Is it possible to have a sensible discussion about disability benefits?

[Pjnow]

According to Google 10% of working age people are in receipt of PIP and 6% of 0-15yos receive DLA.

I'm a proper lefty who believes absolutely in the welfare state, a safety net and that we should care properly for those with disabilities. A society should be judged on how it cares for its most vulnerable.

However 10% in receipt of disability benefits can't be sustainable. I know many people receiving PIP also work, it's not about that.

I'm just wondering what (if anything) can be done to make sure those who need support get it, without paying it to 10% of the population. I know not all disabilities are visble etc, but 10%?!

Remove the triple lock?

We could also assess disabled people properly and do away with the face to face assessments and stop assessing those of us with long term disabilities

I get PIP and work. Disabled since birth.
I think the main reason for the rise in claims is the state of the NHS.
I can no longer easily access my consultant for the treatment I need to manage my condition. I have to jump through hoops first. My condition is deteriorating to the extent I'm struggling to work now. So many people are stuck on waiting lists that they end up being eligible for PIP

A disabled person being able to work from home does not mean they are no longer disabled and no longer needing PIP.
If employers are made to do what you suggest then they simply wont employ anyone that is disabled.

As a parent of someone who will never work due to severe disability i ask why is the state/ society responsible for equalising the opportunities people have?

We are all born with different cirumstaces , it isn't the state or societies job to equalise opportuity.

If my son was due a life equal to those without disability he would be due a huge amount of funded equalisation but it will never make him equal. It seems to me that those who aren't so disabled that they'll never be fully part of society but disabled enough to claim or fake claimimg are in the best position to make the most out of handouts.

Donning my hard hat and may not reply to those who are appalled at what i've wrote, gonna have a glass of wine and worry about what will happen to ds when i die. Maybe the threshold for claiments should be set higher and only those who are incapable of working because they don't understand the concept/ can't physically contribute should be looked after?

What would people do if the country did go broke and couldn't pay, i think there would be many that suddenly could work in some form or another.

If that was to happen then it would also have to coincide with making workplaces more accessible to those who would be forced into work but would need a massive amount of support and reasonable adjustments to make work possible for them.

The problem is that those who don't want disabled people who may be able to work with a lot of support to receive ''handouts'' also don't tend to want to have disabled people as colleagues or hire them and carry out the support and reasonable adjustments that would be required.

If no one is willing to hire them, what are they supposed to do? How are they supposed to survive?

Maybe you should put in a claim anyway ?
Just needing support to live independently can sometimes warrant an award assuming you have professional evidence of this ,than you have nothing to lose?

No it doesn't have to coincide. In an ideal world everyone would be equal with circumstances of birth being made up for by the state but we don't live in that world. People of all different types of inequality would be given help to equalise them with those who are born non disabled,white, straight, upper class etc but the world doesn't work like that. The world at the moment is facing huge division, why is a disabled person owed more than a gay, trans, black, refugee from where ever. The world isn't fair and money sometimes can't make up for that.

Just to add why do you feel like you are owed that equalisation?

Are you actually saying that one of the richest societies in the world should just consider not helping disabled people at all, leaving those born into families who are not financially secure at risk of poverty, illness and premature death? I mean, way to go back to the 19th century. We can and should do better.

Nobody is advocating equalising absolutely everything. That is a strawman. We just want a little bit of basic decency.

Because disabled people need to be able to eat and you know...survive?

How will that happen if money is taken away from them and no one will hire them or make any reasonable adjustments for them?

I'm not disabled. I do want to live in a society where the most vulnerable are taken care of and not left to starve on the streets, didn't think that was such a wild opinion.

Equalisation? Maybe not. And no matter what the official party line is, we’ll never have that.

But at least survival? Being alive, having food to eat, shelter etc.? Yes I think everyone is owed that.

Where does that decency stop? Why are some disabilities worth more in terms of equalisation than other inequalities? What some now class as a disability others class as something to just get on with.

Wheelchair users for instance are disabled, no one would argue against that but that doesn't stop them working. They are at a disadvantage to an able body person but are they at more or a disadvantage to someone who is born to a drug addict single mum of mixed cultural background? Why are they owed a financial compesatiob but the other isn't when both are at huge disadvantages?

The current system is open to abuse and not everyone who needs help gets it. What is classed as dialsability isn't always as disabling as what people would think, every circumstance is different.

If the benefits system was suddenly scrapped many current claiments would become creative and find ways to work.

@Kirbert2 and @GagMeWithASpoon why is that you feel disabled people are owed this? Why should they be fed and sheltered automatically but others with equally debilitating or disadvantaging backgrounds not be?

