Ouch! Talk  permalink

DLA vs PIP vs ESA vs AtW

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 28 of 28
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Wobbling Wilma (U1818838) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010

    Sorry to start a new thread about this, but I've read the DLA / PIP consultation document three times now and something strikes me that I wanted others' opinions on.

    The basis of the change from DLA to PIP seems to be that throwing an arbitary amount of money at a disabled person each month does not resolve the disadvantages faced by disabled people, and in addition to / instead of being given money, people should be 'signposted' - gotta love that word - towards services that can assist them in participating in everyday life.

    Although I'm deeply concerned about many aspects of the proposals - and get more concerned the more I read them, not less - the basic principle that you should look at an individual's life holistically, ensure they are accessing all the right support, and give people access to relevant specialist equipment and services is not, in iteslf a stupid one.

    In lots of ways, it's the same approach taken by Access to Work: they will recommend and contribute towards equipment, and pay for support workers, taxis, etc on an as-necessary basis. The claimant accounts for and has to justify everything they spend, rather than being given £X every week as standard.

    The major difference is that an AtW doesn't involve a full on medical assessment by someone you've never met before who has no expertise in your condition. It's more of an informal chat with an adviser (no medical qualifications, sometimes disabled themselves) about what you need to do, how you'd like to acheive it, and how AtW can help.

    The reason I'm blathering on like this is because - while I think the PIP proposals are pretty dangerous as a replacement for DLA - there are aspects of them which would or could be really very good and productive if they were implemented as *part of* ESA reforms. Y'know, if you're a certain type of ESA claimant, there's a theoretical possibility you could work if you had all the right aids and adaptations as well as support in becoming 'work ready' in other ways. You're put in the support group to help you become work ready. If there was a PIP aspect to ESA, as part of getting you 'work ready', you would be 'signposted' to the appropriate health professionals and aids and adaptations specialists which would help you become more active and make you more employable.

    In several ways, some of what they are proposing for PIP is some of what is missing from ESA... Maybe. We all know how diffcult it is to access services, and help in this area - if it really is help - is no bad thing, if the services exist and no one expects them to be a magic cure.

    I say this cautiously as someone who's not currently an ESA claimant, so I'd be grateful for opinions. Note I am NOT saying that AtW is perfect, nor that the only flaw in the ESA reforms are this lack of a PIP aspect. Mostly, I think the PIP proposals read more like reasonable getting disabled people back to work proposals than they do realistic proposals supporting disabled people to overcome the barriers they face as a result of impairment.

    In short, they are not in themselves stupid proposals, but PIP is not a benefit that will replace DLA effectively.

    I recognise I am ignoring the fact that the assessment process is likely to be deeply flawed, and imagining that the assessment is useful and accurate. I know it won't be, but that is a separate problem to looking at what the DWP are aiming for and picking out the flaws in that.

    Or have I lost the plot?

    WW

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by crustycrip (U1820557) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010

    I think this is all about excluding as many as possible from getting any assistance.

    Raising the bar....how many are going to be able to 'vault ' it?

    Me? I shall be one of the many poor limbo dancers.

    pete

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Wobbling Wilma (U1818838) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010

    It is intriguing because I know many disabled people and everyone who is a DLA claimant thinks they won't qualify for financial assistance from PIP, having read the consultation doc.

    Which begs the question who WILL qualify, because it's not at all clear.

    I don't think I will, because I function quite well - largely thanks to the things I can buy through DLA, but so what - and there is no scale on which I would qualify as someone in the 'greatest need'.

    They say they are making DLA be about participating in everyday life, but on reading the document 'particiapting in everyday life' seems to mean 'working'. DLA was never meant to be about working.

    WW

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by hossylass (U3749845) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010

    I dont think you are losing the plot at all.

    I think a lot of sensible people will look at the positives - I have actually encouraged people to take what is "offered" by the ESA and wring it dry, use it and abuse it and force it to do what it purports to do.

