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%?!

"If you think it is acceptable for HRM DLA to be removed, you do begrudge the support provided for those with complex needs. People who didn’t begrudge this, wouldn’t think it was acceptable to remove HRM" in your opinion, not mine.

" but people don’t get provision their DC don’t reasonably require/legally entitled to. Having EOTAS/EOTIS doesn’t mean their DC doesn’t meet the legal test and it doesn’t mean they don’t have complex needs." I haven't said it does, i've said the system needs to change and doesn't help some of those who need the help the most.

"My point about privilege was your contradiction that being able to afford independent assessment is privilege but being able to afford care, which is far more expensive, is planning, being sensible and thinking things through." People need to take more responsibility for their own circumstances, i've wrote this repeatedly. Not everyone who gets inde reports for their child has a child with complex needs/ severe disabilities, there is a privilege in that compared to someone who can't. If someone requires a high level of care this will usually be provided either via social care or chc to a minimum. Planning helps to top that off ofcourse there is some privilege on that too but for those who plan the support or think things through they tend to get more out of what is offered. Yes, i do believe people should plan for their future amd anything that crops up. People should try to save, it's sensible. There are people who don't and expect the state to pick up their tab. The system needs reform.

As I have said elsewhere, I was born severely physically disabled, without eyes and with multiple joint deformities. I am, I believe, what many of the ableist posters on here might think is one of the 'good' disabled people. I work full time and live independently with my husband and baby.
However, my success would have been impossible without the benefits system, Specialist schools, disabled student grants, local authority personal care funding, Access to Work, employment schemes aimed at recruiting more disabled employees and a number of other, often costly, initiatives that many of the delightful posters on this thread are whinging about.
Perhaps it was remiss of me not to have engaged in fiscal planning as a foetus to ensure I would be fully provided for in the event of being born disabled, but I am ashamed to say that I did not do this.
I was fortunate in having wonderful parents who advocated for me throughout my life, particularly during those crucial years when it is so hard to get the right level of support for disabled children in mainstream schools.
I am also fortunate in that my parents were relatively financially comfortable. This enabled them to buy specialist equipment and resources I needed and to send me to a private infant and junior school, as they felt that the local state schools could not meet my needs.
I did well at junior school and, it became obvious that none of the local schools, state or private, could meet my needs at secondary level. The materials and resources I required could just not be provided by any local establishments. As an academically gifted blind child there was only one school in the UK which could provide me simultaneously with a rigorous curriculum and the facilities and resources I would require to follow it.
This was a residential school a few hours from home which cost considerably more than the local private day schools, more than my parents could afford. Following my father's highly effective advocacy the LEA agreed to fund me to attend this school, as they admitted they could not provide me with an adequate level of education otherwise.
I began attending this boarding school at age twelve and flourished academically and socially. I achieved top grades in GCSEs and then A-levels but, thanks to the daily living skills that were taught at the school and the way the school actively encouraged independent life skills like cooking, laundry, shopping, budgeting, etc. I left school far more confident than many of my peers with whom I started university.
I went to a good university and got a first class degree. Again, I benefited from the disabled student grant which paid for the specialist equipment I required and for assistance with reading, getting around campus, daily living, etc.
After university I was hired by a company which was actively recruiting disabled people. As you have charmingly pointed out elsewhere, it doesn't make much sense for a company to employ someone as disabled as myself, with all my extra needs, when they could employ someone, even if less qualified, who come without my challenges. Luckily, my employer thought it was worthwhile taking a chance on me. I require a lot of adaptive tech, specialist equipment and personal support to do my job but I like to think I'm pretty good at it! However, I am aware that without an employer being willing and able to invest the money, time and resources into providing me with vital accommodations I would be unable to work.
As I have said elsewhere, the costs associated with my disability far outweigh the amount I receive in PIP each month, but, without PIP, I would be unable to pay for the equipment, support and technology which makes it possible for me to get to and stay in work.
I am aware that this is a long post but I just wanted to give you and other like-minded posters some idea of the life-long cost of having a disability like mine and remind you that, if you really do want more disabled people to work, this will mean investing money in better education, social care, supporting employers, providing equipment and tech and a number of things which cost money. Disabled people can't just magically stop being disabled if they really try hard enough. I haven't been able to sprout the eyeballs I was born with out, but you'll probably say I wasn't trying hard enough!
I only have the life I now enjoy because I received the right support at the right time, not because I pulled myself up by my bootstraps, unlike those other lazy disabled scroungers!

