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%?!

Another day, another MN disabled benefits-bashing thread descends into a cavalcade of rancid ableism, with the powers that be doing nothing to control it.
I could have picked out any of the numerous revoltingly offensive comments about disabled people to bring to the attention of the MN authorities, but many of them are the same old ableist greatest hits we read every day. This comment, however, is a bit special. Here is a poster who has really gone that extra mile to construct a particularly horrifying post that may be the most outrageously hateful so far, quite an achievement on this festering cesspit of a thread!
Here we have a poster who, quite openly, advocates for the termination of any foetus found to be disabled and compares the decision to continue a pregnancy with a disabled child as being akin to smoking. Apart from the fatuous nature of this comparison, your attitude to the value of the lives of disabled children is most chilling to me, as someone born with severe physical disabilities. I enjoy a rich and fulfilling life, despite my disabilities, but, according to you my life is miserable and worthless and it would have been best if I had not been born. Your inability to conceive that someone with a disability may live a happy life and may be of some value in the world is, frankly, quite worrying, bordering on sociopathic. However, I have to admire your nerve in being so open about your admiration of eugenics, most people are a little shy about displaying their eugenicist leanings, but you are loud and proud about it.
MN mods, we are watching you. Are you going to let this comment go unmoderated? I know you saw no problem with leaving a thread advocating for the forced segregation and incarceration of disabled children go unchallenged but surely you will draw the line at a post which advocates forcing women to terminate pregnancies purely on the grounds of disability by threatening them with state sanctions if they continue the pregnancy?

A pp suggested removing the mobility part of DLA to save money. It would save money but it would be awful for my severely physically disabled child.

Thanks for the link. It looks like they are pausing for now, which is at least something. The worry that it was causing a lot of people, was not right.

I’m not convinced it would save a significant amount of money overall. If the mobility component of DLA/PIP was removed, more people will pursue hospital transport. More will apply for the healthcare travel costs scheme. More will apply for school transport. Some already in receipt of mileage/PTB rather than the LA providing the transport itself will hand back control to the LA to arrangements which will cost more. More will apply for concessionary travel passes. More in London will apply for the London taxicard. There may well be an increase in the number of home visits for things like district/community nursing.

Of course it would be awful. I dread to think of the amount of people whose, not to overstate a point, lifeline would be cut off, if that was to happen. Do people not understand some of what they are saying? These are real people, whose lives would be all the more poorer.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/timms-review-of-pip-terms-of-reference/timms-review-of-personal-independence-payment-terms-of-reference#:~:text=The%20Review%20will%20be%20underpinned,was%20first%20devised%20and%20introduced
Pip is being reviewed to make sure it's fit for purpose.

That's true.

I'd be looking for all of the help I could get to get my son to his many appointments.

If/ when reform get in. They estimate £9 billion saving on removing pip for anxiety linked claims.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cze6r2zk5d3o.amp

They might have other conditions that qualify them for PIP but they still have to put anxiety on the forms.

Well yes, they do think that.

But they also waltzed into all the councils they won in May, saying they would save hundreds of millions in councils waste - and found there was nothing left to cut. Kent has asked to go above the 5% annual cap on council tax rises.

So I think believing Reform on any promises of savings they can make is evidence of limited thinking. At best.

Your link has a clip of 30p Lee - who suggested that disabled people should be given unsafe vehicles dating back to the 1960s by way of independent transport, presumably because getting lots of disabled people killed would save money.

And yet we are not allowed to call people thick.

If, not when, and ideally never.

All the major parties want to cut welfare because it just isn't sustainable and nearly everyone is feeling the pinch. The Timms review info on the Gov website states "the purpose of the Review is to ensure that PIP is fair and fit for the future rather than to generate proposals for further savings. However, the sustainability of the system is an important consideration and so the Review will operate within the OBR’s projections for future PIP expenditure, to ensure it is there to support generations to come".

I am sure that is all very interesting, but what on earth has it got to do with my post?
My post laid out, in detail, how the benefits system has worked exactly as it should in my case, allowing me access to independence, education and employment which would have been impossible without the support and equipment I require daily. Which part of that did you fail to understand?
I am also most puzzled by your final sentence, what responsibilities do you think a disabled child has in the social contract? I turned up to school and did my best but pretty sure that was all that could have reasonably been required of me.
As an adult I work and pay taxes, own my home and care for my family. What part of the social contract am I failing to keep up now?

