Disability benefit changes ‘blatantly discriminate’

Re: Disability benefit changes ‘blatantly discriminate’

Postby Fletch » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:02 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Fletch wrote:
I suggest you ask government who came up with the idea.

What extra costs does a pensioner have? They receive a lot more than £73 per week.


A pension is different. You're talking about "benefits" generally, but this is specifically about PIP, which is not means tested. If everyone was told to ask the Government about their policies, there would be hardly any discussion on here. :ooer:


Can you not think of any extra costs for someone housebound and possibly incapable of looking after themselves, even a danger to themselves?

£73 JSA and now some ESA is deliberately punitive. Part of higher payment for those with extra needs is the removal of punitive elements. ie it's a more realistic figure to live on as are pensions. Things like higher fuel costs, diet requirements, travel not to mention any care for those unable to look after themselves mean a higher payment. Pensioners get higher payments too for disabilities, attendance allowance in their case.
User avatar
Fletch
 
Posts: 16271
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Disability benefit changes ‘blatantly discriminate’

Postby Raggamuffin » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:15 pm

Fletch wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Fletch wrote:
I suggest you ask government who came up with the idea.

What extra costs does a pensioner have? They receive a lot more than £73 per week.


A pension is different. You're talking about "benefits" generally, but this is specifically about PIP, which is not means tested. If everyone was told to ask the Government about their policies, there would be hardly any discussion on here. :ooer:


Can you not think of any extra costs for someone housebound and possibly incapable of looking after themselves, even a danger to themselves?

£73 JSA and now some ESA is deliberately punitive. Part of higher payment for those with extra needs is the removal of punitive elements. ie it's a more realistic figure to live on as are pensions. Things like higher fuel costs, diet requirements, travel not to mention any care for those unable to look after themselves mean a higher payment. Pensioners get higher payments too for disabilities, attendance allowance in their case.


For mental illness? Not really. For those with serious physical disabilities, wouldn't it be better to spend larger amounts so that someone can be more independent? Rollup was talking about a wheelchair which he bought himself, but I would have thought it would be more useful for someone who couldn't walk to get one for free rather than get an amount every week.
User avatar
Raggamuffin
 
Posts: 41353
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:51 am

Re: Disability benefit changes ‘blatantly discriminate’

Postby McAz » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:16 pm

Rollups is an electric chair - the standard one came free as I understand it.
User avatar
McAz
 
Posts: 43441
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:57 am

Re: Disability benefit changes ‘blatantly discriminate’

Postby Raggamuffin » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:17 pm

McAz wrote:Rollups is an electric chair - the standard one came free as I understand it.


Yes, I know, but a standard one must be quite cumbersome. An electric one would be more useful surely.
User avatar
Raggamuffin
 
Posts: 41353
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:51 am

Re: Disability benefit changes ‘blatantly discriminate’

Postby McAz » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:18 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
McAz wrote:Rollups is an electric chair - the standard one came free as I understand it.


Yes, I know, but a standard one must be quite cumbersome. An electric one would be more useful surely.

Yes of course - but many people manage with a standard chair - and they are very much cheaper.
User avatar
McAz
 
Posts: 43441
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:57 am

Re: Disability benefit changes ‘blatantly discriminate’

Postby Fletch » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:22 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Fletch wrote:[
Can you not think of any extra costs for someone housebound and possibly incapable of looking after themselves, even a danger to themselves?

£73 JSA and now some ESA is deliberately punitive. Part of higher payment for those with extra needs is the removal of punitive elements. ie it's a more realistic figure to live on as are pensions. Things like higher fuel costs, diet requirements, travel not to mention any care for those unable to look after themselves mean a higher payment. Pensioners get higher payments too for disabilities, attendance allowance in their case.


For mental illness? Not really. For those with serious physical disabilities, wouldn't it be better to spend larger amounts so that someone can be more independent? Rollup was talking about a wheelchair which he bought himself, but I would have thought it would be more useful for someone who couldn't walk to get one for free rather than get an amount every week.


You seem to be under the impression that mental health problems so severe as to qualify for PIP wouldn't somehow render someone incapable of looking after themselves or being housebound.

There's been a lot of talk this year about the scandalous treatment of people with mental health problems and how treatment is simply not being made available. People frequently die from it, be that through neglect or self harm.
User avatar
Fletch
 
Posts: 16271
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Disability benefit changes ‘blatantly discriminate’

Postby Raggamuffin » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:23 pm

McAz wrote:Yes of course - but many people manage with a standard chair - and they are very much cheaper.