You certainly implied you think some receive support they are not entitled to. Repeatedly. It is there for all to read earlier in the thread.

As I pointed out, more than once, there are ways of securing evidence, including independent reports, without parents funding them. Even when parents fund them it doesn’t always equate to privileged. I have even met parents, multiple, who resorted to stealing in order to be able to afford assessments. Now, I wouldn’t advocate that but it is deluded to think all those with independent assessments are privileged.

Care for those with very high needs is very expensive. It goes well beyond planning, savings and personal responsibility for the vast, vast majority of people who require that high level of support. It seems you have changed your tune and you are now claiming you haven’t been so sensible with forward planning, because you aren’t funding DS’s care, you are just topping up.

"No not a millionaire- just sensible and thought a few things through, it'd benice if i was. For the poster who suggested that."

Care (alone) for a profoundly autistic adult costs hundreds of thousands every year. If your son is as disabled as mine he is likely to cost that. Hence you must be a multimillionaire.

@Perzival

If you think HRM should be removed, why did you claim it, and why do you currently claim full benefit for your own child?

If you “planned” so effectively, why not just self
fund? You shouldn’t really be taking anything from the public purse, if your own purse is full enough. Or in reality, do you actually need that DLA/PIP, like everyone else.

Surely you can’t think it’s acceptable to claim benefits that you don’t believe should exist. Having such strong beliefs on benefit claimants and then being one The hypocrisy is off the charts.

I'm not implying anything. Just for clarity... i do think people claim that shouldn't or exagerate their claim to get higher rates.

I didn't say we fund everything for ds i wrote that we have made provision for when we pass and if benefits were removed from him we would be able to meet his needs. We have planned for such events. It's common sense. Why would we not do?

I know there are other ways to secure inde reports inc legal aid again funded by the state. There is also a charity but they clearly cannot fund every inde report that parents use.

Personal responsibility is massive are you really saying you think people shouldn't try to help themselves and having a disability removes any personal responsibility (also just to point out this is the kind of thinking you have used with your argument with me)?

The state cannot and should not baby everyone who thinks they have a disability or completly fund their life where they are able to help themselves.

"EOTAS is very much about privilege. Those who aren't able to advocate would either end up home schooling or settling for local provision."

You are privileged to not know that for some children there is no option in setting for local provision because no school will take the child.

That is why I said supported for the length of treatment.

Which may never stop

I'm not implying anything.

In your opinion. In my opinion, you have, repeatedly throughout the thread.

a charity

There is more than one.

are you really saying you think people shouldn't try to help themselves and having a disability removes any personal responsibility

Can you quote where I have said this? You won’t be able because I haven’t. Just like last time I asked you to quote where I had said something. What I actually said is it goes well beyond personal responsibility.

(also just to point out this is the kind of thinking you have used with your argument with me)?

No, I haven’t.

The state cannot and should not baby everyone who thinks they have a disability or completly fund their life where they are able to help themselves.

No-one has said everyone who is disabled should get benefits. That isn’t what happens now. Not all who are disabled are eligible. Even when they are, for many, it doesn’t cover the extra additional costs.

You can get independent reports via legal aid, if in an EHCP appeal.

It's all very contrary to me. Wanting an education system that excludes any parental input as it's not fair some parents can afford independent reports/advocate for their child

But also people need to forward plan and not expect the state to "pick up their tab"

It sounds like you were happy to claim DLA for your DS, but the financial assessment he'll be subject to when transferring to adult services makes you feel resentful at those in receipt of PIP who don't get it taken directly by social care.

