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%?!

Yes, in an ideal world but we don't live in that world. Reality has to kick in at some point.

But that is the real world. Why should those with any amount of disability be provided for more than those with other disadvantages?

It's only the real world if people who live in the real world allow it to be. Currently asylums for disabled children don't exist in England and hopefully will never again exist in England.

It's also easy to say that knowing that it wouldn't apply to your disabled child. Very I'm alright Jack.

But the system also thinks that already?

A person with profound autism would be eligible for high rate mobility and high rate care. They wouldnt be expected to find work. I think they could get universal credit and an extra disability payment as part of that as well. They might get social services funding residential care or respite (they take the benefits to pay for that). They shoukd have a social worker at least.

A person with diabetes (assuming they hadnt lost thier legs and ended up brain damaged or something) wouldnt get any of that. They might be able to use the equalities act to prevent discrimination on grounds of being diabetic or a reasonable adjustments like time to inject and thats about it.

I dint see how thats them getting the same. Why would it be ok to discriminate against diabetics because profound autism is worse. It doesn't help the person with autism.

All of that could change with a heartbeat.

Being a victim is partly a frame of mind. Nobody owes anyone anything. I believe in a welfare state but we currently have people who take advantage of that; whether that is by not wanting to contribute or by gaining funds by exagerarion.

I believe most people are good at heart and wouldn't see others harmed or suffer but currently the system doesn't work and i write that as a parent to somebody with profound disability. The system needs to change.

Even if that’s the case , I’d much rather someone (very few) got something for “nothing”, than no one getting anything or bringing back asylums.

I guess it’s easy to be flippant when you’ve never seen one (or similar) in real life .

I didn't raise the comparrison so you'd be better asking that question to tje person that does.

The person with profound autism would have the majority of whatever benefit they claim taken by the LA for their support. Given by the Gov taken back by the LA. They'll never work. Some on disability would find a way to work if there was no other option.

You don't sound like you believe in a welfare state, especially if you'd like to see asylums back for disabled children from families who aren't privileged enough to be able to afford to protect their disabled child from that.

Seen what?

I've not said that tho, that's what people have wrote who have interpreted to their view or what they want me to write.

An asylum or orphanage or any other type of mass institutionalised “care”. Especially ones where costs are “kept to a minimum” as per your wish.

You have said that you aren't against asylums, you have also said that you know your child would probably avoid any asylum due to the fact that you can afford to have provisions made for his future.

In all honesty I strongly feel UC is the issue.

Or rather the inflexibility. It's the premise that EVERYONE should be working full time. And if youre not you're either going to be forced by threat of sanction to do so, or go down the limited capability to work route to not be forced.

WHY can the government not see or accept that actually a huge number of disabled people actually COULD work PART TIME? Surely if someone is working part time thats better for them and better for the system?! Better than them not being able to work at all because they CANNOT work full time.

I've been working since I was able to sign off ESA support group 12 years ago. I did start full time (which tbh I wasn't coping with but was too scared to say anything before 2 years incase I got sacked). But it became apparent that mentally I couldn't cope. So since then I've worked part time (up to 24hrs a week). For many years I was topped up by tax credits which I will always be eternally grateful for. Obviously the UC switch happened and at that point I didnt continue, simply because
a) I was already working 16+ hours pw I wouldn't have even been entitled to a WCA and would have been forced to work full time and
b)I simply couldn't cope with dealing with DWP and job center and also I get paid every week which would logistically have been a nightmare with a system that asseses you monthly. I think had I been on UC it would have pushed me over the edge by this point. I'm fortunate I've been able to get by with savings, many others don't have that back up.

I hate the focus on only full time work being counted as actually being "productive". Someone working part time is still getting up everyday, still turning in and still doing a bloody job. 😡 Hypothetically I could have stayed on ESA but personally I WANTED a job, cos for me it was what would make me feel "normal". I wanted more independence, I didn't want to be at the mercy of DWP. And to say I was at several points told by my psychiatrist I may never been able to work again with my severe mental illness I am fucking proud of myself for going back to work and still being there 12 years later even if nobody else is and even if the government think I'm worth shit cos it's "only" part time.

Because, and I think behind the goadyness you actually know this, DLA & PIP are at least in part to cover the additional costs associated with disability. Which most/many can’t cover without help.

Last time I checked, there are very few other vulnerabilities that present you with a real, tangible additional cost of living.

For the more complex disabled, it supports their ability to survive. If you have another vulnerability that means you genuinely cannot work, you too will receive support to not live on the streets and starve.

Are you really the parent of a disabled child? Because you sound quite dismissive of their need to eat and not sleep outside.

Hopefully nobody will see them in the UK and those that are still wrongly held in inpatient wards (autism/ld) will be released soon.

If you have no reason to not work other than you don't want to, why should you not live in shared accomodation? That is different to not being able to. Ability is open to definition ofcourse.

I've said i agree with shared accom for those who don't want to work. Those who can't are another matter.

You've only just started using the term shared accommodation. Before you were responding to questions about asylums which are very different.

Why do you claim DLA for your son?

No i'm dismissive to those who say they can't work due to a disbility that can be accomodated for. People of all sorts of backgrounds have situations which they have to overcome. Not all disabilities are equally as debilitating and some non disability situations can be as much or more so a hidrence to employment as what some disabled claim.

Yes, i'm really the parent of a very severly, complex, profound etc disabled young man. Yes, i get peed off with people who say they can't do x,y,z when they can with a little work or those who think because they have something which is yes a disadvantage that they can't do anything to make their situation better or that society should do it for them.

I wouldn't use the word asylum as i'd like them all closed.

There are systems in place to actually establish if people are fit and able to work, and therefore what support they should get.

Sounds to me like you’re angry with the wrong people.

Just try and have a think how you’d feel if it was your son that people were saying should just do better and not rely on others/the state. Then think how much harder and more difficult that would be if you didn’t have the means to do anything about it.

Why does it matter? He gets hrm and hrc. Hrc from two years, hrm from three years. No appeals or fights for it. Yes, i would trade it in for a cure/ better life for him etc. Yes i still think people claim when they shouldn't. Yes, i think not everyone with a disability is as disabled as everyone else.

In a short time it won't matter if we claim or not as the LA will take it anyway.

The thread is about disability benefits. I think people claim disability who should't and the system should change so that they can't.

Trying to guilt trip isn't a good look. If i was in that situatutio it would be an improvement and one i'd happily accept.

It isn’t only disabled people who are provided for in ways that the general population isn’t. There are other disadvantaged groups who receive some support the general population doesn’t. For example, care experienced young people &/or those who have been in a homeless hostel for 3+months receive a higher UC housing element rather than the shared accommodation rate, some are exempt from UC’s 2 child cap because the child/ren were conceived during non-consensual sexual act or when the claimant was subject to controlling or coercive behaviour.

Some with profound autism will be eligible for CHC funding which isn’t subject to financial assessment.

So you do think disabled people who might be able to work with accommodations should have accommodations at work? That didn't seem very clear from previous comments.