I just think that money could be better spent on that kind of thing - maybe things like chairlifts for stairs, etc. There was a report a while back that people needed money to buy back scrubbers and silly things like that.
User avatar
Raggamuffin
 
Posts: 41353
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:51 am

Re: Disability benefit changes ‘blatantly discriminate’

Postby Rolluplostinspace » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:24 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Fletch wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Fletch wrote:
I suggest you ask government who came up with the idea.

What extra costs does a pensioner have? They receive a lot more than £73 per week.


A pension is different. You're talking about "benefits" generally, but this is specifically about PIP, which is not means tested. If everyone was told to ask the Government about their policies, there would be hardly any discussion on here. :ooer:


Can you not think of any extra costs for someone housebound and possibly incapable of looking after themselves, even a danger to themselves?

£73 JSA and now some ESA is deliberately punitive. Part of higher payment for those with extra needs is the removal of punitive elements. ie it's a more realistic figure to live on as are pensions. Things like higher fuel costs, diet requirements, travel not to mention any care for those unable to look after themselves mean a higher payment. Pensioners get higher payments too for disabilities, attendance allowance in their case.


For mental illness? Not really. For those with serious physical disabilities, wouldn't it be better to spend larger amounts so that someone can be more independent? Rollup was talking about a wheelchair which he bought himself, but I would have thought it would be more useful for someone who couldn't walk to get one for free rather than get an amount every week.

I can stand and walk but it's very hit and miss.
Walking makes me a danger to myself and others so I have to limit it.
The fact I still have some mobility meant I didn't qualify and was right at the back of the list.
I could just stay home.
It's not life saving to be able to go shopping with my wife.
I could easily have become housebound which is a quality of life issue.
I cannot propel myself very far in the standard chair and my wife can't push as I'm a big person and she's a little one.
It was accepted that there's no way she could push me very far.
So stay home it would have been.
Not an important enough issue now we have the austerity economy.
User avatar
Rolluplostinspace
 
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Disability benefit changes ‘blatantly discriminate’

Postby Raggamuffin » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:25 pm

Fletch wrote:
You seem to be under the impression that mental health problems so severe as to qualify for PIP wouldn't somehow render someone incapable of looking after themselves or being housebound.

There's been a lot of talk this year about the scandalous treatment of people with mental health problems and how treatment is simply not being made available. People frequently die from it, be that through neglect or self harm.


I have the greatest sympathy for anyone with mental illness, and there should be more help for it. I'm just not sure what they would spend extra money on. What kind of mental illness are you talking about, and what do you think about them getting proper treatment?
User avatar
Raggamuffin
 
Posts: 41353
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:51 am

Re: Disability benefit changes ‘blatantly discriminate’

Postby McAz » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:26 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
McAz wrote:Yes of course - but many people manage with a standard chair - and they are very much cheaper.


I just think that money could be better spent on that kind of thing - maybe things like chairlifts for stairs, etc. There was a report a while back that people needed money to buy back scrubbers and silly things like that.


Everyone has an opinion on how gov't money should be spent - I would scrap Trident for example, electric wheelchairs for all that need them.
User avatar
McAz
 
Posts: 43441
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:57 am

Re: Disability benefit changes ‘blatantly discriminate’

Postby Raggamuffin » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:27 pm

Rolluplostinspace wrote:I can stand and walk but it's very hit and miss.
Walking makes me a danger to myself and others so I have to limit it.
The fact I still have some mobility meant I didn't qualify and was right at the back of the list.
I could just stay home.
It's not life saving to be able to go shopping with my wife.
I could easily have become housebound which is a quality of life issue.
I cannot propel myself very far in the standard chair and my wife can't push as I'm a big person and she's a little one.
It was accepted that there's no way she could push me very far.
So stay home it would have been.
Not an important enough issue now we have the austerity economy.


Exactly. This is why I think it would be useful for the Government to spend money on things like electric wheelchairs - to give people more independence.
User avatar
Raggamuffin
 
Posts: 41353
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:51 am

Re: Disability benefit changes ‘blatantly discriminate’

Postby Rolluplostinspace » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:34 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Rolluplostinspace wrote:I can stand and walk but it's very hit and miss.
Walking makes me a danger to myself and others so I have to limit it.
The fact I still have some mobility meant I didn't qualify and was right at the back of the list.
I could just stay home.
It's not life saving to be able to go shopping with my wife.
I could easily have become housebound which is a quality of life issue.
I cannot propel myself very far in the standard chair and my wife can't push as I'm a big person and she's a little one.
It was accepted that there's no way she could push me very far.
So stay home it would have been.
Not an important enough issue now we have the austerity economy.


