‘Game the system’ disability benefits

[Tomatochocolate]

WTF
just read a bbc article about welfare reforms

Apparently ministers think that it’s an incentive to claim disability benefits as the incentive is no work commitments on UC. That claimants ‘game the system’

It’s a long process and really hard to get awarded dla or pip. It’s not just ticking a box that says ‘I’m too sick to work’.

AIBU to think this is just horrific

Well then you wouldn't qualify because it has to most of time.

I haven't dismissed any stats you have posted? Where have I done that?

this

@selffellatingouroborosofhate Ah, I appreciate your honesty. You do not want people to be allowed to share (or maybe even have) opinions you think are wrong or that you dislike. That's the crux of it. Even if the person who holds the opinion has plentiful experience of the benefits system, is severely disabled themselves, is by no means some outsider who is "punching down", and in fact has spent years online in exactly the kind of groups full of people engaging in fraud like this.

This is the heart of it. You won't tolerate what you perceive as wrongthink.

Pip isn't means tested. So they've done nothing wrong. You say they use it for a cleaner which sounds perfectly reasonable if they're disabled. They might not need one of they weren't?
Would I claim pip if I was a multimillionaire? I don't know. I'm not any less unwell because I'm rich. As it happens I'm not and never will be so can't really say in all honesty.

Can you show me please where I dismissed what you posted?

@BobbyBiscuits But even though the rich person claiming PIP has done nothing wrong in legal terms, everyone else is entitled to think that (a) it's a very weird choice to do so considering how stressful and upsetting the process is, and (b) that it's immoral to take money from society if you have what many would consider to be "enough".

An honest PIP claim by a genuinely disabled rich person is legal. No one is disputing that. Whether it's morally right is a whole other question, and even if it makes some uncomfortable to discuss that, we have the right to do so.

You didn’t response at all. Can you respond now?

Not responding at all is not "dismissing".

So. I haven't dismissed any stats that you posted. I thought that was the case. Glad we have cleared that up.

@PandoraSox Actually, not responding can definitely be considered a dismissal.

Ok then. So will you address these figures or not?

I agree. I receive DLA for my DC who is autistic and has ADHD and is currently really struggling to attend school for a myriad of reasons. Most of the DLA is currently spent on private play therapy.

I would much rather give up the DLA and have this just provided for, alongside the OT, S&L and particular 1:1 school support they also need.

(Currently going through EHCNA appeal).

@verysmellyjelly sure, I'm cool with discussing it. And I know what you mean. If they want rich people not to take it they should make it means tested. But they would probably get excited and set the threshold way too low.

I am just not understanding this mindset that PIP = rolling in money.

I'm on UC, ESA (LCWRA) and PIP (enhanced for both). My husband works part time as he needs to be able to get home at a moment's notice, and frequently has to cut his shifts short (he has a very understanding employer, thankfully), earning NMW.

We're constantly in debt. UC covers some of our rent but not our council tax and utilities. We don't get council tax reduction, they keep saying we're entitled to it and then saying we've underpaid and I don't have the space in my brain to fight them on it.

I was a teacher two years ago, earning loads of money (for someone who grew up poor, 28k a year was loads of money). The idea that I'd give all of that up to be scraping by every month while dealing with a brain tumour and epilepsy is, quite frankly, a load of bollocks. But hey, free car, right?

Don't be silly, no-one owes anyone any answers.

Ok so you’re simply going to avoid the crucial piece of information which underpins why we feel the spending is unsustainable? Okey dokey

@PandoraSox This is a discussion thread. It's not about "owing" anything, so your response is irrelevant and just another attempt to get out of answering something you can't find a decent answer for.

It's very obvious you won't respond because you can't.

I do have some thoughts on those projections but quite frankly you and wildflowers99 two-pronged badgering does not inspire me to share them. That is not the way to get people to engage with you.

@PandoraSox Classic. "I had a perfect answer but now I've decided you're mean so I won't tell you."

One normally sees these rhetorical strategies over in FWR...

No, no perfect answer as there aren't any perfect answers to this issue. I just had some thoughts about how that projected rise could be mitigated without punishing disabled people further.

Now I respectfully ask you and wildflowers99 to leave me alone.

Quoting myself in order to ask for the questions I posed to be answered.

Come on, all you wise, morally motivated people repeating "unsustainable" like some sort of magical mantra, give us the answer, because currently it just seems to be to take money away from disabled people in case we go to war, and hang the consequences. Just collateral damage eh?

In one of my first posts I spelled out the likely consequences of doing so, plus the costs, both economic and social.

Please quote the part where I stated they're doing something wrong.

I believe I suggested they were entitled to it but suggested it should be on a needs basis!

I’ve said what I would do. The chips would have to fall where they may, like with everything else.

I can agree with this.

My son is too disabled for mainstream school but not disabled enough for a special school so they tell me.

Right now his DLA is mostly spent on sessions to improve his mobility such as hydrotherapy and extra physio. If the NHS provided them (he has 1 NHS funded physio session a week which isn't enough to improve his mobility) then the DLA wouldn't be needed as much.