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%?!

So how are you going to become ill, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, who knows but you will expect to get treatment, I imagine.

There are so many people born whose illness are neither detectable or preventable, when do you say someone is not entitled to treatment or even life.

One day your illness and the genetic information that cases your death will be given to you when you are born or maybe even whilst in the womb, will all people who have genetic conditions be eradicated, I doubt it because we all die from something.
What you disagree about is someone taking money from the state on a continuing basis but if you were to get cancer it would be ok to spend hundreds of thousands on your care.
So only the fit and able who then find themselves ill are allowed to be funded by the taxpayer.

So you are more important.
I know a few people like that in history who had visions of a perfect race.

Genetics are advancing at an alarming rate, they can take out faulty genes and replace them with donors, but we cannot run before we can walk, making certain illneses less prevalent takes time and generations, in the meantime we have to look after the vunerable in society because if we don't then we do not deserve to be called a society.

Until you've been in the shoes of a person with one of those 'overdiagnosed' conditions, don't have the utter cheek to talk about it. These things are not overdiagnosed, rather that they have, for years and years, been ignored, and underdiagnosed, because of the sheer ignorance of healthcare professionals. These conditions often don't come separately either, and can be extremely debilitating, not to mention the extra expenses. They call it the adhd tax.
There's so much more to these what you, and many others, think, are made up conditions than you will ever know, so no, don't begrudge them the disability benefits they need to exist

The only way you can prevent it is by stopping people with those disabilities from being born, I know you said that isn't eugenics but, eradicating people with characteristics you find undesirable is absolutely the definition of eugenics, I think you may wish to consult a dictionary as you appear to be cofused as to what it actually means.
The more you post the more disturbing and upsetting your views appear to be. The value you place on human life appears to be entirely predicated on a child's future earning potential, with no reference to anything else they may have to contribute or any quality of life they may enjoy. As I said in my last post, I was born with severe physical disabilities which would, to a small-minded person like you who sees no worth in the lives of disabled children, have apparently made my life not worth living and, yet, thanks to my parents and countless others, professionals and friends and family, I flourished and now live a rich and fulfilling adult life. Writing disabled children off before they are even born is disgusting and you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. I know it is impossible for someone so entirely lacking in empathy or basic human understanding to fathom that someone born disabled could possibly contribute anything to the world but I can tell you that you are very wrong.
Your suggestion that it is wrong for the state to be expected to support children whose parents have had them in the knowledge they are 'defective' is also incredibly stupid, as well as outrageously offensive. Most parents rely on the state to fund large parts of their children's care, through education, the NHS an other parts of the state that people utilise at various points throughout their lives but, according to you, it is only disabled children who will never be of any value to society who don't deserve access to these things.
You really should feel thoroughly ashamed of yourself, but I doubt you will as that would require you having a conscience.

What absolutely baffles me is the people adamant we can't afford benefits.

We absolutely can afford benefits.

The state is choosing to become a low tax economy rather than a welfare driven one.

Billionaires have more than quadrupled their wealth while we're in a cost of living crisis that is felt by the vast majority of people. Thats where the money is. That what needs to be taken back by the state. Not the trifling amounts given to the disabled or refugees.

And it's not just the money. With it comes power. You can easily see that with Elon musk. It's not hidden. An unelected man is exerting huge political power in a supposed democracy. Yet so many seem to think it's great.

The arguments are pathetic. Women should have abortions if theirs kids might not make enough money? Are you absolutely mental?!
Because we apparently absolutely can't afford disabled people, but we shouldn't touch the billionaires money. That's just really not fair. Money and the right to hold it is apparently more important than the many lives of their serfs.

I'd reply telling you to go screw yourself but i'm quite sure you'll be disappointed.

The housing example is daft too. We subsidise people to live in expensive areas because low paid jobs still need doing in expensive areas. Good luck getting a healthcare assistant or refuse collector in Surrey if they can only live in the north east of England.

Housing cost are also supply and demand, so rents would increase in low cost areas as there'd be double the people trying to get a house.

But it's not supply and demand whilst taxpayers intervene. Reduce housing benefit and landlords can only charge what the market can afford, reduce UC and businesses will have to increase wages. We have chosen to live in a capitalist society and whilst that is the case there will always be winners and losers. As for the people who are offended that I think some lives are worth less, what about the children who mine cobalt for our phones, the millions who are starving due to our economic policies, the children in sweatshops so we can get cheap clothes? As a country we can't even grow enough food to feed us all and all the wealth people say we should tax is either made up numbers related to house values or wealth that could leave with the click of a keyboard. Spending on all benefits needs reducing because it will all come crashing down at some point and people need to be prepared for that.

Reduce housing benefit and landlords can only charge what the market can afford, reduce UC and businesses will have to increase wages.