Exactly. This is why I think it would be useful for the Government to spend money on things like electric wheelchairs - to give people more independence.

There's no return though if the chair is going to someone like me who can't then use the chair to go and work.
You'll see lots of kids and young people with these chairs but very few my age because they simply do not get paid for by the government any longer like in the past.
User avatar
Rolluplostinspace
 
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Disability benefit changes ‘blatantly discriminate’

Postby Fletch » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:41 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Fletch wrote:
You seem to be under the impression that mental health problems so severe as to qualify for PIP wouldn't somehow render someone incapable of looking after themselves or being housebound.

There's been a lot of talk this year about the scandalous treatment of people with mental health problems and how treatment is simply not being made available. People frequently die from it, be that through neglect or self harm.


I have the greatest sympathy for anyone with mental illness, and there should be more help for it. I'm just not sure what they would spend extra money on. What kind of mental illness are you talking about, and what do you think about them getting proper treatment?


Again with the 'what would they spend the money on'. How about trying to live as full a life as possible, a life without endangering themselves or others? Not everyone has family to pop in and see they're alright. To go get the shopping, even help make a list or sort some washing. Having the heating on all day and other associated fuel costs with being at home all the time. No winter fuel allowance for them. Mobile phones to contact in emergences, all benefits have to be dealt with online now, who's going to help them with that?

You might claim to have the greatest sympathy but you have absolutely no idea about how debilitating mental health problems can be. To qualify for PIP, we are talking severe. You don't qualify for being a bit down for a week or two.
User avatar
Fletch
 
Posts: 16271
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Disability benefit changes ‘blatantly discriminate’

Postby Raggamuffin » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:43 pm

Fletch wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Fletch wrote:
You seem to be under the impression that mental health problems so severe as to qualify for PIP wouldn't somehow render someone incapable of looking after themselves or being housebound.

There's been a lot of talk this year about the scandalous treatment of people with mental health problems and how treatment is simply not being made available. People frequently die from it, be that through neglect or self harm.


I have the greatest sympathy for anyone with mental illness, and there should be more help for it. I'm just not sure what they would spend extra money on. What kind of mental illness are you talking about, and what do you think about them getting proper treatment?


Again with the 'what would they spend the money on'. How about trying to live as full a life as possible, a life without endangering themselves or others? Not everyone has family to pop in and see they're alright. To go get the shopping, even help make a list or sort some washing. Having the heating on all day and other associated fuel costs with being at home all the time. No winter fuel allowance for them. Mobile phones to contact in emergences, all benefits have to be dealt with online now, who's going to help them with that?

You might claim to have the greatest sympathy but you have absolutely no idea about how debilitating mental health problems can be. To qualify for PIP, we are talking severe. You don't qualify for being a bit down for a week or two.


Wouldn't that be covered by ESA?
User avatar
Raggamuffin
 
Posts: 41353
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:51 am

Re: Disability benefit changes ‘blatantly discriminate’

Postby Fletch » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:47 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Fletch wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Fletch wrote:
You seem to be under the impression that mental health problems so severe as to qualify for PIP wouldn't somehow render someone incapable of looking after themselves or being housebound.

There's been a lot of talk this year about the scandalous treatment of people with mental health problems and how treatment is simply not being made available. People frequently die from it, be that through neglect or self harm.


I have the greatest sympathy for anyone with mental illness, and there should be more help for it. I'm just not sure what they would spend extra money on. What kind of mental illness are you talking about, and what do you think about them getting proper treatment?


Again with the 'what would they spend the money on'. How about trying to live as full a life as possible, a life without endangering themselves or others? Not everyone has family to pop in and see they're alright. To go get the shopping, even help make a list or sort some washing. Having the heating on all day and other associated fuel costs with being at home all the time. No winter fuel allowance for them. Mobile phones to contact in emergences, all benefits have to be dealt with online now, who's going to help them with that?

You might claim to have the greatest sympathy but you have absolutely no idea about how debilitating mental health problems can be. To qualify for PIP, we are talking severe. You don't qualify for being a bit down for a week or two.


Wouldn't that be covered by ESA?


£73, no.
User avatar
Fletch
 
Posts: 16271
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 pm

PreviousNext

Return to News, Politics And Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests