It is very revealing that, as usual with any similar thread, we have people making irrelevant comments to try and divert the thread away from the actual issue, the usual totally unsubstantiated claims about fraud and the usual trolling comments about a programme where the maker of the comment clearly has not watched the programme.
It would be nice if, just for once, the benefit bashers gave their views on why they think PIP is the right policy rather than reforming DLA, with specific focus on the numbers that will lose their entitlement, the new tick box test, its descriptors and its costs, the level of training of those doing the tests, the proposed amount of savings, the actual amount of "savings", the overwhelming opposition from charities and disabled peoples organisations etc etc
THere is lots of room for serious and worthwhile debate in this area and any number of options for reform that would achieve significant long term savings and flush out the small number of criminals committing fraud in the system
We could easily have used the paralympics as a springboard to show what is possible and encourage even more of the "can do" spirit that anyone who knows the disability scene will be so aware of. employers, supported by access to work grants (most less than £100) could have been drawn in to a scheme promoting positive role models and businesses where excellent practice is improving productivity as almost always happens with the recruitment of disabled people.
The more we facilitate the participation opf people with manageable but often challenging conditions who long to work and be independent the more we offer an incentive and target for others to aspire to and believe may be attainable.
But what is in it forf the non-disabled.
1) It may be them or their families one day so is a form of insurance
2) More competition, raising standards, increasing profits
3) More people paying tax and less on benefits, more money in the economy leading to more jobs and security.
4) It just fels good to co-operate
Hi! All
I watched this programme last night and being on Disability Living Allowence myself as well as my Dad and people at the day centre I attend I am already very anxious about the outcome in my situation, I just can not wait for these horrible Tories FATCATS to be put out of power and Atos are FATCATS as well.
I am so looking forward to 2015 when we see the smile wiped off Scameron's, Osborne's, Ian Duncan Smith's and Hunt's faces and Labour back in power.
Actually, you proved my point several posts ago, and you continue to prove it, by refusing to comment on the issue that the programme and the thread are dealing with. I wonder why that is!
Actually, you proved my point several posts ago, and you continue to prove it, by refusing to comment on the issue that the programme and the thread are dealing with. I wonder why that is!
Richievilla,
I decide what i comment on not you. Ok so you are arrogant enough to think you are the sole arbiter of what should and should not be discussed, nothing I can do about that.
You complain that points other than your choosen one are being discussed, but its you by complaining about them over and over again that ensures they get more prominance than they otherwise would. Oh the irony ........
Hi! All
I watched this programme last night and being on Disability Living Allowence myself as well as my Dad and people at the day centre I attend I am already very anxious about the outcome in my situation, I just can not wait for these horrible Tories FATCATS to be put out of power and Atos are FATCATS as well.
I am so looking forward to 2015 when we see the smile wiped off Scameron's, Osborne's, Ian Duncan Smith's and Hunt's faces and Labour back in power.
and do you really think Labour will stop it all and rescind all the new discriptors and also rap Atos knuckles???
I dont think so
wasnt it Labour who first gave Atos its contracts and started the ball rolling?
Have to admit after this programme and some FB comments last night, I actually agree with reviewing DLA payments.
I think it should be means tested at very least and should be strictly be for care or mobility, not used to invest in the next lot of paralympians, at least not whilst others are struggling to even get by.
And I don't see why they shouldn't be reassessed either, those on ESA face assessment several times a year. Their limbs may not grow back but their fitness may improve or new aids become available. JMHO.
Hi! All
It might have been Labour who brought Atos in but it is the Tories who are paying them vast amounts of money to get people of benefits and in alot of cases uncaring and unfairly, if Labour had been in power it would not have been done this unfairly and that is a fact.
Have to admit after this programme and some FB comments last night, I actually agree with reviewing DLA payments.
I think it should be means tested at very least and should be strictly be for care or mobility, not used to invest in the next lot of paralympians, at least not whilst others are struggling to even get by.
