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?

The other reason for providing respite is it enables the young person to continue living at home instead of requiring residential provision which can cost ( and would in our case) hundreds of thousands a year.

I had a hysterectomy, many years ago, when I was 30. Yes, it took recovery time, and I was very young for that op.

But that impact, physical or mental, was nothing as bad as the impact and effects of the degenerative neurological condition I’ve got now, along with a defective lung.

That was then, this is now, and it’s not the same.🤷‍♀️

I understand this but the same arguments could be made by anyone that is any kind of carer including parents or adult children of elderly parents. If I was to walk away from my children tomorrow and refuse to.care for them then the state would be picking up an incredibly expensive bill. That in itself cannot justify all and every expense as if it's some kind of blackmail.

Life is a lottery. Chances are though we all at some point will be carers in some capacity for significant chunks of time. As our population gets older and sicker, the greater care demands will fall on fewer people. It's going to get very expensive and the idea that the state will automatically cushion us from these caring responsibilities will come under question.

And without that respite, how many of these severely disabled children/ young adults would end up in full time care, due to the physical breakdown of some carers? It would cost infinitely more.

You have had two completely unrelated and incomparable conditions and found one easier to manage than the other. I don't think this is unusual.

My point is that you can literally have exactly the same condition as a disabled person for less than 12 months and not be considered disabled. The line between who is disabled and who isn't is not as clear as some people on this thread are suggesting.

Sorry @Underhisi I have just seen your previous post.

"That in itself cannot justify all and every expense as if it's some kind of blackmail."

It's not blackmail it's fact and the cost of those sort of placements are far higher than foster care of young children.

The arguments on here don't stack up.

We can't afford to keep paying for disabled people was apparently the original argument.

Then it became about how other people also had needs; single parents, tired Mum's etc but didn't get financial assistance.

Then it became about people having short term conditions who had just as great a need as those with long term conditions, albeit temporarily.

A. That makes it sound suspiciously like advocating for more financial assistance all round, not less. I can't quite work out the actual argument.

B. Long term disabled people will have already lived 'short term' with various issues until the problem became 'long term' enough to qualify for PIP etc. Often years.

None of it really makes sense. It's just literally an endless stream of Whataboutery.

It's always the same 3 posters I've noticed.

One clearly doesn't care if they get banned. Mumsnet removes their posts immediately so are obviously aware but the other two I will start reporting now.

All of those points aren't part of one coherent argument but picking up on separate issues.

The facts are that the costs associated with disability payments are spiralling and set to increase by 50% over the next five years. If it carries on like this it will soon become unaffordable.

Arguments were then made about it being impossible to reduce this as disabled people's needs must be met and how disabled people's needs were incomparable to non disabled people's needs. This is relevant as if this distinction is not as black and white then this raises all sorts of questions in terms of fairness and affordability if you were to look to meet everyone's needs equally.

The argument about short term v long term conditions is just making it clear that the distinction between a disabled and non disabled person is less black and white than some are implying. On a day to day basis the 'needs' of someone with a long term of short term form of a condition may well be the same. Some posters still insist the two are incomparable.

It's a very long thread and discussion has meandered along the way. Fundamentally though the question is about whether the current way we manage disability payments is affordable and sustainable. How do we define 'need' and will there be a point where we will have to accept we simply can't meet everyone's needs?

It doesn't make you a socialist idealist. It makes you a decent person with morals and emotional intelligence.

Disability is a protected characteristic under equalities legislation. Last time I checked being single was a choice.

Unbelievable.

One was temporary. One is lifelong and not. It’s seriously not complicated to most people.

Being a single parent is absolutely not always a choice.

You would think this was simple to grasp but apparently not.

I didn't say parent.

I said single.

You would have thought wouldn't you .

Yes. This.
I'm disabled myself so couldn't express it as well. Yes, my adult 'child' wrecks clothes like a little kid but he's 6ft 6 and wears size 15 shoes. They last about two months.
So many little extra expenses and they never 'grow out of it'

No but it's relevant that she is a single parent versus a family where there are two parents in this scenarios. The discussion was about how a parent who has a disabled child would have less time to prepare a meal. My point is there are many factors including being a single parent than can impact how much time a parent has to prepare a meal. Many completely out of their control.

The single mother gets more breaks than me. How do I know? Because I've been a single parent and then the parent of a disabled child.
Also, guess what? Her kids will need less and less support as they grow up, unlike my disabled adult 'child'. The younger sibling is off to uni. The disabled one needs 24/7 supervision. If they're awake, I'm awake. They often only sleep 4 hrs. It's been like this for over 20 years and there is no end in sight. I'll be doing this job until I die. So, I'm exhausted constantly.

By the way, 3 of us are disabled and qualify for pip. None of us get a damn penny. Been told to appeal but I'm too sick / exhausted to fight a broken system.

Also, it's not a competition. Why are you wanting people to fight over scraps? Single mums should get way more help than they do.

Investing in people, including in disabled people, actually reduces unemployment and long term sickness. Giving money to the poor GROWS the economy. And no one is struggling because someone else needs disability benefits. You're struggling because of 50 years of neoliberal economics. (thatcherism)

This Is your experience and your opinion but you cannot speak on everyone's experience. We are all unique and have unique children and challenges. You have no idea how stressful her job could be and whether it was comparable to yours or whether her non disabled children sleep well. Some parents do not have their disabled adult children living with them so again will experience things very differently than you and will see their caring duties reduce dramatically over time.

It's not about fighting for scraps but about assessing who should get what in a system with limited resource. Of course ideally we would help absolutely everyone but it's just not realistic. The neo liberal economics you pour scorn on has allowed the welfare state and disability payments to balloon. Also people receiving PIP for their children aren't necessarily poor, just look at @noras on this very thread.

I cannot believe I need to explain this to you. 🤷🏻‍♀️ People dont just “use a wheelchair” if they have progressive MS - they cannot wear bear on any foot, they likely have urinary catheters, reduced sensation on their bowels, vision impairments, upper limb weakness and need I go on. You cannot compare a serious debilitating neurological condition to a broken bone. I don’t have MS but I have broken bones and temporarily been in a wheelchair for other reasons. I am struggling to think of a long term condition that you could directly compare to a broken limb. I suppose if you had long term nerve damage and limited mobility but even then, many people wouldn’t think it’s comparable!

The whole point is when it’s short term it’s difficult but manageable. I realised, for example, how inaccessible transport can be for wheelchair users. I would not be so arrogant so assume my needs were even a fraction of how it must be to know it will be like that forever.

In your opinion. If people have less or no money to spend, the economy shrinks. Simples. Regardless of service or industry.

I’m not sure what bit people find complicated.🙄

Seriously?