    Problem is - it doesn't do what it says on the tin.
    None of these proposals will because they become watered down visions of real help when the ugly spectre of reality rears its head.

    I have a dream of a job lined up in my mind.
    I would need training (£3500) and equipment (WAV and equipment of about another £3500).
    I would need a trained employee to do part of the job, and a PA with me at all times, though this person could be one and the same.
    It wouldn't contradict my DLA, as I would have the PA and would only work part time.

    However dare I try this? Not on your nelly. Because of reality.
    As Wheelie says, at some point my willingness to hurt myself to gain employment would be seen as the whole picture.

    The reason I am "trapped on benefits" is multi-fold.
    Trapped by an inflexible benefit sytem.
    Trapped by initiatives that are orientated towards "cures" or total recovery.
    Trapped by lack of the aforementioned finances.

    Now the Universal credit, ESA and AtW are all purported to be there to assist me in the future, but so far I am not convinced.
    AtW is being targetted towards large companies in future.
    Work Programs will be not beneficial to me.
    Universal Credit will only work if it is truely dynamic, and historically we all know that dynamic is not a word any of us associate with benefits.

    All the "positives" are talking the talk, but none of us believe they will walk the walk.

    Changing DLA cannot be described as a positive, and in truth, the guidelines and criteria for accessing the other "positives" will be so restricted that many will not be able to acces them or benefit from them.

    Looks good on paper, but I bet it wont work... their last good idea cost £31,000 per person to get people into work, and that was the AB's...

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by crustycrip (U1820557) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010

    Working is great if you can. But it won't eradicate all the ills/troubles/hardships/society's couldn't care less about you and I'm pulling the ladder up.....

    I believe this is all leading to euro jobs as they call them in Germany.

    Is this the beginning of a new workhouse cycle?

    pete

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Wobbling Wilma (U1818838) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010

    This is the thing...

    PIP is supposed to be about offering people more than just money. Support + Access to Services + Money. Or maybe just the first two and no money.

    The reason I am thinking along these lines is because I believe that - at the moment - I have pretty much all the support and access to services I need, though it has taken me a long time to get there.

    I have the right mobility aids.
    I have a specialist consultant who I work with to manage my condition.
    I have access to specialist physio, podiatry, and other treatments as necessary - though regular readers of this board will know how hard won the first two of those were.
    I have a job that is flexible enough for me to do alongside my impairment.
    I have an AtW grant which supports me do the above.
    I live in accomodation appropriate to my needs.

    It can't - at the moment - get much better. I have access to everything PIP claimants will be offered as part of their claims - if it all goes perfectly, which of course it won't,

    And even despite my idyllic disability life, I still use every penny of my DLA and more on disability support costs.

    They are suggesting that if you have all this stuff in place you won't need financial support - but based on my experience, that's not even slightly true.

    WW

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by crustycrip (U1820557) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010

    I had meant to say you were not blathering, nor have you lost the plot.

    I have a question...when reasonable people put well thought out and sensible counterarguments and alternate proposals to the 'top experts' in the field that are employed by the govt. How can the 'top experts' look them in the face and diss them?

    And they do.

    pete

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by batsgirl (U4263247) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010

    Hmmm...

    I fear that the "services" they would "signpost" us to are not going to be the helpful services like the CAB and Independent Living Centres (if they still exist) and Shopmobility. My fear, based on the number of mentions of "work" in the consultation document and the threat of conditionality combined with the new Residence *and Presence* qualifiers, is that they mean "services" like Work Choice, job clubs, mandatory 'voluntary' work and so on.

    I agree that throwing an arbitrary amount of money at a disabled person each month does not resolve their disadvantages.