And I don't see why they shouldn't be reassessed either, those on ESA face assessment several times a year. Their limbs may not grow back but their fitness may improve or new aids become available. JMHO.
Thank you for your comments, I disagree with many of the points but at least you have attempted to address the issue
Essentially it is almost impossible to find a system of means testing without invading the privacy of everyone. If you set the bar too high (say £10k savings) you get very little money back and the exercise is not cost effective, you also add a further disincentive to save thus increasing indebtedness
There is an argument to say that it is better for some people to get the benefiot to enable them to be independent and get employment, DLA may actually keep some people in employment so be paid back many times over.
When you experience disability you realise that it is not a lot of fun in itself, all of us would gladly pay back ouyr benefits and more to be rid of it.
I cannot prove it but I suspect that a properly managed system coupled with real support within and outside the workplace woudl in the medium to long term save money and lead to increasing productivity
Why? DLA is not an income replacement benefit. The purpose of DLA is to provide more equality of life.
I would argue that both DLA and income replacement benefits for those deemed effectively incapable of paid employment like ESA should not be means tested. As having them means tested on household income and assets like other means tested benefits are, makes the disabled person dependent on the household. Depriving them of having money to call their own and the freedom that brings. Depriving them of an income they can contribute to the household and dignity that brings. It makes them unmarriable. It makes them a substantial financial burden to the household, making it more likely they will be institutionalized.
Why not for some equality of quality of life, a person maybe housebound so why not enable them to have a nice TV so they can see the world, or a nice carpet so they can have people around without feeling ashamed of living in poverty.
And I don't see why they shouldn't be reassessed either, those on ESA face assessment several times a year. Their limbs may not grow back but their fitness may improve or new aids become available. JMHO.
Because it causes needless distress and uncertainty and in many cases is completely inappropriate considering the nature of their medical condition and the sheer volume of medical evidence. If their condition is incurrable they should be able to rely on their awarded benefit income and plan their life going forward. Not be repeatedly put through an inquisition which presumes guilt and forces them to prove they are genuine all the time and which is demeaning and creates distress, uncertainty and fear.
Hi! All It might have been Labour who brought Atos in but it is the Tories who are paying them vast amounts of money to get people of benefits and in alot of cases uncaring and unfairly, if Labour had been in power it would not have been done this unfairly and that is a fact.
so they worked for the previous government for what peanuts
Given what the country gets back from DLA, both economically and socially, I see no reason to introduce means testing which actually stops people from claiming (see the DWP figures for unclaimed means tested benefits) and would save very little.
People tend to easily forget that DLA monies invariably go back into the UK economy via Motability, taxis, buying 2nd hand cars, aids and adaptations, care services, household services etc etc which support many jobs with resultant tax revenue.
As an example, re Motability, whereas the benefit bashers tell lies about free BMW's (which don't exist) and high fraud (the actual rate is less than the 0.5% fraud rate for DLA), Oxford Economics published a report in 2010 which showed how the country benefits both economically and socially from the scheme.
At the time there were 543,000 customers paying £49.10pw from their DLA, meaning just under £1.4bn pa of DLA was paid to the scheme.
They found that:
" The economic impact analysis shows the Motability Car Scheme is estimated to support 21,080 jobs in 2009.
Put another way, it supports one in every thousand jobs in the UK. In total, the Motability Car Scheme is estimated to contribute £2,015 million to UK GDP (or 0.1% of total) and contribute £468 million to the Exchequer in tax receipts."
