Amputees To Lose Benefits Under Reforms.

E

EScotia

Guest
#3
A new low is reached by a grasping government desperate to close a huge national deficit caused by a heavily overspending government.

Why can't we ever get a government that manages it's revenue? I suppose we only get what we deserve!
 
#5
DLA and the proposed PIP look at the effect of injuries or conditions on the ability of the individual to undertake certain activities

a lot of people both in the service community and in the general population at large seem to have a great deal of difficulty in understanding this concept and moan about the fact that a diagnosis doesn't immediately entitle them to benefits and that the assessors used , while all health professionals are not specialists in their diagnosis ...

this isn't going to take war pensions or make people pay for their prosthetics etc ...

there's a concept called compassion fatigue and before long the whingers i nthe forces community are going to be in the same boat as the whingers in the wider community, of people not giving a flying ****

once again reporting of news has been damaged by shoddy journo standards...
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
Perhaps I read it wrong but it seems that, if the disability causes hardship, there will be funding to offset that hardship but there will not be automatic funding simply because of disability. What's the problem? Given that we're only a few weeks away from the cream of the world's disabled taking a prominent part in a global sporting festival and proving that they're fitter than 90% of the members of this site and quite able to get on with their lives, it doesn't seem unreasonable to suppose that some are more severely incapacitated than others and to fund accordingly.

The welfare dependent have torn the arse out of incapacity benefit for years, often with the connivance of governments looking to massage the unemployment figures and it was high time it was looked at. This is just another 'could', 'might', 'may' scare story from the left wing equivalent of the Daily Mail, with a whole load of benefit fraudsters and log-rollers trying to hide behind disabled ex-servicemen and women. It's a variation of the old tactic of chaining some 100% disabled individual in a wheelchair to the railings of Downing Street and claiming that it's now government policy to sell him to the soap factory.
 
C

CivPlod

Guest
#7
FF beat me to it, but his point is entirely correct.

DLA is a joke, I've lost count of the amount of people who rip the arse out of it. I have(as a former nurse) all the sympathy for the 100% disabled or floridly neurotic/psychotic who deserve it.
The cnuts who rip piss need sent out to work for a dose of reality.
 
#8
Iain Duncan Smith, who wants to cut the benefits bill and encourage more disabled people to return to work, said losing a limb should not mean automatic entitlement to state allowances if prosthetic replacements mean they are not hindered in their mobility.
If someone happens to have a prosthetic limb but isn't hindered in their mobility, why should we give them money? In many ways, it's possible that we do disabled people a disservice by providing them with too much support and removing their incentive to get back on their feet (excuse the pun).

It's very different from saying that disabled people who need it shouldn't be given support.
 
#9
It's a perfectly good idea in theory - after all, how many posters on ARRSE have been complaining about scroungers with questionable 'disabilities' who milk the system even though they could work if they wanted to - which will undoubtedly end up as a PFI-based cake and arse party in practice.
 
#11
There is a modern view that money=fairness, therefore as 'it's not fair' that your leg doesn't work, or you're deaf or blind or French or suffer from some other unpleasant condition, then you can have your ration of 'fairness' restored with some money.

As far as I can see, it's a conscience-offering from the able-bodied, many of whom feel slightly guilty about being more fortunate than some others.
 
#12
Charity overview
That's a lot of cars and adaptations.
And a lot of that sort of thing takes the piss as well. A woman known to me was recently telling me how she looks after her autistic son only two or three days a month, but nevertheless gets 'motability' for him. She paid 'the extra' to have an upgraded car, as far as I recall it was a few hundred pounds to get a car worth a bit under thirty thou. She wasn't boasting, it seemed as natural to her as breathing.

I was pleased to note, that drives to Cornwall in her new car, and lots of long beach walks with her dog, helped her to unwind after 48 hours or so of childcare.
 
#13
The DLA system is a complete joke and has been for some time. There's enough anecdotal and unofficial evidence to suggest that the fraud rate is a heck of a lot higher than the official 0.5%. DLA is NOT automatically awarded based on a diagnosis, it goes by additional care and mobility needs regardless of the underlying cause. What I've noticed is that some people who have severe disability but who fight against their impairment to lead a full life have their benefit removed whilst malingerers openly brag about lying to get every penny they can get their grubby little mits on.

Having said that, DLA is NOT an out-of-work benefit and to suggest that people should have their DLA taken away and sent back to work is laughable and shows a complete lack of comprehension.
 
B

bokkatankie

Guest
#14
Perhaps I read it wrong but it seems that, if the disability causes hardship, there will be funding to offset that hardship but there will not be automatic funding simply because of disability. What's the problem? Given that we're only a few weeks away from the cream of the world's disabled taking a prominent part in a global sporting festival and proving that they're fitter than 90% of the members of this site and quite able to get on with their lives, it doesn't seem unreasonable to suppose that some are more severely incapacitated than others and to fund accordingly.