By my eyes many of those who class theseselves as disabled aren't in comparrison to my ds. How does that work? As a country we can't afford to support everyone who declares themselves to be in need and who do we make the baseline comparison to? Someone at some stage has to take responsibility for themselves.

Maybe the threshold for claiments should be set higher and only those who are incapable of working because they don't understand the concept/ can't physically contribute should be looked after?

PIP/DLA is not dependent on someone’s ability to work.

I have a DS who understands the concept of work and would be physically capable of working. His needs are so complex it has been deemed to be inappropriate for provision to be made in a school so he has an EOTIS package where he has 2:1 at all times. He can’t be left at home alone and is in receipt of social care support. He will never be independent, yet by your definition shouldn’t be entitled to benefits. What do you suggest pays for his disability related expenses if not disability benefits?

I also have another DS with even more complex needs (complex physical, medical, developmental and psychological needs, 2:1 EOTAS package, 2:1 continuing care funding, etc.) who would still be eligible if your threshold was used. That doesn’t mean I can’t see people who don’t meet your threshold can’t also have significant needs and don’t also need support.

What would people do if the country did go broke and couldn't pay

There would be an increase in deaths.

Wheelchair users for instance are disabled, no one would argue against that but that doesn't stop them working.

Some wheelchair users can work. Some can’t. It depends on their specific needs. Some people who live with the effects of their mother’s drug use in pregnancy meet the criteria for DLA/PIP and UC’s LCW/LCWRA.

It depends on the job and if they would be willing to make reasonable adjustments to help a wheelchair user be able to work. It will also depend on how accessible the building is and if they have enough money for an electric wheelchair or if they have the strength to self propel all day.

They may not be able to afford an electric wheelchair without any financial help which could be a barrier to their independence, including working.

Because I’m not happy with people dying on the streets en masse. And I include all vulnerable people here, not just disabled people.

By my eyes many of those who class theseselves as disabled aren't in comparrison to my ds.

There are some who are e.g. dependent on a tracheostomy and TPN with no independent movement of their body at all. Would you feel it was fair if their parents said your DS shouldn’t receive benefits because he isn’t as disabled as their DC or only people with the level of need their DC has are disabled? Of course you wouldn’t. They wouldn’t be right and they wouldn’t be reasonable.

I never sad dla/ pip was dependant 9n a persons ability to work?!

I'm also aware that if your children have decent eotas packages then they have been born into a family/circumstances where their advocates have been able to navigate the send system, possibly and most likeky getting inde reports (paid for by some means) and by advocates who are not only able to understand the system but fight it. This shows privilege.

I'm also not blind to the fact that packages of care don't always reoresent need, there are those for whom the packages represent wealth and education of advocates and ofcourse there will always be those who have greater need but don't have invested support to secure similar packages equivilant to need.

Because I don't want to live in a society where we leave disabled people to starve on the street? Other people should be offered support too but this thread is about support for disabled people.

If you have a disabled child, you should know how it works. You don't just rock up and declare yourself disabled and instantly receive free money.

There has to be a cut off. At any level there will always be those who don't agree.

And many others would starve.

I've seen you on benefits threads before, arguing your views. You were morally bankrupt then, and you are morally bankrupt now.

I do agree that disabilities affect people differently. This is why PIP is allocated on the basis on how a condition affects someone, not on the diagnosis.

But there are clearly those claiming disability who could work and contribute.

What people now class as disability in some cases is laughable and just something that should be "got on with". Saying the word disabled shouldn't be an automatic free ride, those who can work should and sometimes the world is unfair and you just have to crack on with it like everyone else.

You conflated someone’s understanding of the concept of work and physical ability to work with the threshold for eligibility.

Yes, DC whose parents can advocate for them get better support, and it shouldn’t be like that, no-one should have to fight, but DC don’t get support they aren’t legally entitled to. LAs and ICBs don’t agree to provision they aren’t legally required to provide, neither do courts/tribunals (and if LAs/ICBs thought they had erred in law, they would be quick to challenge). My DC absolutely meet the threshold for their EOTAS/EOTIS packages, social care support and continuing care funding. Being able to navigate the system doesn’t stop my DC having significant complex needs as acknowledged by every professional involved. Neither does it stop the thousands we have to spend on their needs arising from their disabilities.

People can get EOTAS/EOTIS packages without paying for independent reports.

I didn’t say there wasn’t a threshold. I was commenting on you, conveniently, wanting that threshold where you still benefit.

That's why we have people who assess claim s
My oldest son has a disability he's an insulin dependent diabetic no doubt it impacts him most people dont have to inject themselves 5times + a day just to stay alive but rightly he doesn't meet the criteria for PIP as he manages his condition himself and is very independent
Unlike his severely autistic younger brother who will need 1:1 care for the rest of his life.