and
" The Motability Scheme is estimated to enable 12,500 customers and informal carers to get a job and 56,100 to keep an existing job. "
and
" The social impacts we have been able to quantify amount to £1.3 billion a year, mostly through increased wage income disabled people and their families are able to earn through enhanced employment opportunities and the impact of improved education on career paths. "
and
" In addition, customers’ enhanced ability to visit family and friends is worth the monetary equivalent of £3,239 million. "
and concluded that:
" The value of the costs required to support the Motability Car Scheme and the Specialised Vehicles Fund are significantly outweighed by the benefit that the Motability Scheme delivers to its customers and their families, to the wider economy, and the contribution that it makes to the vision for disabled people to have the same opportunities and choices as non-disabled people. "
The "Emergency Stop" report has also shown that the actual savings from the overly harsh, arbitrary cuts will be nowhere near what the government claim, even more so when you factor in the approx £1.3bn in set up costs and annual corporate welfare costs.
When looking at DLA people really need to look at the wider picture. It is certainly not all about the headline cost as the likes of McVey try to make out.
ps, note to self, don't indulge the trolls who try to deflect attention from the thread as they have nothing worthwhile to say.
Hi! All
Here we are discussing a Channel 4 documentary on the very very unfair changes from DLA to PIPs brought in by who?, oh yes the Tories and the effect that it will have on the lifes on those who are disabled causing great anxiety.
I say that the situation with Atos is happening here and now under a Tory government, Atos are FATCATS and so are the Tories who are paying them vast amounts of money to be unfair and as good as implementing and unfair approach from Atos.
You say that Labour brought Atos in but we did not have this unfairness under Labour, I know what I am about to say is a bit off topic but are some of you really telling me that you are prepared to go through all the stress and anxiety as a result of changes from DLA to PIPs with the risk of loosing your benefit and going through a fight to appeal under a Tory government still vote for them at the next election?.
If that is the case then I am afraid that some of you are very deluded, this unfairness is happening here and now under an uncaring Tory government of FATCATS who are implementing unfairness from Atos. That is the truth and Labour on the other hand would not and I stress not have implemented an unfair approach from Atos.
I mean it is not just this issue but also the issue of the Bedroom Tax being brought in by the Tories and we are seeing people on the news in tears saying that they do not know were they will be able to turn to, yet how many will when Scameron says in his next election campaign that he will give people a referendom on staying in the EU will very quickly not bother to listen to Labour's campaign over how people are suffering or the econemy and say well we will put Scameron in again?.
So to divert but I know from what I went through last year with the change over to ESA from Incapacity Benefit and lack of support from my Care Coordinator that I am sadly going to have to go through the same again what with the change from DLA to PIPs, and I know it is under an uncaring Tory government who will not bring in a Mansion Tax but instead cause all disabled people to go through this.
Uncaring Tory FATCATS, uncaring Atos FATCATS. Labour back in power in 2015. Enought said.
Hi! All
Yes thanks for your comment Jackee as what with having Aspergers as well as complexed problem linked with my Aspergers for which I have been in trouble with the Police, I would have liked the programme to focus on all kinds of disabilities although I am sure they gave Learning Disabilities a brief mention.
Its going to be pointless reassessing people every 3 years on PIP if there conditions never change. That will cost the taxpayer more money. That Esther McVey woman sounds like she hasn't a clue, she should have stayed being a TV presenter.
I really don't think she has. I think she's just spouting off what any typical Conservative MP would. In other words, a complete robotic response.
I do absolutely appreciate why some may have found previous post offensive but...
Myself and many of the people I know in MH and ASD support groups etc are currently fighting for ANY income (ESA) to even feed themselves and pay the bills and this will get much worse after April.
Shouldn't the cuts to the benefits system come from those who can spare it rather than those who depend on it?
Some people are being left with nothing, sick, even dying, committing suicide whilst others are worried that they might lose EXTRA money towards a hobby (yes I know this is not true of every DLA claimant but it is for some - was there not once a lottery winner who continued to claim??! :mad: )
That is a horrible injustice IMO. :mad:
Welfare for those who NEED it, not to make life more enjoyable!!
so they worked for the previous government for what peanuts
No but there was a lot less pressure to find disabled people well. This government is the one who set impossible targets and are paying ATOS a shed load of money to achieve them.