    However turning it over to an AtW style "shopping list" I think will not work. Most of what I spend my DLA on isn't predictable big ticket items with clear photocopiable receipts like a wheelchair or a PA or a monthly bill for taxis to and from work. It covers hundreds and hundreds of tiny expenses adding up fast, like paying extra to have milk in 1pint bottles as I can't manage 4pint ones, keeping all my assistive tech charged and ready, having to make two rounds of sandwiches for lunch in one day because I fell over and lost the first one on the floor, failing to get the best possible deal on my printer ink cartridges because I just don't have the spoons to shop around, paying for a (mid-range supermarket) grocery bill because although (cheap-end supermarket) has cheaper prices they don't offer a delivery service... shall I continue? Calculating that kind of stuff is nigh on impossible.

    There's also the risk of having an expert decide what sort of thing you are allowed to need. Because AtW is work-focused, it's the sort of thing where even the average Sun reader will say "of course, if a blind person needs screen-reading software in order to work, they should be given that." That, combined with the relatively small number of clients, allows AtW to be more generous and less restrictive than schemes which are extended to the entire disabled population. If PIP became AtW for daily life, it would be miliseconds before we saw the types of restrictions we already see for Social Services, Wheelchair Services and so on - only critical needs supported, you may only have item A or item B and if neither of them are what you need then you get nothing.

    It'd be lovely if we could have the "shopping list" of aids and adaptations we require *and* then get an arbitrary amount of money in recognition of the incalculable additional costs of disability that we have to absorb. But if it's one or the other, I'll opt for the arbitrary financial assistance that I can spend *entirely* at my own discretion.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Wobbling Wilma (U1818838) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010

    Quite.

    After Christmas - because in the run up to Christmas when my days are not my average days - I'm going to spend a week or two attempting to note down every single thing I pay for that is a disability expense. So that I know. So that when I respond to the consultation, I have quantifiable numbers for them.

    Some of it will be hard to do - i.e. i live in a more expensive flat than I otherwise would, because of its accessible location - but I want to try.

    WW

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by batsgirl (U4263247) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010

    There's also the question of how much of something is disability-related and how much of it is a standard expense.

    That's easy enough in the workplace. If Bob, Fred, Tim and Tom, who aren't disabled, have £70 office chairs, and Pete, who is disabled, needs a £200 office chair, then it's quite simple to calculate that of Pete's seating costs, £70 is standard expenses and £130 is disability-related.

    But at home it's trickier. Example:

    I use a laundry service for my bedlinen. A nice man comes to the house, takes away the smelly bedlinen, and then brings it back to me, clean, dry, and folded ready for the cupboard, the next day. I do have a washing machine and I'm quite capable of lifting a single wet pillowcase onto an airer in front of the radiator, but due to the whole disability thing I just can't manage lifting and folding big things like sheets and duvet covers. So that's a disability-related expense, right? Because I don't have any other way of doing it.

    Except that when I told my non-disabled friends at the knitting group about it, at least two of them said "oooh!" and have started using the service as well, not because of physical incapability, just because it saves them time and effort and drying space and means their house feels less damp. Now, being entirely honest, I experience those benefits as well. So is it still a disability-related expense? Or is it a standard household expense that my non-disabled peers also incur?

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by JLRRAC (U14373280) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010

    "participating in everyday life" = Working.

    I think it has become fairly clear exactly what the government intend to do, cut benefits no matter how they want to dress it up it comes down to the same thing benefits shall be cut.

    It would take something of a miracle for IDS or the DWP to bring before the public an example of someone who qualifys for the new version of DLA. I seriously doubt they could do it, less they interrupt someone in the course of their forecast last six month's of life.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by SashaQ (U9936370) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010

    So is it still a disability-related expense? Or is it a standard household expense that my non-disabled peers also incur?  
    I think in that case, it comes down to choice - they choose to have the service because it saves them time and hassle although they can do it themselves, but you rely on the service to get the task done, so it is disability-related.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Otter25 (U14189455) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010

    how much is all this rebranding costing, and the government talks about the need to save money

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by SashaQ (U9936370) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010

    I read the document the other night, and I don't think I would qualify for PIP as it stands either as I have a wheelchair (only part funded by the NHS) and I can push myself far enough to get to my local (inaccessible) shops.

