ESA Support group in for a ROUGH ride 2017 (Support group to be CRUSHED!)

JakiT

Lanzarote1938 wrote: »

I fully accept that ESA is claimed as an income replacement by disabled people as there is no choice but to suggest that all people claiming ESA are disabled is ridiculous.

They are all disabled or long term sick, Lanzarote. In fact, many don't even get ESA even though they're long term sick or disabled, because of the stringency of the test. The fact that a high proportion win on appeal shows what a crude instrument the WCA is and should be scrapped.

FBaby

Inequality has rocketed since monetarism. More equal societies have less crime, fewer teenage pregnancies, fewer mental health problems and are happier

Equality is not just about finances though. There are costly things that people on better income have to give up in exchange of that money, mainly time and stress. These two can end up so costly that more and more people are choosing to give a large chunk of their income in exchange.

You can't have it all, ie. a society with more equal finances and lifestyle, but where one is still expected to work long hours in a stressful job whilst the other gets almost the same money for working half the time in a more relaxed job. This is already what tax credits have introduced and has pushed more and more family reducing their hours as much as possible to balance their income vs the demand of working.

I have just been offered a promotion. I would love to take the extra money, but the demand that will come with it is not worth it any longer because I've reached my own threshold.

The problem with the theory of the balance society is, if you build a more financially balanced society, so that the doctor who is in charge of his ward earns hardly more than the nurse who just takes order, who is ever going to want to become that doctor?

Sixer

dippy3103 wrote: »

It's all relative. I used to work with a lady with Cerebal Palsy. I know her (then DLA) paid for the car that enabled her to work. She had both care and mobility needs. I don't doubt she would get into the support group if she claimed ESA. She was able to adapt.
Other people would not be able to adapt as she did: proving that whenit comes to disability, benefits and work that one size does not fit all.

My cousin's husband has a form of muscular dystrophy. He has held down the same full-time job for about 20 years. For about 10 of those years, he's had a Motability car. He's at a stage where he can walk fairly reasonably with crutches. However, his legs give way intermittently, so he needs an adapted car with hand-only controls otherwise he would be a danger to other road users and pedestrians. Without an adapted car, he cannot drive. Although he can walk with crutches, it's a slow difficult affair and he could not use public transport to get to work. Clearly, his condition is degenerative so there is no chance of his mobility improving in future.

He's just had his Motability car taken away after a PIP assessment. He is appealing and his employer is holding his job open even though he cannot get to work at present. But they can't do that forever and the appeals process takes forever. Given his condition, it's unlikely anyone else but someone who's known him for 20 years will take him on.

There's a good chance that he'll end up without a job he's held for 20 years and will then be reliant on the state for daily living as well as mobility.

So much of this stuff is penny wise and pound foolish. Even if you believe the welfare state is too generous, why would you support a system that spends a pound to save a penny? That makes things worse not better even on austerity-is-necessary terms.

Also, there is a reason collective punishment is illegal under international law. If you can only locate cheaters by punishing non-cheaters, then your system is bankrupt.

Lanzarote1938

Sixer wrote: »

.


There's a good chance that he'll end up without a job he's held for 20 years and will then be reliant on the state for daily living as well as mobility.

would access to work be able to step in at least until the appeal?

pmlindyloo

Sixer wrote: »

My cousin's husband has a form of muscular dystrophy. He has held down the same full-time job for about 20 years. For about 10 of those years, he's had a Motability car. He's at a stage where he can walk fairly reasonably with crutches. However, his legs give way intermittently, so he needs an adapted car with hand-only controls otherwise he would be a danger to other road users and pedestrians. Without an adapted car, he cannot drive. Although he can walk with crutches, it's a slow difficult affair and he could not use public transport to get to work. Clearly, his condition is degenerative so there is no chance of his mobility improving in future.

He's just had his Motability car taken away after a PIP assessment. He is appealing and his employer is holding his job open even though he cannot get to work at present. But they can't do that forever and the appeals process takes forever. Given his condition, it's unlikely anyone else but someone who's known him for 20 years will take him on.

There's a good chance that he'll end up without a job he's held for 20 years and will then be reliant on the state for daily living as well as mobility.

So much of this stuff is penny wise and pound foolish. Even if you believe the welfare state is too generous, why would you support a system that spends a pound to save a penny? That makes things worse not better even on austerity-is-necessary terms.

Also, there is a reason collective punishment is illegal under international law. If you can only locate cheaters by punishing non-cheaters, then your system is bankrupt.

As well as Access to Work there is also a package available from the Motability Scheme if the car has to be returned.

Since he is working it might be possible to retain the car using the 'financial support' package and his own money.

JakiT

FBaby wrote: »

Equality is not just about finances though. There are costly things that people on better income have to give up in exchange of that money, mainly time and stress. These two can end up so costly that more and more people are choosing to give a large chunk of their income in exchange.

You can't have it all, ie. a society with more equal finances and lifestyle, but where one is still expected to work long hours in a stressful job whilst the other gets almost the same money for working half the time in a more relaxed job. This is already what tax credits have introduced and has pushed more and more family reducing their hours as much as possible to balance their income vs the demand of working.

I have just been offered a promotion. I would love to take the extra money, but the demand that will come with it is not worth it any longer because I've reached my own threshold.

The problem with the theory of the balance society is, if you build a more financially balanced society, so that the doctor who is in charge of his ward earns hardly more than the nurse who just takes order, who is ever going to want to become that doctor?