Shouldn't the cuts to the benefits system come from those who can spare it rather than those who depend on it?
Some people are being left with nothing, sick, even dying, committing suicide whilst others are worried that they might lose EXTRA money towards a hobby (yes I know this is not true of every DLA claimant but it is for some - was there not once a lottery winner who continued to claim??! :mad: )
That is a horrible injustice IMO. :mad:
Welfare for those who NEED it, not to make life more enjoyable!!
I disagree benefits for the disabled should be a right. Those that are so limited in capability that they are effectively incapable of employment should get income replacement as a right same as pensioners do. Those who are so impaired they have care or mobility needs requiring another person's assistance to live their lives, should have money towards those needs and giving them some equality in quality of life, as a matter of equality.
I do absolutely appreciate why some may have found previous post offensive but...
Myself and many of the people I know in MH and ASD support groups etc are currently fighting for ANY income (ESA) to even feed themselves and pay the bills and this will get much worse after April.
Shouldn't the cuts to the benefits system come from those who can spare it rather than those who depend on it?
Some people are being left with nothing, sick, even dying, committing suicide whilst others are worried that they might lose EXTRA money towards a hobby (yes I know this is not true of every DLA claimant but it is for some - was there not once a lottery winner who continued to claim??! :mad: )
That is a horrible injustice IMO. :mad:
Welfare for those who NEED it, not to make life more enjoyable!!
Basically, because you can't have it, no one else should?
A matter of equality should mean that everyone with a disability should be entitled to at least their human rights (food, shelter, approriate medical care, not to have their health condition made worse!).
Come April, ESA appeals will be more difficult, meaning people can be left for even longer with no income whatsoever, what is right about that? Whilst people on unlimited income can claim £130 per week EXTRA :mad:
If people with disabilities NEED (ie. they cannot live without it) extra income via DLA, then no problem, for mobility, for extra care etc. NOT for hobbies, NOT for luxuries, NOT for anyone on an above average income, at least not right now!!
Oh and btw KNIGHTOUT, I have NO carpet, no flooring at all because I cannot afford it!
A matter of equality should mean that everyone with a disability should be entitled to at least their human rights (food, shelter, approriate medical care, not to have their health condition made worse!).
Yes everyone should be entitled to benefits, if they are effectively incapable of paid employment or are unable to find employment. There should be a welfare safety net.
Whilst people on unlimited income can claim £130 per week EXTRA :mad:
If people with disabilities NEED (ie. they cannot live without it) extra income via DLA, then no problem, for mobility, for extra care etc. NOT for hobbies, NOT for luxuries, NOT for anyone on an above average income, at least not right now!!
You want to make all benefits means tested and then see how far they fall. Because if you exclude the bulk of the population from ever being eligible, including everyone with household income or savings. People will pay for private insurance. Then benefits will be perceived more than ever as just for the feckless scroungers who could not be bothered to provide for themselves and as a result are just a burden on everyone else.
If you want decent benefits then Universal benefits and National Insurance based benefits are the way to go. Because everyone gets them if they become ill or disabled. Everybody should value them and want them to be at a decent level. Like state pension and the NHS and even state schools.
Oh and btw KNIGHTOUT, I have NO carpet, no flooring at all because I cannot afford it!
That does not justify demanding that other ill and disabled should not be given state help and support. Other ill and disabled people are not to blame for any lack in the financial support you are receiving.
People who are so ill or disabled they have care or mobility needs should be able to rely on some societial priniciple of universal right to support to help towards those care or mobility needs. People who are so ill or disabled they are effectively incapable of paid employment should be able to rely on some principle of national insurance to provide them with some level of income replacement.
I appreciate you sensible response at this hour, I've lost count how many times I've written this out.
I don't begrudge those in need and benefits they need.
No issue at all with people claiming DLA for mobility and help with daily care, that's a real need of course.