    Other equipment would be nice, if it was provided, but it takes so long for Social Services to process things at the moment, it would surely get worse if demand increases...

    It can't - at the moment - get much better. I have access to everything PIP claimants will be offered as part of their claims - if it all goes perfectly, which of course it won't,

    And even despite my idyllic disability life, I still use every penny of my DLA and more on disability support costs.

    They are suggesting that if you have all this stuff in place you won't need financial support - but based on my experience, that's not even slightly true.  

    Well said. Living with my parents, it wasn't too bad because I had bought all the equipment I needed, they provided "care" for me for free, and they get the heating allowance, but living independently with most of the equipment I need, I have still spent my DLA more than once this month...

    Lest the DWP see that as a solution, they only pay me DLA once, so it is good value for them, my parents can't provide care for me forever, and it is easier for me to work etc with my own facilities (woohoo says the DWP - I have a job!... at the moment...)

    Good suggestion to note disability-related expenses for future reference - I have put some things in a letter to my MP, but actual numbers could be helpful...

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Offworld (U14593555) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010

    >>>
    the basic principle that you should look at an individual's life holistically, ensure they are accessing all the right support, and give people access to relevant specialist equipment and services is not, in iteslf a stupid one.
    <<<

    But what if just being left alone would do far more good than being control-freaked, preached at and surveilled?
    Seems more like a job-justification and empire building charter for apparatchiks, paid for by what used to be DLA.
    Here, have a leaflet ...... err, no, it can't be used to pay the bills but never mind.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by threedancingdragons (U14414785) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010

    My mind is still boggling over the idea of adding "conditionality" to a cash benefit designed to pay for the additional costs of having a disability.

    You MUST WOBBLE MORE OFTEN in order to qualify. (No problem there.)

    [Am having Mel Brooks flashbacks of the stand-up philosopher at the roman unemployment office. "Did you bullsh*t this week? Did you TRY to bullsh*t this week?"...]

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by xSparksx (U14702202) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010

    I think you're absolutely right, what they seem to be proposing would work much better for people getting work ready on ESA. I, like many others here, have no idea how I'll possibly qualify for PIP when it comes in. At the moment I get higher mobility, medium care (just been renewed for 2 years, thank goodness); I have ME, at the moment so severe I'm housebound for all but an hour or so every fortnight, and only then when my mum drives me somewhere, helps me round, and drives me home to deposit me, shattered, into my armchair! I also have vasovagal syncope, so I faint all over the place (they tried me on betablockers, it made the ME worse.....)

    I can't, even on a good day, walk far without someone with me because I faint and/or get too tired. I can't ever do something like change my own sheets, I can never hang clothes up 'cos raising my arms above my head is exhausting. I can't cook a meal because of the physical exertion involved (and I can't always carry an action through 'cos I forget what I'm doing...). I study extremely part time - managing perhaps an hour and a half a week at the moment. I've had IB (with the youth premium, since I've never been able to work) for...I think three years now, but I had to go to tribunal to get it. Because I have ME, and we all know that's just all in my head, right?

    But reading through that consultation......there's no way any of that is going to apply to me. I'm incapable of work through extreme fatigue, and no amount of adjustment is going to help that. Their talk about helping disabled people lead full and independant lives isn't going to help me when for me, a full and independant life simply isn't possible. I have carers, I have aids, but none of them are enough to allow me to function on anything close to a level that would make me capable of work, which is what they seem to be aiming for with this benefit.

    But then, that's what they want, isn't it? Disabled people MUST work, or please shuffle off into the nearest graveyard...

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by biglegless (U13895090) on Thursday, 9th December 2010

    not a proposal anymore it is now policy and coming to a disabled person near you soon. see bbc.co.uk/ouch Disability q and a

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by biglegless (U13895090) on Thursday, 9th December 2010

    The DWP have confirmed that disability living allowance (DLA) is to be abolished and replaced by a new benefit called Personal Independence Payment (PIP) in 2013/14. All existing DLA claimants will be reassessed for PIP once it is introduced.

