To be confused by benefits cuts to the disabled and ill?

[AllyHayHay]

As luck would have it, I have not been in this position, but I do know of one disabled lady who has struggled. She was incredibly fortunate to already own her own home prior to her accident.

I am not what you'd call politically astute, but I have been reading about the proposed spring benefits cuts and wonder why people always discuss this ONLY affecting the sick and disabled.
I am also aware that there are many, many rough areas with families who have never worked, people who are struggling with addiction, prison sentences (their kids, spouse, etc) and these people never seem to be included in the Guardian articles and opinion pieces online.

Why would a system wish to make the life of a disabled person worse, yet ignore the growing issues of illiteracy, generational poverty and other issues which are going on in most urban areas just out of sight of the comfortably off?
Why not address the reasons that great swathes of people are living on benefits across the UK who are NOT disabled? I imagine this would drag up questions of why those issues persist - and no one in government wants to address that.

Since benefits claimants who are not in work of on the pension are a minority, are these cuts more of a populist tendency?

So it doesn't matter what happens to disabled people. Just collateral damage eh? As long as you don't feel cheated for donating a bag of pasta to the foodbank for the feckless poors, that's all that matters.

Yes, about £400 per month. It will affect us too. I will have no other option that request social services to place DC in a care home as we wouldn't be able to survive without. It will cost a lot more that way. I recon a lot of families will be forced to do the same. It's sickening that a labour government would do this.

I agree @junnney and if only a handful do this, all savings will be wiped out as it will costs thousands.

@TheWorminLabyrinth
I don't feel "cheated" out of anything. I think the burden for society as a whole is too much and the system needs reviewing. There are people who will need benefits as they are ill and disabled but there are many who don't and who are abusing the system. The system needs to appear fair as it will continue to persuade people to abuse it.

As has been pointed out countless times, reviewing claimants individually isn't going to happen. Sweeping cuts are going to happen. That is going to plunge disabled people into further poverty.

If they do want to try to cut down LCWRA surely they need to start supporting people who might be able to do some work immediately? It's no good cutting it then not providing assistance. It's like they've never heard of the benefits trap.

I'm a full time carer for my dh. He's had a social care assessment and been assessed as needing 24 hour care but because I care for him, we only currently get granted respite care. I've been told by social services that if I couldn't care for him he would be granted a lot more funding to pay for carers provided by the local council. If they take away my carer's allowance, remove the carer's element of UC or remove his LCWRA extra money we receive each month, then I will be forced to find a full time job to keep the roof over our heads. I will then have to contact social services and request either more funding to pay for private/council carers whilst I am at work or ask them to place him in a council funded nursing home. This will cost the government a lot more than the £327 a month that they currently pay me to be a 24 hour carer. There just won't be the funding available to replace carers such as myself. The government are targeting the wrong people.

We are in pretty much the same situation as you.

I contacted the council on 8th January to ask for a new care assessment as I am trying to seek funding for a once-a-week day centre for my husband. 9 weeks later I am still waiting to hear back from them. I make this point as if these changes do go ahead, and we lose £££, we will still then have to wait weeks for councils to even begin to put this extra care into place. What happens to us, and you, and people like us, during those weeks we wait? I can't even begin to imagine.

This conversation is very hard to have when people use "disabled people" and "people receiving disability benefits" as synonyms...

@TheWorminLabyrinth Exactly, it's been an absolute nightmare getting the social care assessment in place. It's taken well over a year to sort it out, four different social workers have been involved in assessing him, as they keep leaving due to stress. Then we had to have LILS round to explain everything and set us up with the direct payments. They were absolutely useless, none of it is straightforward and it took ages to sort the financial assessment out. Then, to top it all, they overpaid him and I haven't dared book carers until it's been deducted. Imagine if there is a sudden influx of people needing emergency social care assessments because they can no longer rely on spouse/parent to care for them. Social services just won't be able to cope with it all. As you say, what will happen to us whilst we are waiting months, possibly years for extra funding to be awarded, we can't just leave them alone and go off to work and where is all this money for social care going to come from. I really don't think the Government has a clue what an absolute disaster it is going to be by targeting the disabled.

@Queenanne20 and if you add to this burden of care that you may need the person you care for to move into the looking for work category to keep benefits so you will have to support them with job centre visits, applying for jobs and potentially going to interviews. People will break and then we will be in a right state as a country.

My daughter will end up back in hospital with all the good work and progress that has been done destroyed.

Also if an adult is already in social care, all of that benefit money goes to the LA for their care and they are left with a small amount of pocket money. So suddenly the social services budget will take a hit as well.