On FB the other night people were defending their right to what I consider to be privileges, hobbies, sports, holidays etc. Right now I don;t think anyone, disabled or not should have benefits for this, not whilst others have nothing.
Don't think we are ever going to agree on this and I don't want others to believe there may be divide within those claiming some form of disability benefits.
The country may not 'all be in this together' but Id like to think some of us are
Comments
THere is lots of room for serious and worthwhile debate in this area and any number of options for reform that would achieve significant long term savings and flush out the small number of criminals committing fraud in the system
We could easily have used the paralympics as a springboard to show what is possible and encourage even more of the "can do" spirit that anyone who knows the disability scene will be so aware of. employers, supported by access to work grants (most less than £100) could have been drawn in to a scheme promoting positive role models and businesses where excellent practice is improving productivity as almost always happens with the recruitment of disabled people.
The more we facilitate the participation opf people with manageable but often challenging conditions who long to work and be independent the more we offer an incentive and target for others to aspire to and believe may be attainable.
But what is in it forf the non-disabled.
1) It may be them or their families one day so is a form of insurance
2) More competition, raising standards, increasing profits
3) More people paying tax and less on benefits, more money in the economy leading to more jobs and security.
4) It just fels good to co-operate
No but they are frightened of upsetting Georgie, "just call me Dave", and IDS. I think what says it all is that your comment can be taken two ways.
1) Channel 4 think it trivial.
2) You think it trivial.
I watched this programme last night and being on Disability Living Allowence myself as well as my Dad and people at the day centre I attend I am already very anxious about the outcome in my situation, I just can not wait for these horrible Tories FATCATS to be put out of power and Atos are FATCATS as well.
I am so looking forward to 2015 when we see the smile wiped off Scameron's, Osborne's, Ian Duncan Smith's and Hunt's faces and Labour back in power.
Actually, you proved my point several posts ago, and you continue to prove it, by refusing to comment on the issue that the programme and the thread are dealing with. I wonder why that is!
Richievilla,
I decide what i comment on not you. Ok so you are arrogant enough to think you are the sole arbiter of what should and should not be discussed, nothing I can do about that.
You complain that points other than your choosen one are being discussed, but its you by complaining about them over and over again that ensures they get more prominance than they otherwise would. Oh the irony ........
Option 1 please (although I would not use the word trivial) - and that is the point i specifically made up thread
I dont think so
wasnt it Labour who first gave Atos its contracts and started the ball rolling?
I think it should be means tested at very least and should be strictly be for care or mobility, not used to invest in the next lot of paralympians, at least not whilst others are struggling to even get by.
And I don't see why they shouldn't be reassessed either, those on ESA face assessment several times a year. Their limbs may not grow back but their fitness may improve or new aids become available. JMHO.
It might have been Labour who brought Atos in but it is the Tories who are paying them vast amounts of money to get people of benefits and in alot of cases uncaring and unfairly, if Labour had been in power it would not have been done this unfairly and that is a fact.
Thank you for your comments, I disagree with many of the points but at least you have attempted to address the issue
Essentially it is almost impossible to find a system of means testing without invading the privacy of everyone. If you set the bar too high (say £10k savings) you get very little money back and the exercise is not cost effective, you also add a further disincentive to save thus increasing indebtedness
There is an argument to say that it is better for some people to get the benefiot to enable them to be independent and get employment, DLA may actually keep some people in employment so be paid back many times over.
When you experience disability you realise that it is not a lot of fun in itself, all of us would gladly pay back ouyr benefits and more to be rid of it.
I cannot prove it but I suspect that a properly managed system coupled with real support within and outside the workplace woudl in the medium to long term save money and lead to increasing productivity
I would argue that both DLA and income replacement benefits for those deemed effectively incapable of paid employment like ESA should not be means tested. As having them means tested on household income and assets like other means tested benefits are, makes the disabled person dependent on the household. Depriving them of having money to call their own and the freedom that brings. Depriving them of an income they can contribute to the household and dignity that brings. It makes them unmarriable. It makes them a substantial financial burden to the household, making it more likely they will be institutionalized.