    A brief consultation has begun – but not to decide whether to replace DLA, only to decide the finer details.

    From the scant information available, we look at what’s staying the same, what’s changing, why your ESA medical may also be your PIP medical and who is most likely to lose out with the introduction of PIP – designed to reduce spending on DLA by at least one fifth.

    Whether you have a PIP or an ESA medical, you can be sure that it will be Atos who carry it out. The coalition have now extended the Atos contract by a further three years, giving the multinational a virtually unbreakable stranglehold on benefits medicals.

    And that may not be the end of your dealings with Atos. They are one of the companies shortlisted by the DWP to run compulsory schemes to get sick and disabled claimants back into work once they have been placed in the work-related activity group.

    The voluntary sector did spectacularly badly in the same bidding war, with Shaw Trust being shortlisted in just one of the eleven regions. A consortium of nine charities, including Mind and Mencap, however, are desperately trying to become subcontractors to the big boys like A4E, Atos and security firm G4S. The charities are flaunting their combined £688 million turnover and cash surplus of £16 million in the hope of turning private sector heads and getting a few scraps of the billions being invested in getting claimants into work.

    Not, we’re sure, that the charities see it that way or will thank us for publicising their consortium. Citizens Advice certainly weren’t happy with our unenthusiastic write-up of their ESA campaign – so much so that they asked for a right to reply, which we were happy to give them. Pop into the blog and see if you agree with what they say.

    In other news, we have definite confirmation that the time limiting of contribution based ESA will be retrospective when it is introduced in 2012.

    There’s nothing definite about the date when PCA exempt claimants will be transferred to ESA, however. A Benefits and Work member has used the Freedom of Information Act to uncover the fudge that the DWP are employing to deal with the issue of claimants with no renewal date.

    Not that any other dates relating to the migration of IB claimants to ESA can be trusted, it seems. It has now emerged that there will be a delay of months after the first medicals before any IB claimant actually gets a decision about their ESA entitlement – or lack of it – due to DWP software not being ready in time.

    Also delayed - for existing claimants at any rate - are the cuts to local housing allowance which were due to be introduced in April and October but which will now go ahead in January 2012.

    On which final crumb of comfort we turn to the forums for reassurance that, for the moment, some people are still successfully claiming the benefits to which they are entitled.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by Offworld (U14593555) on Thursday, 9th December 2010

    >>> (they tried me on betablockers, it made the ME worse.....) <<<

    Was it Propranolol?
    I found that particular one to be of help, but subsequently read that others aren't quite the same.
    St Johns Wort can certainly help too -- but with care re what else is being taken and your own reaction to it anyway.

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by soozans (U13860541) on Thursday, 9th December 2010

    I suspect that the people doing the signposting could be advisers working for sub or main contractors to the Work Programme.

    Unfortunately, personal advisers who work for private providers in employment support do not need prior qualifications to gain a NVQ level 3 or 4 in overcoming customers ' 'barriers to work' and can learn these skills whilst working with equally unqualified or inexperienced people.

    I think it could be positively dangerous to have inexperienced or unqualified people potentially misdirecting 'customers' to inappropriate or low quality private provision, which could include health related programmes as well as questionable training.

    It is well known that some of the companies appearing in the preferred supplier list for the new Work Programme have failed in the past to deliver outcomes. Programmes such as Pathways to Work have been blamed, rather than the private providers delivering the programmes.

    Past Ofsted inspections of training have been dismal, yet the Work Programme specification does away with the need for providers to be inspected. Instead, there is a standard, called Merlin, which is to do with effective supply chain management.



    www.publications.par...


