Asking pip to look at award again

Muttleythefrog

Dreamnine wrote: »

Everyone should be reviewed regularly and promptly - it's only fair to the taxpayers.

Not really the place for this debate but I disagree... and so does the government now. Reviewing claims.. reassessing claimants.. costs money... the DWP DMs and private medical contractors can't keep up so are cutting corners in due procedures and diligence which in itself is also conveying further costs of significant numbers of reconsiderations and appeals as well as further disabling disabled people. There's no point reassessing some claimants unless the law changes... because their condition is going to be essentially permanent or unchanging. Claimants have a duty to report changes to their circumstances including health and disabilities in any case. So reviewing everyone and doing so regularly might not make any sense.. especially given the inaccuracies of assessment in the first place. Probably worth placing very limited resources into those cases of highly fluctuating conditions or conditions with real potential change due to treatment.

Dreamnine

Perhaps what I meant to say is that we should be concentrating on those who fleece the system inter alia and that we could cutback payments by around half what they presently are.

Just my thoughts.

WhenIam64

Perhaps what I meant to say is that we should be concentrating on those who fleece the system inter alia and that we could cutback payments by around half what they presently are.

You are saying half of all claims are bogus by people who are fleecing the system?

The government's own figures put "fleecing" at between 3% and 5% so if you have other evidence, I am sure they would like to know as whoever has done the figures appears to be wrong, would you agree?

Dreamnine

WhenIam64 wrote: »

You are saying half of all claims are bogus by people who are fleecing the system?

The government's own figures put "fleecing" at between 3% and 5% so if you have other evidence, I am sure they would like to know as whoever has done the figures appears to be wrong, would you agree?

I believe PIP itself should be abolished - moving quickly through UC, and in time half of the money spent currently on it would be saved. Remember it was Thatcher who manufactured sickness payments to try and hoodwink the public over the unemployment figures.

I'm all for saving money for taxpayers. And for redirecting it to something worthy like cancer/childrens' charities. And that's me being liberal.

Muttleythefrog

Dreamnine wrote: »

I believe PIP itself should be abolished - moving quickly through UC, and in time half of the money spent currently on it would be saved. Remember it was Thatcher who manufactured sickness payments to try and hoodwink the public over the unemployment figures.

I'm all for saving money for taxpayers. And for redirecting it to something worthy like cancer/childrens' charities. And that's me being liberal.

Hmmm... you seem to have gone from wanting all claimants of PIP regularly reviewed... to payments for PIP being halved.. to abolishing PIP completely.. and all on the same page. I'm not sure abolishing PIP would be simple legally speaking... and ultimately you'd probably find the cost of disability materialising elsewhere. Many people use PIP as example in order to make it possible to work or in ways that'll reduce demand on things like council services. Remember PIP is a benefit to make gesture to the idea of putting disabled people onto equal footing in standard expectations of daily life (like being able to get washed or able to go for a walk) to those not disabled. Quite a different concept than ESA or UC... PIP isn't a 'sickness benefit'. I note someone today has linked judge's damning condemnation of the abject quality of evidence supplied to appeals by the DWP for PIP... maybe a realistic way to save tax payer money is to do away with the private medical contractors and DWP DMs who are not doing their job yet getting paid. If you consider removing payments to help disabled people go to the toilet or go shopping to be liberal... I.. well... would be speechless for the first time in a long time..lol

GlasweJen

Muttleythefrog wrote: »

Hmmm... you seem to have gone from wanting all claimants of PIP regularly reviewed... to payments for PIP being halved.. to abolishing PIP completely.. and all on the same page. I'm not sure abolishing PIP would be simple legally speaking... and ultimately you'd probably find the cost of disability materialising elsewhere. Many people use PIP as example in order to make it possible to work or in ways that'll reduce demand on things like council services. Remember PIP is a benefit to make gesture to the idea of putting disabled people onto equal footing in standard expectations of daily life (like being able to get washed or able to go for a walk) to those not disabled. Quite a different concept than ESA or UC... PIP isn't a 'sickness benefit'. I note someone today has linked judge's damning condemnation of the abject quality of evidence supplied to appeals by the DWP for PIP... maybe a realistic way to save tax payer money is to do away with the private medical contractors and DWP DMs who are not doing their job yet getting paid. If you consider removing payments to help disabled people go to the toilet or go shopping to be liberal... I.. well... would be speechless for the first time in a long time..lol

Well if the government scrap PIP the council will need to find someone else to come out and live on a remote Scottish island to help me get dressed, go to the toilet, get washed, cook dinner and get in and out my wheelchair. To include unsocial hours as I work so you'll need to get me on the ferry to the mainland on time to meet my lift to Work and do the same in reverse at night. Husband works away for some weeks at a time so overnight stays are required and I need help at night with oxygen bottles, must not have a pet allergy.

GlasweJen

Dreamnine wrote: »

You're not the only one with a disability. Why not move to a city where amenities are more attainable? People only tend to think of themselves, though. I got tired of the welfare scroungers I read on this board and other forums (not saying you) but who would do anything to get that victim status instead of conveying to the government what they could actually do.

Benefits dependency shouldn't be a life choice but is for so many. And that's my final word on this topic or sub-board.

I would absolutely love to move home to Glasgow (hence the user name), unfortunately my husband is a junior doctor on a training contract and they don't get much of a say on where they get posted so here we are. I'm well and truly a city girl stuck on an island working in what passes as a hospital in the middle of nowhere counting down the days until he qualifies and can apply for a consultants post somewhere in the central belt so I can move back to civilisation and have a Starbucks. God I miss Starbucks.

Dreamnine

Please excuse my bold and tasteless comments about a system I really don't understand last night - I had no right to post that way.

Just anticipating some good (hopefully) or bad news at 12 today. I had no right to post the way I did and hope fellow members will accept this.

colinw

Dreamnine wrote: »

Please excuse my bold and tasteless comments about a system I really don't understand last night - I had no right to post that way.

Just anticipating some good (hopefully) or bad news at 12 today. I had no right to post the way I did and hope fellow members will accept this.

Could I offer some friendly advice and suggest when you feel stressed or in that kind of mood that you keep away from forums rather than lashing out at people, this is not the first time it has happened.

Dreamnine

colinw wrote: »

Could I offer some friendly advice and suggest when you feel stressed or in that kind of mood that you keep away from forums rather than lashing out at people, this is not the first time it has happened.

Nor in your case, either. In any event this forum is too low-brow for me.