Why not for some equality of quality of life, a person maybe housebound so why not enable them to have a nice TV so they can see the world, or a nice carpet so they can have people around without feeling ashamed of living in poverty.
Because it causes needless distress and uncertainty and in many cases is completely inappropriate considering the nature of their medical condition and the sheer volume of medical evidence. If their condition is incurrable they should be able to rely on their awarded benefit income and plan their life going forward. Not be repeatedly put through an inquisition which presumes guilt and forces them to prove they are genuine all the time and which is demeaning and creates distress, uncertainty and fear.
so they worked for the previous government for what peanuts
People tend to easily forget that DLA monies invariably go back into the UK economy via Motability, taxis, buying 2nd hand cars, aids and adaptations, care services, household services etc etc which support many jobs with resultant tax revenue.
As an example, re Motability, whereas the benefit bashers tell lies about free BMW's (which don't exist) and high fraud (the actual rate is less than the 0.5% fraud rate for DLA), Oxford Economics published a report in 2010 which showed how the country benefits both economically and socially from the scheme.
At the time there were 543,000 customers paying £49.10pw from their DLA, meaning just under £1.4bn pa of DLA was paid to the scheme.
They found that:
" The economic impact analysis shows the Motability Car Scheme is estimated to support 21,080 jobs in 2009.
Put another way, it supports one in every thousand jobs in the UK. In total, the Motability Car Scheme is estimated to contribute £2,015 million to UK GDP (or 0.1% of total) and contribute £468 million to the Exchequer in tax receipts."
and
" The Motability Scheme is estimated to enable 12,500 customers and informal carers to get a job and 56,100 to keep an existing job. "
and
" The social impacts we have been able to quantify amount to £1.3 billion a year, mostly through increased wage income disabled people and their families are able to earn through enhanced employment opportunities and the impact of improved education on career paths. "
and
" In addition, customers’ enhanced ability to visit family and friends is worth the monetary equivalent of £3,239 million. "
and concluded that:
" The value of the costs required to support the Motability Car Scheme and the Specialised Vehicles Fund are significantly outweighed by the benefit that the Motability Scheme delivers to its customers and their families, to the wider economy, and the contribution that it makes to the vision for disabled people to have the same opportunities and choices as non-disabled people. "
The "Emergency Stop" report has also shown that the actual savings from the overly harsh, arbitrary cuts will be nowhere near what the government claim, even more so when you factor in the approx £1.3bn in set up costs and annual corporate welfare costs.
When looking at DLA people really need to look at the wider picture. It is certainly not all about the headline cost as the likes of McVey try to make out.
ps, note to self, don't indulge the trolls who try to deflect attention from the thread as they have nothing worthwhile to say.
Here we are discussing a Channel 4 documentary on the very very unfair changes from DLA to PIPs brought in by who?, oh yes the Tories and the effect that it will have on the lifes on those who are disabled causing great anxiety.
I say that the situation with Atos is happening here and now under a Tory government, Atos are FATCATS and so are the Tories who are paying them vast amounts of money to be unfair and as good as implementing and unfair approach from Atos.
You say that Labour brought Atos in but we did not have this unfairness under Labour, I know what I am about to say is a bit off topic but are some of you really telling me that you are prepared to go through all the stress and anxiety as a result of changes from DLA to PIPs with the risk of loosing your benefit and going through a fight to appeal under a Tory government still vote for them at the next election?.
If that is the case then I am afraid that some of you are very deluded, this unfairness is happening here and now under an uncaring Tory government of FATCATS who are implementing unfairness from Atos. That is the truth and Labour on the other hand would not and I stress not have implemented an unfair approach from Atos.