I see this trotted out again and again and it’s just not factual. Do you have any basic grasp of economics?

How are businesses going to increase wages if UC top ups are cut?? I will give you an easy to grasp example, using the small company my husband works for.

They employ 14 people on a fairly low wage, about £2 an hour above NMW, so I imagine some of them are eligible for UC. They each work 40 hours a week, so let’s say the total wage bill is £8120 a week. If the firm is forced to put the hourly wage up to say £25/h, that bill jumps to £14000 a week. That is totally unsustainable, so they need to make staff cuts. In order to pay the new wage bill, they can now only afford to employ 8 staff, so 6 staff are made redundant.

Extrapolate that to every business in the country employing low paid workers and almost half that workforce is unemployed and claiming benefits. How is that going to save money?

Laughing at the idea of employers increasing wages if UC was withdrawn.

Well, amidst all this fatuous nonsense at least you have said, in no uncertain terms, that you think the lives of disabled children are worth less than their non-disabled peers. It was pretty clear, from your earlier posts, that this was your view but kind of you to state it categorically for any avoidance of doubt. Now anyone reading this thread can see what a truly reprehensible individual you are.
Are you cool with this sort of view being callously shared on here MN? Will you take action or will it just be more crickets?

Everlore, didn't say that but can you tell me why you think British children's lives are worth more than the millions of other children that suffer so we can maintain our lifestyles?

Excellent way of avoiding giving an answer to the question. 10/10.

You absolutely did say that the lives of disabled children are worth less - the fact that you persist in calling some disabilities 'avoidable' (when they are not) and saying women should abort if they are having a child with a disability says as much. So stop it with the whataboutery and admit to what you think.

Brilliantly said!

Did anyone see that red woman on Question Time saying the taxpayer pays for her not to work because she has mild anxiety?

She went on a live TV show, surrounded by people to make a contentious point that she knew someone on the panel would disagree with.

We can't afford to pay for this nonsense.

The most recent one? I'll have a look. My DS has get anxiety at times. He lives at home with us and whenever he feels bad we spend family time together to make him feel loved and cared about.

I didn't see it but I suspect there's more to it. You wouldn't be able to get LCWRA just for mild anxiety

I am now out of work. I started with the civil service in the DWP (entry level) at the start of the year, applied under their Disability Confident scheme. I was honest about my limitations. They were fantastic and made loads of work based accommodations and I grew to greatly enjoy the job.

However unfortunately being in the office (for various personal reasons) was making me really unwell. They gave me the reasonable adjustment to work from home 50/50. At home I thrived; I was so happy to be working after years unemployed, enjoyed the job and felt connected. However on office days I was barely able to focus, cried all the way to work and back.

I applied for 100% home working and was declined, despite occupational health also recommending it. I had evidence of support from my psychiatrist and therapist. There was NO BENEFIT OR DIFFERENCE to me being in the office or at home; in the office it was hot desking, I spoke to nobody, all my meetings were on teams. I was incredibly productive at home and smashing all my targets.

They still wouldn't bend, so I had to leave. So I'm back to unemployed, reliant on PIP for surviving. If they'd just allowed me to work from home I could have done the job forever and extremely well too.

Part time, work from home jobs are impossible to find for entry level. (I am actually well educated but all of my experience is in a field I don't want to work in anymore, education).

She would have just been saying it to wind people like yourself up.

Perfectly put. Thank you.

Surely for MH issues to get PIP awarded it needs to be demonstrated as severe? There was a poster a few months back so said she can't work because autism because she's too scared to go outside (meltdowns and shutdowns) and she finds it too hard to use a laptop and said something about "even YouTube is too difficult for me to use". She used to work or something but now she doesn't.

Can I just remind some posters on this thread that the health element of UC is being halved from next April, from £400 per month to £200 which will leave a lot of people in poverty but will surely save a great deal. This seems to have gone right over peoples heads..

This is the problem.

The public sector should be made by the government to lead by example on WFH and flexible working in order to keep disabled and older people in the work place. Then once the pubic sector is doing it, the government should incentivise private workplaces to do it and penalise those that don't.

Then PIP qualifying criteria can be reviewed.

And once again you can work and claim pip

Just got back from seeing a friend. She's wheelchair bound and cannot transfer unaided.

This means no dental check-ups.
This means no opticians checks.
This means no examinations outside a hospital.
This means playing hospital lotto attending appointments as they are permanently surprised she cannot transfer, and so never have the equipment or staff necessary. That's the obligatory repeat visit to hope next time they remember,
She can't use A&E as the facilities all expect independent users.

Obviously her husband can't work, not that he needs to on the lifestyle £82/week buys you. (An hourly rate of 57 new pence - less than a sweatshop worker in Bangalore).

As you were ....

And if you're under 22 from April you'll get no LCWRA element