New PIP Rules

DomRavioli

rebecca_p wrote: »

I don't like how a person who has depression, anxiety, agoraphobia can be awarded the same rate ESA/PIP as somebody like my daughter who has chronic paranoid schizophrenia. I think with with these lesser conditions there is room to improve and get better with the right support to manage them. How is it fair that people who have anxieties around leaving the house or going on public transport get the same indefinite payments as somebody who's fluently psychotic and has to be dragged kicking and screaming to the hospital every couple of months to be administered depot medication because the side effects of the depot are so bad that they refuse flat out to take them. I think some people have no reason or willingness to get better as their payments will stop.

As someone with those conditions, I haven't been outside, at all since June 2016. Not even to open the front door. I don't get MH help because I cannot go out, so cannot see a MH professional.

I get help because I am unable to take meds due to interactions with medications for life long conditions completely unrelated to my MH issues. You have absolutely no clue what it feels like to go from being an NHS professional of 10 years to being unable to open your front door, unable to get food when you're hungry because there isn't anyone to help you, unable to get access to basic healthcare. I've had a dental problem since June, my mouth is permanently swellen but I can't get to a dentist. I can't even get in a car, let alone move in one.

So I'm sorry your child has a disability, but so do I. Multiple ones, which have left me uncontrollably vulnerable and with absolutely zero help - at least your child is able to access even the most basic of treatments, even if they aren't all sunshine and rainbows.

You need to stop judging others, because until you have spent a day with my disabilities, you have absolytely no rght to judge.

PHILANTHROPIST

Tommo1980 wrote: »

Jeepers, rockingbilly has found a kindred spirit in rebecca p. What a load of ignorant twoddle.

Sadly, Tommo it looks like some people who clearly have influence agree with the above members. In effect the government wish to argue that PIPs should be for the "really disabled":

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39097019

rockingbilly

PHILANTHROPIST wrote: »

Sadly, Tommo it looks like some people who clearly have influence agree with the above members. In effect the government wish to argue that PIPs should be for the "really disabled":

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39097019

I wouldn't say that people, including myself have this level of influence. What the government is doing is to reverse these Tribunal rulings.
You only have to look at what the original intentions were when DLA first came out in 1992 and how it ended up in 2013. With so many court rulings in that time frame, the original legislation lost all of it's meaning. Consequently the government quite rightly don't want the same to happen to PIP. All of it is just common sense.

Tommo1980

It's not the legislation that is the problem. It's the discriminatory and judgemental attitudes that discussing it generates.

That is why the stated purpose of this board is advice and not discussion of policy. But some choose to ignore this to the detriment of those genuinely seeking advice and support.

rockingbilly

Tommo1980 wrote: »

It's not the legislation that is the problem. It's the discriminatory and judgemental attitudes that discussing it generates.

That is why the stated purpose of this board is advice and not discussion of policy. But some choose to ignore this to the detriment of those genuinely seeking advice and support.

In which case the original posting should have been immediately removed.
No question of advice was included
The original post was in my opinion written in order to seek discussion and not advce

rockingbilly

Penitent wrote: »

The discussion isn't causing any trouble when it's confined to a thread like this one. The problem is, as Tommo said, when people turn someone's request for advice into a policy discussion/opportunity to whinge about what people should and shouldn't get.

What was the advice being asked in the original post? I can't see it. To me it was a posting made to wind people up.

System

rebecca_p wrote: »

I don't like how a person who has depression, anxiety, agoraphobia can be awarded the same rate ESA/PIP as somebody like my daughter who has chronic paranoid schizophrenia. I think with with these lesser conditions there is room to improve and get better with the right support to manage them. How is it fair that people who have anxieties around leaving the house or going on public transport get the same indefinite payments as somebody who's fluently psychotic and has to be dragged kicking and screaming to the hospital every couple of months to be administered depot medication because the side effects of the depot are so bad that they refuse flat out to take them. I think some people have no reason or willingness to get better as their payments will stop.

I have bipolar. Whilst i agree it more manageable than schizophrenia that doesn't make it any less of a disability. At my worst i was in the ESA support group for 3 1/2 years because work was deemed something that could cause me serious harm (at the time it has already resulted in a near successful suicide attempt). At times i too refuse my medication (because i'm manic and think i'm cured and don;t need them), my last episode was very nearly a full manic episode that would have required hospital admission if it hadn;t been treated so quickly.

So you can sit there any say how dare anyone with depression/anxiety (which is uffer from as part of my bipolar) get help but i;ve been there, seen it, done it and i do need help. This is not a game of mental illness top trumps. You do not know how that ilnness affects someone life. So stop judging them.

m.rothwell

I personally do not feel the government has gone round this in the correct manner.
Firstly you have three judges interpreting the criteria. Then giving judgment.
Secondly you have a government who department saying they have interpreting them wrongly and changing the criteria. This has been done without debate or possible free vote in the house of commons.
This feels like it been railroaded through without due diligence on the effects it could have.

rockingbilly

m.rothwell wrote: »

I personally do not feel the government has gone round this in the correct manner.
Firstly you have three judges interpreting the criteria. Then giving judgment.
Secondly you have a government who department saying they have interpreting them wrongly and changing the criteria. This has been done without debate or possible free vote in the house of commons.
This feels like it been railroaded through without due diligence on the effects it could have.

I don't understand what your problem is with this.
There is no need for consultation. All that is happening is that the government are introducing legislation to counter what the judges decided. There will be no change to the rules for PIP - what was the case in 2016 will still be the case in 2017. You simply cannot have judges making up new rules for PIP.

nannytone_2

rebecca_p wrote: »

I don't like how a person who has depression, anxiety, agoraphobia can be awarded the same rate ESA/PIP as somebody like my daughter who has chronic paranoid schizophrenia. I think with with these lesser conditions there is room to improve and get better with the right support to manage them. How is it fair that people who have anxieties around leaving the house or going on public transport get the same indefinite payments as somebody who's fluently psychotic and has to be dragged kicking and screaming to the hospital every couple of months to be administered depot medication because the side effects of the depot are so bad that they refuse flat out to take them. I think some people have no reason or willingness to get better as their payments will stop.

my middle grandson contracted viral encephalitis at the age of 18 months.
he went from a normal toddler to a little boy that couldn't sit, stand, walk, talk, feed himself or anything else apart from roll over ( and that took him 2 years to master) he sadly passed away a month short of his 4th birthday.

he received high rate for both components of DLA.

i am blind, but otherwise physically fit, and yet i receive high rate mobility DLA.

i am undoubtedly not as disabled as my grandson was, but just because i am not AS disabled, doesn't mean that i should find walking around easy! you are choosing to minimise anothers problems just because you perceive your daughters problems to be 'worse'.

it is a slippery slope when you start playing the 'my disability is worse than your disability' game.

the award rate is based on the individuals needs, and not on their needs compared to someone else