It will save money at one end but the cost of care which then will need to be provided by the state will just go through the roof. it won't save any money and don't get me started on the human cost. Many families manage to look after their loved ones at home. It will be traumatising for many disabled people to be removed from a save home environment to move into care and I think it will be no doubt heartbreaking for many not to be able to look after the family member at home anymore. I find the idea completely devastating for me and my DC.

I think this is one of the most valid and poignant responses I've read on this thread and it resonates.

I was late thirties when diagnosed with primary BC and the state did help when I was I unable to work post chemo and surgery ( of which there were many). Fast forward 15 years and I'm facing a new double whammy of two cancer diagnosis pain, chemo and fragile MH. My inner strength is crumbling. I don't know if I'm going to make it out of this hell, let alone work! I claim PIP and at present employer sick pay. If I can't work at the end of treatment, it will be ESA and ill health retirement at the age of 54. Not the life I envisaged either.

@Fraudornot Exactly, if I have to take dh to the job centre then I hope his social worker and support worker will be able to accompany us or maybe the job centre staff will do a home visit? In fact, I'd be tempted to just leave him in their reception area to wait for his appointment and go off and treat myself to a coffee somewhere (except I can't afford it), maybe go back for him after a couple of hours and see how they've coped with him, find out what sort of job they've got lined up for him!

I'm in a similar position. They will have to pay one trained nurse and one carer to care full time. Don't think they've thought this through. Must say, going out to work will be a break. I'm all for it but it's going to cost them a bloody fortune!

@possumtea Yes, compared to the 24/7 job of looking after dh, I think going off to a nice office job again (as I did for many years) would actually be like having a nice break for me. I just hope when I drop him off with the job centre staff they can cope with his incontinence/toilet needs etc

I'm hoping the job centre staff are epilepsy and BSL trained.

If Keir could do a week of what I (and I bet) you do, he'd rethink this. I mean he wouldn't last the week but I'd still like to see it.

I'm slightly worried but more intrigued to see how this plays out. It seems like they want to destroy the country? I'm confused by it all.

@possumtea There are going to have to be some very flexible and understanding employers giving all these severely disabled people jobs. I hope the new employer can cope with giving him his medication, his incontinence issues and his mobility problems. Also, they'll need to allow him plenty of time off to attend hospital and therapy appointments. I'm sure I read somewhere that the onus is going to be on the new employer to make adjustments to accommodate their new employee's needs, there won't be any government assistance for them. In fact, if someone is willing to give dh a job and care for him all day, I'll shake their hand. I'll look on it as sending him off to daycare every day. If it means he won't lose his benefits then I'll be applying for every job going for him!

I only got awarded LCWRA element of UC two months ago. Does this mean I am going to lose it again as soon as I got it? 😟

@OhCalmTheFuckDownMargaret Possibly, I think the plan being considered at the moment is to cut LCWRA but up the standard rate of UC for those who are actively seeking work. I don't think anything is set in stone yet, we'll just have to see what happens.

If the proposal is to cut the LCWRA part of UC and increase UC for unemployed people, i.e. making even the total UC paid to unemployed and sick or disabled people, then that is simply reverting to the situation as it was back in the 70s.

When Supplementary Benefit was replace with Income Support in the early 80s (both were the equivalents to UC back then), there was outrage and horror at the idea that unemployed people should get less benefit that sick or disabled people. You used to get a basic amount for each adult person and child under SB, but under IS the sick and disabled then got extra top ups that the unemployed didn't get.
It was considered unfair discrimination against the unemployed, as if they were being punished as less "worthy" claimants than the sick - it smacked of Victorian attitudes to the moral poor vs the immoral poor.
In practical terms, it created an artificial distinction between unemployment and sickness, and a whole minefield of getting 'certified' as sick enough for the extra money, that just didn't exist before.

Given that PIP is supposed to be the benefit that covers the extra costs of disability or long-term sickness, what is the logical or moral justification for LCWRA payments? Why do the unemployed get less for their basic allowance than the disabled? An unemployed person has the same basic living costs as a disabled person (again, to be clear, NOT considering the extra costs of disability which should be covered by PIP).

This is a question of principle, not practicality.

This! The changes will really only affect those too ill or too disabled to work. If you are well enough to seek work, it looks like you would get more.

It's pretty scary. Successive governments always attack the most vulnerable, I mean it's all the old lady in the wheelchairs fault the economy is in such a state. Of course nothing at all to do with MPs frittering away billions in taxpayers money on dodgy COVID contracts to their wealthy friends.