The welfare dependent have torn the arse out of incapacity benefit for years, often with the connivance of governments looking to massage the unemployment figures and it was high time it was looked at. This is just another 'could', 'might', 'may' scare story from the left wing equivalent of the Daily Mail, with a whole load of benefit fraudsters and log-rollers trying to hide behind disabled ex-servicemen and women. It's a variation of the old tactic of chaining some 100% disabled individual in a wheelchair to the railings of Downing Street and claiming that it's now government policy to sell him to the soap factory.
Agree with you on this. BLESMA is concerned that by encouraging disabled to be active they will be negatively effected by this very activeness, this in itself is cause for some concern but simply put if you can be active you should be. If you are very disabled you will be given assistance but it is not a simple right, those giving such assistance have the right to assess if it is still needed.

For once I can speak with some knowledge on this. I have LL below knee amputation. I work in an office environment. When I sit down I am no different from my peers, they however, do not take their leg of at night. I am fully able and happy to work. Yes I do get the War Pension, but I did not ask for it, it was awarded. I am not entitled, as far as I am aware, and would not want any other benefit as I am am able to work and, therefore, I should work. Some days are not as good as others and the pain can be very annoying but it does not prevent me from working. When I was employed by a bank (I am now self employed) they were understanding but not to the point where I got "special" treatment.

I have 2 young children and occasionally I can not be as active with them as I would wish but judging by other fully able parents I appear to be far more active than many of them.

The safety net of benefits is not there to just pay out, you have to qualify for benefit, it is not a right. It would appear that many over the years have come to see it is a right and that they "deserve" benefits just because it is there.

Every review is always portrayed as taking something away, there can never be a sensible discussion about this or other benefits (let alone the NHS) because it immediately becomes (Jarrod prime example) some sort of Tory evil (neatly ignoring 10 years of Labour mismanagement) rather than a needed and overdue review.

On the above basis, we should all just keep paying more and more tax to enable every benefit claimer as much as they want when they want without any level of checks and balances. That is weak ineffectual government and bad use for tax payer funds.
 
#15
Bloke in my street who was signed off work as 'permanently disabled' a few years ago with a bad back and neck spent Saturday moving 6 ton bags of shingle he had delivered round the back of his house by wheelbarrow. He has a very nice garden, beautifully landscaped with a big patio he laid himself, a truly eye-catching huge wood gazebo and deck and all new fences. Even has the obligatory Motability car, although in his case he recently traded his Corsa in for a Citroen Belingo Multispace minivan thing as the Corsa was no use for fetching stuff from B&Q.
Both him and his wife are registered fully disabled, and rather curiously, both get extra benefits for acting as the other ones carer! Never could figure that loophole out.
 
#16
Sunno - Motability are indeed a bit panicky about the DLA/PIP reform - they're looking to lose 30%+ of their custom, especially as the qualifier for enhanced rate mobility PIP (the money that will be surrendered to fund Motability payments) is that:

"If you cannot move up to 50 metres, except by using a wheelchair you propel yourself, you meet descriptor E. This means that you do not need anyone to push your wheelchair, and the wheelchair doesn't have a motor to move it. This includes a wheelchair you move along by turning the wheels using your hands. This scores 12 points."

Coupled with a medical every 2 years things don't look good for the UK new car market (~200,000 new cars per year are Motability).
 
#17
Bloke in my street who was signed off work as 'permanently disabled' a few years ago with a bad back and neck spent Saturday moving 6 ton bags of shingle he had delivered round the back of his house by wheelbarrow. He has a very nice garden, beautifully landscaped with a big patio he laid himself, a truly eye-catching huge wood gazebo and deck and all new fences. Even has the obligatory Motability car, although in his case he recently traded his Corsa in for a Citroen Belingo Multispace minivan thing as the Corsa was no use for fetching stuff from B&Q.
Both him and his wife are registered fully disabled, and rather curiously, both get extra benefits for acting as the other ones carer! Never could figure that loophole out.
You know the score . . . https://secure.dwp.gov.uk/benefitfraud/


neverbecaughttext.gif
 
#19
Blair and his government tried to cut down these payments but backed off when the protests outside parliament got a bit too much. Does this make Labour evil and wicked or simply ineffectual? DLA now has 30% more claimants than since 1980. Does this mean 30% more people have become disabled in the last 30 odd years in spite of increases in H&S? Or does it mean the qualifying criteria has been watered down so much that anyone with any type of injury, not just one which alters their quality of life, feels they are able to claim? Or simply that almost 1% (.81%) claim because of obesity? (You can't actually claim for obesity but those who do are assessed as having mental health problems which make them obese so that counts) Job Seekers Allowance has also increased but the number claiming both makes it appear as if some (and only some) treat it as a little extra to boost their income. These are very much in the minority but are the ones that give it a bad name. The new proposals being put to the House of Lords simply ask that a medical assessment is made before payment is given. At the moment it is a tick box type thing and very rarely has a medical examination made to follow it up. Whilst they're at it, perhaps they could look into the number of Disabled Parking Badges which are handed out like confetti to people who obviously don't fit the criteria.
If allowances were only paid to those who really deserve them, there might be a bit more money around to help them out rather than spacking it on those trying it on.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Top