To be terrified about PIP?

[BobbyBiscuits]

I've tried to blank all this out for ages, but today it hit me when the government basically are saying I'm going to (they want me to) have my PIP cut off?
My main illnesses are severe depressive disorder, general anxiety disorder and severe anorexia. I've severe PTSD symptoms and also think I may have ADHD but have not been able to get diagnosed due to phobia of MH services since I got sectioned.
I now have physical symptoms also and severe osteperosis which I put on my last forms. But had no assessment for several years.
I'm praying this is BS from the Tories and they can't do it anyway as they'll be kicked out.
Or could labour still continue this assault against disabled people?
It would halve my already tiny income, other half is from ESA, and they could kick me off that too even though I can't do anything!?

What do people think?

Well yes as posters and Mel Stride are saying disabled people with ND and diagnosed mental illness shouldn’t have it.

This is my exact point. How many in society that aren't disabled can qualify for this support? If people like this started to claim these allowances then it would become astronomically expensive very quickly. A lot of people don't claim as they either don't know they are entitled to it or don't feel it's morally right to claim when they can afford to pay the costs themselves.

Its unbelievable isn't it.

It's like if it doesn't affect them personally they aren't capable of wrapping their heads round a situation. It's bizarre.

This. I do not want vouchers or whatever with a set thing I must spend the money on. The fact is is that I do not have enough money to live on on on UC without my PIP and without the flexibility of being to use my PIP for stuff like school shoes, or things the kids need or the bills sometimes if I need to whilst I continue to struggle along with what I actually really need to be spending my PIP money on then we would be financially screwed and my children WILL suffer. My UC without PIP is well below the poverty line.

To be fair, I think many, of the age entitled to it, are so confused by the criteria, they don’t apply. I don’t think morals come into it. AA is under claimed, and many organisations try to encourage older people to claim it. As do the government.

If a person can't drive, use public transport or walk what do you suggest they do? Fly?

Taxis are not a luxury by definition if you have no other way.

Look up the definition of a necessity in the dictionary and check your privilege.

Yep. Perhaps, with disability, it’s got to be a case of “you need to be it, to see it”.😉

I'm not sure why you are determined to pretend that it's a lack of understanding as opposed to a difference of opinion.

At no point has anyone suggested disabled people shouldn't be able to use taxis. Posters are literally arguing with nobody. There is a disagreement as to whether taxis are a luxury in that they are expensive and considered a generally pleasant mode of transport or if they lose their 'luxury' status if it's someone only realistic mode of transport. That is literally the extent of the debate! Not whether disabled people should be able to access them which has never been disputed.

Yes some posters are saying it's a luxury to leave the house apparently.

But you are missing the point - surely these people do get benefits - the state pension is the biggest benefit that costs the most money.

Well I can only speak for the people that I know but morals and pride definitely play a part. Also, some are wealthy and therefore feel that they can and should pay 'their way'.

Only one is of retirement age so no they don't all get a state pension.

Well, if they’re wealthy, then that’s their decision, obviously. Not everyone is wealthy, and PIP/AA are not means tested. Any more than DLA was and is.

Multi-millionaire Tory P.M. David Cameron claimed DLA for his young son, as he was perfectly entitled to do. He also arranged for a charity to fund a special wheelchair for him.🤷‍♀️

Sorry. So it can be a huge sum. But then they say on MN the enhanced one I(more money?) s harder for pp to get anyway. Anyway, on MN pip is made out to be a pittance although also 'essential', by MN receivers.

It's up to £184 a week

Here you go. The rates:

PIP amounts
Lower weekly rate and higher rate:

Daily living part £72.65
Higher: £108.55
Mobility part £28.70
Higher: £75.75

https://www.gov.uk/pip/how-much-youll-get

You said and I quote " taxis are luxurious by nature"

For the disabled who have no other way of transporting themselves they are a necessity by definition.

It's really not that difficult a concept.

I don’t know if an Uber is classed as luxurious. But, it’s essential for me.😑

They can be both though. If you could only fly on a private jet due to some health consideration and you absolutely needed to be somewhere then you could argue that a private jet is a necessity but that doesn't stop it being a luxury service as well. It has all the hallmarks of a luxury and the price tag to boot. The fact that someone needs as opposed to wants to use it doesn't change this fact

Also i reemphasise that nobody has suggested disabled people shouldn't have access to taxis. You have clearly trawled through my posts and can't find any evidence of this and that's because it never happened. Please stop trying to pretend that it did and I am some monster that wants disabled people housebound. It just makes me think that you can't engage with what's actually being written and the nuance that involves.

Thank you. When the statistics of how many thousands / millions of the population are on these benefits, multiplied by the weekly payments, are laid out in black and white, they always look astronomical and unsustainable. And to me, that is where the issue is- the unsustainability of the huge bill; not genuine people getting what they need.

So why do pp on MN just want to focus on extreme cases of those clearly in need when none is arguing against them receiving their benefits? The debate to relook benefits is reasonable and pp will do well to engage with that debate.

Yes and he got a load of judgment for that (some would argue rightly so). There is a good chunk of society that don't want to claim something that they don't feel they need but may feel entitled to. To be honest I think we should all be grateful to those not looking to milk the system for all it's worth as it does leave more in the pot for those in genuine need of support.

My son has a Pa to get out into the town and do activities. It has been assessed by social workers as necessary so he is not a recluse. A cinema trip is slightly easier for him as he does not have to talk as much. He can’t really access pubs for a long period. Oh my goodness you really have no idea about any of this.

if he becomes a recluse his care bill will rocket!

It is. My DS gets this. And also works 22.5 hours a week for NMW. That just about brings him up to a total that's NMW or a smidge under.

Without his PIP, he would have to work full time. That wouldn't last, his condition would worsen. Then he'd end up on full benefits, which would cost the state more. It's a no brainer.

Except for people on here, and for our government, it seems.

Two of those people sound like they have a disability to me.

I'm not sure which ones you are thinking of but none of these people would be included in disability statistics or claim any disability allowances. I can't imagine this is unusual and I suspect that if these people were accounted for then the proportion of the population considered disabled would be incredibly high.