    19. In 2008-09 some £94 million was spent on additional support through Pathways for new incapacity benefits claimants, but this did not increase the likelihood of someone finding work.[46] The Department did not indicate when it intends to stop spending money on these elements of additional Pathways employment support but accepted that they have not added value and that lessons need to be learnt for future employment support delivered in the Work Programme. ...[47]

    23. Prime providers have referred only 12% of participants to their subcontractors, choosing to work directly with the remaining 88%[58] This concentration of work with prime providers does not appear consistent with the Department's commissioning strategy and its objective of maintaining a healthy welfare-to-work supplier market.[59] The Department accepted that it needed to learn lessons about the treatment of subcontractors and its 'line of sight' to subcontractors delivering frontline services, though it remains adamant that its principal relationship is with the prime provider.[60] The Department is now asking organisations bidding for contracts under the Work Programme to provide, at an early stage, much more detailed information on their supply chain policy and experience.[61] Recognising this as a gap, the Department has introduced a new accreditation system ('Merlin') to set out its expectations for supply chain management and to grade providers according to their performance.[62]  


    www.guardian.co.uk/s...

    www.guardian.co.uk/s...

    On 1st December, the Financial Times published an article about the same prime provider, citing the millions of pounds the provider received from public and European funds and poor outcomes.

    Yet the value of the Work Programme contracts runs to 12 billion pounds over four years, and this money is being justified by future savings in benefits.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by bulekingfisher (U8365651) on Thursday, 9th December 2010

    Hello Wobbling Willma

    What ignorant (over paid govt offical came up with the lame idea to signpost disabled people when you have so many VISUAL IMPAIRED people (it beggers bielif) an highly educated MP can even think like this when we tax-payers fund people with such limmetted knowledge of their specialised subjects. Did they get tax- payers funding their glee partys at Uni or education (wasted on numb skulls

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by BaggieRobert (U14259770) on Thursday, 9th December 2010

    Jill is faced by a 8 foot wall whereas Bob is faced by a 3 foot wall - both are facing barriers - however under PIP (Pavlov's Ignorance Paradigm) only Jill will get a hammer because Bob will be expected to throw himself over a 3 foot wall.

    Wilma is right, the basic concept has some merit, but it is lost beneath of shed load of contradictions and flawed methodology. In one paragraph the document talks about the principles of the social model but then offers a traditional functional assessment of "personal needs" as the way forward.

    Again, Jill needs hammer to smash down 8 foot wall, but she will be assessed on the understanding that the wall has already been knocked through - bloody stupid people!

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by hossylass (U3749845) on Thursday, 9th December 2010


    Jill needs hammer to smash down 8 foot wall, but she will be assessed on the understanding that the wall has already been knocked through
     


    Lovely analogy smiley - ok

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by xSparksx (U14702202) on Thursday, 9th December 2010

    It was Propanolol, yes. I've come off it now, on GP's advice, and have written to my neurologist - just waiting for a reply and/or appointment now to discuss what to do next. Unfortunately it's almost certainly going to take me months to get back to where I was with the ME, sigh.

    I sent the letter 2 1/2 weeks ago - and there's no snow around here - but I'm assuming I won't hear until January at the earliest *rolls eyes* in the meantime I'm back to fainting all over the place, bashing knees, hips, hands and head in the process...

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by Wobbling Wilma (U1818838) on Thursday, 9th December 2010

    It will be assessed on the understanding that the DDA / Equality Act have provided Jill with a ready-made easy-to-use hammer.

    It feels like a good moment to introduce Question 8 of the consultation:

    Should the assessment of a disabled person’s ability take into account any aids and adaptations they use?

    • What aids and adaptations should be included?

    • Should the assessment only take into account aids and adaptations where the person already has them or should we consider those that the person might be eligible for and can easily obtain?  


    Why yes, please do assess me on the basis that I might 'easily obtain' a perfectly suited wheelchair which will magically transport me to all the places I can't access at the moment...

    WW

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by Offworld (U14593555) on Thursday, 9th December 2010

    >>> or should we consider those that the person might be eligible for <<<

    Might?
    How could they reasonably include anything for which the person
    was not *assuredly* eligible?

