UN Convention on Rights of Disabled Persons

missbiggles1

DomRavioli wrote: »

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.

But you're making DLA/PIP sound like some kind of compensation for misfortune rather than being paid for care or mobility needs which someone of any age can have.

Also, by your thinking, you're more deserving of it than someone who was on a low income just because you were a higher rate earner.

nannytone_2

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.

so rather than campaigning for a mobility component to be added to AA, you would rather see everyone with LESS to make it fair?

I've never understood that rationale.
i haven't got a car ( or whatever .. be it money or a television etc) so it would make me feel better if my neighbour didn't have one either.

nannytone_2

DomRavioli wrote: »

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.

no, she doesn't want them to get it.
she doesn't want you to get it either once you are 65.
doesn't matter that your earning opportunities were drastically cut ( as opposed to the pensioner that loses sight after a long and productive working life)
thats your problem because you didn't somehow manage to continue in your career regardless

a disability that is acquired at a young age affects EVERYTHING.
from earning potential to basic daily tasks.
so does getting old, but that will come to everyone ( if we're lucky)
a long term disabled person has to cope with raging on top of their disability and thats why DLA continues to be paid past 65

nannytone_2

missbiggles1 wrote: »

But you're making DLA/PIP sound like some kind of compensation for misfortune rather than being paid for care or mobility needs which someone of any age can have.

Also, by your thinking, you're more deserving of it than someone who was on a low income just because you were a higher rate earner.

i struggle with this argument, because i can see your point. although the word compensation,to me, suggest something extra.
like buying a child a toy because they were too young to go to a theme park etc.

ao i dont see it as something that is given in exchange for my sight.

but at the same time, it goes some way to compensate, as it allows me to do day to day things that i wouldn't be able to if i couldn't pay someone to help me.

in much the same way that wages could be seen as compensation for giving up your time in order to help someone else do a job ( your boss)

the difference is that my 'compensation ' is being allowed to join in with the sighted world, to a degree.

soesnt song like much of a prize though, i'd much rather still have my sight and be working full time and taking my grand babies out ( on my own instead of having to be supervised)/B]

mumps

The problem is there isn't enough money for everything. I would hate my friend who has been disabled and in pain for her whole life to lose her mobility car at 65 because the country can't afford to do the same for someone who has similar problems for the last few years of their life when she has had the pain, suffering and disadvantage her whole life. It won't help the person who becomes disabled at 65 plus.

nannytone_2

mumps wrote: »

The problem is there isn't enough money for everything. I would hate my friend who has been disabled and in pain for her whole life to lose her mobility car at 65 because the country can't afford to do the same for someone who has similar problems for the last few years of their life when she has had the pain, suffering and disadvantage her whole life. It won't help the person who becomes disabled at 65 plus.

and that is my point exactly.

the person who has already suffered from years of disability will still have that disability on top of the normal frailties of old age.

mumps

nannytone wrote: »

and that is my point exactly.

the person who has already suffered from years of disability will still have that disability on top of the normal frailties of old age.

She isn't even at that stage yet, still in her 40s and far less mobile than I am in my 60s. I'm not sure how bad it will be in 20 years time.

nannytone_2

most of the people that are calling for the mobility component to be dropped at 65, were not disabled working age people.
they had the opportunity to work full time and to provide for their own needs.
they probably would have been able to provide their own car ( if they wanted one)

so how does a disabled 65 year old that has severe walking issues, suddenly afford to buy a car when they have been unable to work for years because of their disability ( very few sailed people manage to work full time until retirement)
as a direct result of the disability they also may not have been able to provide themselves with a private pension, so face a retirement with the very basic income plus the removal of the only independence they have.

all because people that went through their working life in relative good health and then 'get old', don't get it.

I've said it so many times on here.

to too many people, 'fairness' means taking something off people,and bringing them down. it never means raising everyone up.

and yet they say it isn't jealousy.
what else is it when they want something taken off someone just because they can't have it too?

mumps

My friend has always worked, she is very determined, but she has had to reduce her hours. It isn't even the lack of mobility that is the main issue, it is the constant pain she suffers.

nannytone_2

i always worked ( 31 years) and can't imagine what it must be like to live in constant pain.

when i stopped working, i could have applied for contributions based ESA, but as i had a working partner, i didn't.
but for as a single parent with 2 children to raise, it was only in my last 7 years of working that i was able to start paying into a pension .... had it not been for my sight issues, i would have continued to work, and continued to pay into a pension for another 20 years.

so on top of a retirement with very little money, some people would prefer that i am totally immobilised to.

no doubt someone will say that i have had enough already because of claiming benefits whilst still of working age, and perhaps they are right.

but at least they got to make their own choices, rather 6than having circumstance totally dictate how their life would be