UN Convention on Rights of Disabled Persons

Lanzarote1938

nannytone wrote: »

i totally accept the unfairness regarding mobility past retirement age, so maybe they need to compile a list of conditions that would be classed as disabilities, totally detached from the age of the claimant.

the problem with taking the mobility component away at 65 is that it will set a precedent.

currently, people have transitional protection, meaning that unless they have a change in circumstances, they will never be made 'worse off' by a change in benefit rules.

benefits affected by changes don't rise yearly, but remain static until the new benefit amount matches the amount they currently receive.

if they take away that protection, then all benefits can be drastically reduced at whim

just to add ... i don't go to the gym anymore because i have a guide dog now and she keeps me fit

DLA/PIP not necessarily attracting transitional protection. The families who have lost CTC and child benefit due to changes in benefit rules just got warning it was going to happen...no protection.

missbiggles1

nannytone wrote: »

although i think its unfair that there is no mobility component to AA ....

someone that develops mobility issues past 65, is more likely to have developed them due to the natural raging process rather than disability. that is why they are ignored for AA purposes.

iy would be far too expensive to start paying disability benefits when the only disability is old age

I appreciate the rationale for it but I still disagree. If you lose your mobility then it's a disability, whether that's because of the aging process, an accident, a medical condition or anything else.

nannytone_2

but SLA/PIP/AA affect other benefits that do allow transitional protection.

when the changes were made to housing benefit and council tax benefit were applied, as well as the changes to CTC ( not applicable to child benefit IMO as a household with a minimum income of 60k shouldn't be relying on benefits in the first place) put an awful lot of people into dire financial situations.

are you sure that part of the reason you object to people receiving DLA mobility post 65 isn't a reaction to people of your age not being allowed to receive it?

isplumm

nannytone wrote: »

but SLA/PIP/AA affect other benefits that do allow transitional protection.

when the changes were made to housing benefit and council tax benefit were applied, as well as the changes to CTC ( not applicable to child benefit IMO as a household with a minimum income of 60k shouldn't be relying on benefits in the first place) put an awful lot of people into dire financial situations.

are you sure that part of the reason you object to people receiving DLA mobility post 65 isn't a reaction to people of your age not being allowed to receive it?

why do you put everything in bold - very difficult to read??

Mark

mumps

I can imagine feeling its unfair if I have mobility issues after 65 but then I think of a friend of mine. She was disabled as a result of a botched delivery and has lived her whole life with mobility issues and in great pain, as she ages the disability and the pain gets worse. You only have to look at her to see the pain which is obvious. If she gets the mobility component of DLA I can't find it in me to object. I wouldn't swap 65 active painless years for her experience. Maybe an extreme example but puts it in perspective for me.

Ames

isplumm wrote: »

why do you put everything in bold - very difficult to read??

Mark

Because she's blind and finds it easier to find her own posts if they're bold. That means she can use her speaking software to read from where she was last instead of having to read the whole thread again.

Lanzarote1938

nannytone wrote: »

are you sure that part of the reason you object to people receiving DLA mobility post 65 isn't a reaction to people of your age not being allowed to receive it?

Certainly not, simply wanting fairness for ALL disabled people, not just those under 65 who perhaps being younger can actually cope better as they don't have the normal ageing in addition to a life changing disability.

DomRavioli

Lanzarote1938 wrote: »

Certainly not, simply wanting fairness for ALL disabled people, not just those under 65 who perhaps being younger can actually cope better as they don't have the normal ageing in addition to a life changing disability.

Well take me for instance. 30 years old, female.

diagnosed with Glaucoma in 2013. Lost most of my sight in my right eye (around 70%), and half in my left eye. I'm lucky that the vision I have left is good enough for me to work, but the DLA supplements my income as I had to give up my NHS job of ten years because I wasn't safe to do it anymore.

Should I go without because of non-hereditary glaucoma made me leave my job as I could not get insured or registered in my profession? I did nothing wrong lifestyle wise, no genetic factors, just unlucky. I went from 40k a year to around 9k a year. Its a hell of a drop, and a massive change in life when you can't do anything you could - I have no driving licence (taken off me due to disability), massive drop in wages and lifestyle not to mention the basics (cooking, cleaning, walking around - I bang into things all the time as I'm still not used to being partially sighted).

Most people who develop serious visual issues as an adult are through age-related causes. There's some who get them as a secondary result of other disabilities, but the majority are age related.

What you are proposing is that someone who gets age related MD or age-related glaucoma/retinal detachment gets what I get, and that is far more unfair - I gave up not only my job but my pension.

Lanzarote1938

[QUOTE=DomRavioli;70590989

Most people who develop serious visual issues as an adult are through age-related causes. There's some who get them as a secondary result of other disabilities, but the majority are age related.

What you are proposing is that someone who gets age related MD or age-related glaucoma/retinal detachment gets what I get, and that is far more unfair - I gave up not only my job but my pension.[/QUOTE]

Surely blind is blind whatever your age. Why is a young blind person more entitled than an older one to some help?

Richie-from-the-Boro

isplumm wrote: »

why do you put everything in bold - very difficult to read??

Mark

Why do you think ? .. .. nannytone writes in big thick bold ?