Panaroma - the rising cost of health

[Decisionsdecisions1]

I’m guessing it’s trying to be balanced but there are some interviewees that they appear to be deliberately showing in an unsympathetic light.

This feels like a bit like it was written by Kemi. Could have been so much more informative.

But look at it from her perspective, her son is eligible and qualifies for a payment of money from the state and she has simply claimed this money. Also if she has any doubts then she can convince herself of the morality of her decision with the view that at least her son has a recognised medical diagnosis of his condition whereas there are those successfully claiming PIP who simply self diagnosed online with no proper, so she is more justified than them.

The point that she shouldn't claim the money because she doesn't need it is irrelevant and a bit like arguing that pensioners who are eligible for winter fuel payments, shouldn't claim it if they can afford not to.

The words "eligible" and "entitled" keep cropping up. What needs to happen is to substantially raise the bar so that only the most vulnerable are protected. Tighten criteria thresholds before the system collapses.

The Labour Government tried to do that but their backbenchers rebelled against it.

Plus even if you did manage to tighten the criteria then inevitably there will be some deserving cases that are now denied the benefit and will become extremely vocal and publicised cases whilst at the same time some undeserving cases that can still claim the benefit and will keep very quiet about it.

The result is that in the media, the tightening of the criteria would only be seen through the lens of taking away benefits from genuine deserving cases.

In short tightening the criteria either won't pass with the politicians or even if it did then it would negatively viewed.

Are you happy for the system to collapse? The welfare bill is skyrocketing, where is the extra money coming?

The outcome is a total collapse or substantial cuts.

What I am saying is that it is inevitable that the system will collapse, the only question is how long it will take.

Humans are sadly selfish creatures on a societal level which is why socialism never works in practice or for long.

Shortsighted thinking and so sad. Even more so when anyone who advocates cuts is branded evil. The carnage will be catastrophic for the whole of the UK.

The welfare system is doomed to failure unless it is massively curtailed. More and more people taking and less and less paying in. It really doesn't take much working out. But if people on here are happy for genuine cases to be left to starve, no care etc for those with severe disabilities, you crack on and claim when you don't need to. The whole system needs a massive re-think. Cut the welfare bill by half and see what can be paid for and what can't. Or just leave it as it is and watch it collapse completely.

I completely agree with you that the current welfare bill is unsustainable. But cutting the welfare bill in say "half" is politically impossible to achieve - no party will ever get elected on such a manifesto promise, there are simply too many people who are going n receipt of such benefits who will never vote for their removal or reduction.

Which only leaves the only option being a collapse in the system. This is quite simply why socialism never works in practice.

Which gives me another opportunity to raise my favourite quote from Alexander Tytler in the late 1700s:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy".

But cutting the welfare bill in say "half" is politically impossible to achieve

Not disagreeing with this but if they think cutting welfare is impossible, how on earth will they deal with the fallout of a collapsed system?

At that point no party will want to be in power.

The amount paid due to serious illness meaning that a person cannot work ids being reduced for most cases. There is also a reduced rate of amount to live on for under 25 year olds.

Welfare benefits for working age people can be looked. Also need to look pension age. As an example UC begins to reduce when a person has £6,000 capital (obviously you can look at that again. For pension credit you can have £10,000. After that the reduction is more generous going pension credit.

the triple lock should be as well.
Both these would be unpopular including with politicians as older people are more likely to vote.

Well it won't necessarily be the welfare system that collapses but Government finances in general.

At that point an external body such as the IMF or ECB comes in and says the welfare, NHS and state pensions are being radically reduced whether the electorate like it or not. This is exactly what happened with Greece.

Like you said socialism is a wonderful idea it just never works in practice.

I think the difficulty I have is that if it does collapse, those who didn't really need it will waltz off with very few issues whilst those who absolutely DID need help will suffer severely.

I do appreciate the points made that it is almost impossible to take something away once you have given it.

Well but that's the absurdity of it though

There's no extra costs for her child but they pay out anyway

I agree with your first point.

I think it is naive to think it can't be taken away, it is not like they have a legal contract.

One thing I have noticed in my own life was how people are often pushed to apply for it.

I have a chronic illness and a disability, so I haven’t worked for a while. But because I have family support I don’t claim any benefits.

For a while I attended a support group for people with similar medical conditions and I was surprised that one member of the group, kept pushing me, and others to apply for PIP.

On several occasions she tried to talk me into it, even when I said I didn’t need it financially.

Her job was as a benefits adviser for an unrelated charity and she was very pushy, said she would fill out the forms for me and coach me on what to say, that she could come round to my house to do this.

She ended up organising a workshop online to show people what to do.

To be honest, I can see that type of help and support being valuable to some people and I think it was nice of her to offer to help. . But I repeatedly said to her that I didn’t want or need to claim anything and she keep pestering me and telling me I was entitled to it and I should claim even if I didn’t need it.

It’s incredibly difficult to get PIP. You need shed loads
of evidence. If you just write on your form that you need prompting and you have little or no evidence, you won’t be believed. Even the DWP thinks the level of fraud on PIP is close to 0%.

I think she meant that it is politically impossible to take something away once granted rather than legally impossible.

No political party is ever going to get elected if their manifesto includes taking away or reducing benefits.

Assessing need and disability is not easy and it can easily be abused- the system is not fit for purpose.

governments are aware of this and let it continue- why? Because the solution is far more expensive

there needs to be a huge investment in social services, health and welfare to enable enough people to have a quality assessment and support out of the benefit system.

I have adhd- I am very highly functioning and have a good job and do not need benefits- yet I need to be reminded to eat and will forget to brush my hair etc

i do not need any dla- what I do need is routine and a demanding job to keep my mind busy

@1dayatatime The point that she shouldn't claim the money because she doesn't need it is irrelevant and a bit like arguing that pensioners who are eligible for winter fuel payments, shouldn't claim it if they can afford not to.

That's a poor comparison. Some of us happen to believe that pensioners who don't need the winter fuel payments, ought not to be having that either. If people genuinely don't need whatever benefit they're 'entitled' to, they shouldn't be claiming it. My head is still exploding from reading, at least a year ago, about some MNetter who used her kid's DLA to pay for a David Lloyd gym membership for the whole family. She turned herself into a pretzel justifying that one.

Well exactly

But even if they don't need the money they will still claim it, sadly that's human nature.

They can also justify it to their conscience by saying well I've been diagnosed with condition xyz and I am entitled to claim it, so whilst there are "loads of people without real conditions claiming it - why shouldn't I ".

Sadly I believe that if there is money on the table most people will grab whether they need it or not, especially if they think that if they don't then the next person will.

I watched this and didn't think anyone was taking the piss.
PIP is not easy to claim and you need a lot of evidence to back up what you put on the forms.
Appearing on TV does not mean someone is somehow taking the piss, unless you think disabled people should not be on TV?

The real trouble is that the job market is hardly great right now. Cutting disabled people's benefits wont magically make them fit for work, and it wont make employers take them on either.

Although not your intention, your post implies PIP is claimed because jobs are scarce and people need a top up.

Not jobs, no. But new claimants on LCWRA will be on £200pm less than current ones. LCW has been the same as jobseekers for nearly a decade.
Many people are applying for and using PIP to pay for basic living expenses because UC is not enough to live on. For some, that means the can not pay towards the extra costs to do with their disability.
I know a lady with MS who had to leave her job and can not afford to live on UC. So she has given up her motibility car so she gets the cash instead, which has gone on day to day expenses. She barely leaves the house now and has got very depressed.