FBaby, no, equal societies are not just about finances, but then you shoot yourself in the foot rather and talk only in terms of finances. As if people will only work for money!! It is a fallacy to suggest that people will only work for obscene amounts of remuneration. But the reality is that people work for nothing!! Just look around you at all the volunteers, the carers, the parents, the students, the artists, the advice offered for free on the internet. It is true that in a neoliberal world that only those earning for money (and the more the better) feel valued. But it is a nonsense. People are not commodities and should not be measured in terms of monetary value. Doctors et al have a calling. It is absurd to say there'd be no doctors if they were paid less. Here's another example. Footballers in the 70s were hardly paid anything compared to the obscene amounts they get paid today but did it stop them being footballers? Course it didn't. This is why I support an Unconditional Basic Income where the amount you need to survive e.g. as in the state pension is separated from what you do with your time. Those who work would always be better off, so it's a win-win. It's the only thing that makes sense in a global economy and where there's not enough 'paid work' in the traditional sense to go round. May I suggest you read The Spirit Level? That explains the benefits of equal societies far more eloquently than I can and in great depth. Their findings show that all in society benefit from equal societies not just the poor, the wealthy do too! And by equality , that doesn't mean everyone's paid the same. But as the authors of the point demonstrate, it is one thing for a CEO to get e.g. ten times more than an average worker as was the case prior to aggressive monetarism. But now we have companies that are richer than some countries. I have a link to blog I wrote on the book if you are interested but you'll get far more out of reading the book itself. Can i also suggest you read around the Unconditional basic Income which is gaining traction in Europe? In fact there's to be a seminar about it early December at Birmingham University. Many politicians support it - it's been Green Party policy for decades and now John McDonnell supports it. It is also known as The Citizens Income. I have many links to that too.

schrodie

Lanzarote1938 wrote: »

I fully accept that ESA is claimed as an income replacement by disabled people as there is no choice but to suggest that all people claiming ESA are disabled is ridiculous.

ESA is far from being an income replacement unless you were on slave wages. It doesn't even come near the minimum wage in it's amount. Hence it's not an income replacement per say.

However when you claim ESA then it has been determined that it's unreasonable to expect you to carry out work related activity as determined by the WCA assessment.

JakiT

Sixer wrote: »

My cousin's husband has a form of muscular dystrophy. He has held down the same full-time job for about 20 years. For about 10 of those years, he's had a Motability car. He's at a stage where he can walk fairly reasonably with crutches. However, his legs give way intermittently, so he needs an adapted car with hand-only controls otherwise he would be a danger to other road users and pedestrians. Without an adapted car, he cannot drive. Although he can walk with crutches, it's a slow difficult affair and he could not use public transport to get to work. Clearly, his condition is degenerative so there is no chance of his mobility improving in future.

He's just had his Motability car taken away after a PIP assessment. He is appealing and his employer is holding his job open even though he cannot get to work at present. But they can't do that forever and the appeals process takes forever. Given his condition, it's unlikely anyone else but someone who's known him for 20 years will take him on.

There's a good chance that he'll end up without a job he's held for 20 years and will then be reliant on the state for daily living as well as mobility.

So much of this stuff is penny wise and pound foolish. Even if you believe the welfare state is too generous, why would you support a system that spends a pound to save a penny? That makes things worse not better even on austerity-is-necessary terms.

Also, there is a reason collective punishment is illegal under international law. If you can only locate cheaters by punishing non-cheaters, then your system is bankrupt.

I'm really sorry to hear this, Sixer. I have heard about it happening all too often and all he can do is appeal. People do get it back on appeal. In fact when the Welfare Reform Bill was going through parliament, the group Spartacus produced a report about PIP and arguments for not changing the amount of meters someone could walk in order to qualify. But Lord Fraud et al went ahead and railroaded over this report produced by disabled people.

I totally agree with what you say about 'collective punishment' too. If you set the bar too high you will get too many true negatives i.e. genuine people being turned down for benefit entitlements. No system is 100% foolproof and yet fraud it as low as it gets at 0.5%. And for the small amount who do commit fraud there has always been a fraud squad to deal with them. No, this is all about ideology and cutting back the welfare state. If it was about helping people back into work, they'd never have invented a system that makes it even more difficult for people like your cousin's husband to stay in work. I hope he gets some redress very soon. I would suggest writing to his MP, whatever their political persuasion, as this normally speeds things up.

JakiT

schrodie wrote: »

ESA is far from being an income replacement unless you were on slave wages. It doesn't even come near the minimum wage in it's amount. Hence it's not an income replacement per say.

However when you claim ESA then it has been determined that it's unreasonable to expect you to carry out work related activity as determined by the WCA assessment.

Exactly so, Schrodie

FBaby

Can i also suggest you read around the Unconditional basic Income which is gaining traction in Europe? In fact there's to be a seminar about it early December at Birmingham University. Many politicians support it - it's been Green Party policy for decades and now John McDonnell supports it. It is also known as The Citizens Income.

You can suggest of course, but no thanks! As you've said, the Citizen Income has been around for some time. Some believe in it, most think although theoretically valuable, the reality if it is nothing but utopic.

It is absurd to say there'd be no doctors if they were paid less

Ha ha, you clearly don't know many doctors! As a matter of fact, with the current crisis with the NHS, I would say that it is ONLY the salary that keeps many in the profession. When you think of what you have to go through to get to be a doctor in the first place, and then the politics and inefficiencies you have to deal with, all this leading to significant stress for many, if it wasn't for the salary that gets them the lifestyle they've been accustomed to, there wouldn't be many doctors left in this country!