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by DLARecipient (U14732966) on Monday, 27th December 2010

    I have recieved DLA for around 12-13 years.Speaking for myself,it was NOT a benefit i set out to receive.

    I was ill enough at the time that the filling in of the(horrendous and depressing) form was just a blur:i had a full medical examination at Catford Social security office and i remember it being thorough and i was treated decently enough.

    So,i was ill and in reciept of benefits.

    My anxiety has been fairly consistant over the time(15-20 years) and had precluded me even attempting to find a full time job-even if i could have found somebody to employ me that is.

    Now the Government want to Means Test D.L.A recipients-i was NEVER told that my claim was in anyway related to my ability to work.The insulting aspect of this P.I.P paper is that people in my situation need to be 'sign posted'toward services to help get us BACK TO WORK!

    George osborne stated in his spending review of October this year said catagorically that

    ''Of course, those in receipt of Disability Living Allowance, Working Tax Credit or the War Widows Pension will be excluded.''

    Either DLA will not be capped or not be changed or people in reciept of it aren't compelled to work if they can't-which is it?

    This P.I.P paper 'proposal' indicates otherwise doesn't it?

    This is clearly their agenda.

    Get the B******ds back to WORK!

    WHAT CHANCE do I HAVE of finding ANY remotely rewarding or lucrative employment???

    WHEN (you guessed it!)there are NO jobs for ABLE BODIED people,never mind people with mental health difficulties!

    As a sufferer of long term anxiety problems i have enough on my plate with out people getting me justify my existence-whether it be people i meet daily or an employer or a social security officer.

    THE HEART BREAKING and SICKENING thing is that i WANT TO WORK!

    I WANT to contribute.

    I have my own abilities that i cannot use or have never been allowed to pursue or will be able to develop because i probably will never get the money to get into higher education-i'd be £30-40,000 DOWN before i even earned a pay check!

    The system provides for you(benefits)but when you want to DO ANYTHING,they withdraw this safety net assuming you are ok!

    So,You DON'T do anything,because you never know what infraction you might incur.

    (Am i wrong here?)

    What really galls me about this PIP proposal is the idea that people who are ill do not even ATTEMPT to find assistance for themselves:this is disengenuous,misleading and downright patronising...!!!

    Anyway-WHERE is the money and resources going to come from in this time of SAVAGE CUTS?

    I used to have a nice psychiatrist up until 1990-94 and then i was on my own.

    I have had Councilling over time(two years intensively at one point)and two bursts of psychtherapy only comparitively recently(2002-2003)and from 2006-2008.

    There is NO effective regular treatment for anxiety related problems andcontary to what David Cameron and his ilk assume i have had NO interest shown by Psychiatrists i have met over the past 8-10 years at my plight.

    PILLS are the psychiatrists answer to everything!

    This is their definition of what mental health problems are(!)

    So much for their hippocratic oath toward alleviating suffering!

    So,if the cynics reading this want to shred my comments,thats FINE.

    If you think that NOT going out,Not being able to communicate with people or being so afraid of them that you are ill is a soft option and an easy way out then WHY DON'T WE SWAP PLACES?

    See if YOU can live the way i have had to!

    Report message28

Back to top

About this Board

The Ouch! messageboard has now closed. Messages you have posted will remain archived.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

To continue the conversation visit Ouch's blog (bbc.co.uk/ouch) - now part of BBC News. There you'll find our podcast, regular blog entries and articles, community events, and links to where you can find us on Facebook and Twitter.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Live community panel

Our blog is the main place to go for all things Ouch! Find info, comment, articles and great disability content on the web via us.

Mat and Liz
Listen to our regular razor sharp talk show online, or subscribe to it as a podcast. Spread the word: it's where disability and reality almost collide.

More from the BBC

BBC Sport

Disability Sport

All the latest news from the paralympics.

Peter White

In Touch

News and views for people who are blind or partially sighted.

BBC Radio 4

You & Yours

Weekdays 12.40pm. Radio 4's consumer affairs programme.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.