Whichever govt gets in next - and you know what it won’t be Labour - will need to do something about welfare. Labour can’t do anything meaningful (thanks to their backbenchers) to cut welfare spending, despite it being widely recognised the cost is unsustainable. However the next govt will. There is no alternative.

Everlore, Big jump to eugenics there. The point i was making was about responsibility. Lots of women make the responsible choice not to have a child because either their own circumstances or opportunities mean that they cannot give that child the life they deserve. Is that eugenics? People abort foetuses for financial reasons every single day. Is that eugenics. No. The point is nobody should be having a child if they KNOW they'll have to rely on the state to support them for their entire life. I know circumstances change but I wasn't talking about that, more a case of too many people think they have that entitlement.

Absolutely my son will never improve to any great significance
I was quite lucky with DLA, my son got a 13 year award at 3 he got MRC and LRM added on at five
It did however become apparent that he had SMI and to cut a long story short after doing a COC and taking it to tribunal he was awarded HRC and HRM at 9 but only for 3 years,
I have only had to do one renewal when hec as 12 and he kept the same rates for five years
He will transition to PIP next year though whilst I'm confident he won't lose his rates it does annoy me that we might have to do do renewals ,nothing is going to change for him

Of course it's eugenics because very, very few people would be able to financially support a disabled child including through SEND school without any assistance from the state.

Down Syndrome is also incredibly varied like Autism. Some children will be mildly affected and may be able to work and live either independently or in supported accommodation but others may have severe learning disabilities and will need 24/7 care for life. You don't know where on the spectrum your child will be even if you get a prenatal diagnosis.

I know he probably got MRC instead of HRC at the time because he was 3 but even that seems crazy to me when it's clear a child is severely autistic because they will always be severely autistic.

My son was 8 when he was awarded and he was awarded HRC and HRM right away and up until he turns 16. That surprised me at the time, I imagined having to do several renewals and feel grateful that I don't have to do anything until he moves to PIP.

Some of the best parents I know are disabled themselves and are on benefits. Are you also saying that disabled people should not be having children too?

But the point people are making, which you have been spectacularly missing, is that you cannot predict that you are going to be reliant on the state. You keep going on about Down Syndrome - it has been explained to you multiple times that this is a spectrum and that you cannot predict which DS child will frow up to live an independent and productive life, be able to work etc., and which DS child will not.

So your demand for abortions falls flat on its face right there.

The exact same argument applies to autism and ADHD - which can't even be predicted in utero. My DS is autistic. He also has a degree and is about to start a job. Other people with autism cannot do this - and you don't know when they're born what you're going to get.

So please stop this line of argument - it is utter bollocks.

I didn't keep going on about Down Syndrome, I used it once as an example of a disability that can be tested for. My point was if the state said it wouldn't support preventable disabilities why do people think others should fund that choice? I could have used housing benefit as an example. It would be right and proper for the state to pay exactly the same housing benefit countrywide. There is no good financial reason for taxpayers to subsidise people to live in a more expensive area. Would that be hard for people who currently receive more housing benefit that others due to the location? Of course, but it doesn't change the fact that it is taxpayers who have to fund it and people have to take more responsibility for their lives.

What is a preventable disability?
Yes Down Syndrome can be tested for but no one knows how it will affect that child until they are born and older.
Some people with Down Syndrome will never have any independence but then I know a lady with Down Syndrome who works for Amazon. None of that can be predicted when in the womb. Same with Autism.
Even of there was a test for Autism like there is for Down Syndrome no doctor could tell you how they would be affected.

Low paid people live in expensive areas because there are still low paid jobs in those areas that need doing.

It isn't 'preventable'. It is 'detectable'. It doesn't matter that we can't tell how many challenges a person with DS will grow up to have because it's not a 'pick and mix'. Pregnant women can choose to have tests to identify some known genetic syndromes, and they are entitled to say that if they are carrying a baby with an identified genetic syndrome, they want to terminate the pregnancy. But they shouldn't be compelled to do so out of fear of how they'll be supported by society.

Besides, the majority of genetic disabilities aren't even known about, let alone detectable. The geneticists are sure that DD1 has a genetic syndrome. She's nearly 20 and they still haven't found it, despite her being in genome mapping programmes since she was 4. The Baylor Institute contacted our geneticist a few years ago because they wanted DD1's file, as they'd identified a cluster of people with the same genetic code variation. It all went quiet, though, so I expect it turned out to be irrelevant.

Because women shouldn't feel frightened or forced into abortions purely because they wouldn't be financially supported to have a disabled child.