off not working than the same family with no disability who are both working full-time.

I begrudge people who already receive a very large amount of benefit and yet look at ways of claiming even more.

FBaby

Indie_Kid wrote: »

That wouldn't work when for some, they don't have the same costs every single week.

You could easily do an annual assessment.

FBaby

Anyway, I won't post here any longer, firstly because we will only go over discussions we had many times and in the end, it's all about policy, not the people who make the best of them, and secondly, I appreciate that this is just not the place to discuss this.

BlueEyedGirl

nannytone wrote: »

have you never heard of genetics?. an awful lot of disabled people meet through their disability and so it isn't surprising that some become couples.

or shouldn't disabled people have relationships and families?

He's just out to get people who claim disability benefits. He's clearly bitter because he has to work in a supermarket and support his family.

Murphybear

FBaby wrote: »

Who said he shouldn't be comfortable? At the equivalent of a £40-45K job income, I would hope he can find a way to be so as he rightly should be. The question is why should he need even more to be so.

By the way, OP says he has a life limited illness, which is different to terminal. He could have been diagnosed with MS or type 1 diabetes which is life limiting, but doesn't mean he is terminal. Not undermining the impact at all, it must be very hard to adjust to such a diagnosis, but joint pointing out that it is not the same.

Type 1 diabetes should not be life limiting. Prime example, Sir Steve Redgrave