And you want the ladder pulled up there

I claim it because i can, like everyone else. If it was removed and he wasn't entitled he'd be ok, we'd be ok. Why wouldn't i claim for him? He was awarded without appeal or MR. There is no question or fighting for it.

Do i think people claim who shouldn't? Yes absolutely.

Do i think disability benefits need to be rehashed? Yes massively

Do i think people cheat the system? Yes, yes, yes

Do i think people don't work that could? Yes

Do i think people need to take more responsibility for themselves and not rely on benefits? Yes

Parents in need doesn't have a financial assessment and generally say if you're entitled to legal aid you should pursue that, as they have limited funding
Though it is case by case

🤣 you have no idea

Then that's who should be supported.

In my wider family there are a lot of people one benefits and it's made all their lives worse. All on it for numerous reasons, which are insurmountable. At this point the only thing that I believe would work is some sort of forced engagement with a focus on getting back to work.

I want benefits and services to be available and I honestly think the only way we can preserve that is being honest that there are large numbers of people not trying to get back to work.

I think this too.

10% doesn't sound outrageous to me. Its money that's supposed to equalise independence. A lot of the things people complain about on Mumsnet about society are really just disabilities that aren't recognised. You pay the disability payments to help these people so they don't annoy you. If you don't pay them you're going to get lots more people walking slowly, taking ages to get on the bus, wandering aimlessly round the supermarket, looking unkempt etc etc. All things I've seen on threads that mumsnetters complain about.
Not only that, but suddenly these people will HAVE to work, even if the can't really, to survive. So you'll have service staff who are unsteady on their feet, shop assistants who take ages, people who are considered rude. Also things that many mumsnetters complain about.

You can't have a relatively well functioning society if you don't make allowances for those who cant keep the same pace or have the same abilities as the majority. The easiest way to do this is to pay disability allowances.
Then they can get a taxi, have the shopping delivered, pay for help and aids.

Then what exactly are you arguing with me about?

(Also just to point out this is the kind of thinking you have used with your argument with me)? You missed my point on this. This is how you have strung your replies to me.

So just so we’re all on the same page here.

You claim money, that you don’t need because you’d be okay, and believe that other people shouldn’t have, because “you can.”

You are concerned about the tax payer burden of paying for disability. But claim because “you can.”

You believe that disability costs the country too much, but claim because “you can.”

You think that I personally should “cut my cloth accordingly” to meet the (costly) needs of my very complex child. But claim money you don’t need for yours, because “you can,” having already cut your cloth.

No further questions, your honour.

If you are unsure what my posts are saying, as I posted previously, you could re-read my posts rather than making things up. Or you could continue to ignore.

This is how you have strung your replies to me.

As I said, no I haven’t. I haven’t missed your point. You are just wrong.

My daughter has Down Syndrome with severe learning disabilities. All I know is that applying for disability allowance was no walk in the park. If people are claiming who shouldn't be claiming, I have no idea how they're doing it.

I've been told the line 'describe their worst day' after DC was diagnosed. It's very common advice, and depressing.

You've misrepresented what i've wrote. Where have i said anything about parents not being involved?? I've wrote that the system favors those who have funds and ability. It leaves some of those with the most need out. Send does need looking at, infact there's a white paper due but it was delayed this week because it is being looked at.

I think the system is flawed. My point was removing pip won't impact many with the most need as it's removed anyway. It'll impact LA's who will need to make up the short fall and those who claim who don't need much support.

There isn't enough money for things to carry on as they are, something has to change.

I think it’s entirely possible to have a sensible discussion about disability benefits. It should start with, “are we proud a civilised nation takes proper care of the most vulnerable in society”

Anything that suggests we can’t afford to do that is not part of a sensible discussion.

For me. I think the people who are physically and mentally healthy should not reply on benefits.

The disabled, come on it's a bit harsh.

My point was removing pip won't impact many with the most need as it's removed anyway.

Except, as I have pointed out, many with ‘the most need’ will be in receipt of CHC funding which is not subject to financial assessment.