I mean it is not just this issue but also the issue of the Bedroom Tax being brought in by the Tories and we are seeing people on the news in tears saying that they do not know were they will be able to turn to, yet how many will when Scameron says in his next election campaign that he will give people a referendom on staying in the EU will very quickly not bother to listen to Labour's campaign over how people are suffering or the econemy and say well we will put Scameron in again?.
So to divert but I know from what I went through last year with the change over to ESA from Incapacity Benefit and lack of support from my Care Coordinator that I am sadly going to have to go through the same again what with the change from DLA to PIPs, and I know it is under an uncaring Tory government who will not bring in a Mansion Tax but instead cause all disabled people to go through this.
Uncaring Tory FATCATS, uncaring Atos FATCATS. Labour back in power in 2015. Enought said.
Yes thanks for your comment Jackee as what with having Aspergers as well as complexed problem linked with my Aspergers for which I have been in trouble with the Police, I would have liked the programme to focus on all kinds of disabilities although I am sure they gave Learning Disabilities a brief mention.
I really don't think she has. I think she's just spouting off what any typical Conservative MP would. In other words, a complete robotic response.
Myself and many of the people I know in MH and ASD support groups etc are currently fighting for ANY income (ESA) to even feed themselves and pay the bills and this will get much worse after April.
Shouldn't the cuts to the benefits system come from those who can spare it rather than those who depend on it?
Some people are being left with nothing, sick, even dying, committing suicide whilst others are worried that they might lose EXTRA money towards a hobby (yes I know this is not true of every DLA claimant but it is for some - was there not once a lottery winner who continued to claim??! :mad: )
That is a horrible injustice IMO. :mad:
Welfare for those who NEED it, not to make life more enjoyable!!
No but there was a lot less pressure to find disabled people well. This government is the one who set impossible targets and are paying ATOS a shed load of money to achieve them.
Basically, because you can't have it, no one else should?
Come April, ESA appeals will be more difficult, meaning people can be left for even longer with no income whatsoever, what is right about that? Whilst people on unlimited income can claim £130 per week EXTRA :mad:
If people with disabilities NEED (ie. they cannot live without it) extra income via DLA, then no problem, for mobility, for extra care etc. NOT for hobbies, NOT for luxuries, NOT for anyone on an above average income, at least not right now!!
Oh and btw KNIGHTOUT, I have NO carpet, no flooring at all because I cannot afford it!
Erm no....
I support equality for people who are sick and disabled, but not privilege.
Whilst there are people struggling to survive, nobody should be getting more than they need in benefits.
Yes it is not right. During the reconsideration period people should be entitled to support.
You want to make all benefits means tested and then see how far they fall. Because if you exclude the bulk of the population from ever being eligible, including everyone with household income or savings. People will pay for private insurance. Then benefits will be perceived more than ever as just for the feckless scroungers who could not be bothered to provide for themselves and as a result are just a burden on everyone else.
If you want decent benefits then Universal benefits and National Insurance based benefits are the way to go. Because everyone gets them if they become ill or disabled. Everybody should value them and want them to be at a decent level. Like state pension and the NHS and even state schools.
That does not justify demanding that other ill and disabled should not be given state help and support. Other ill and disabled people are not to blame for any lack in the financial support you are receiving.
People who are so ill or disabled they have care or mobility needs should be able to rely on some societial priniciple of universal right to support to help towards those care or mobility needs. People who are so ill or disabled they are effectively incapable of paid employment should be able to rely on some principle of national insurance to provide them with some level of income replacement.
I don't begrudge those in need and benefits they need.
No issue at all with people claiming DLA for mobility and help with daily care, that's a real need of course.
On FB the other night people were defending their right to what I consider to be privileges, hobbies, sports, holidays etc. Right now I don;t think anyone, disabled or not should have benefits for this, not whilst others have nothing.
Don't think we are ever going to agree on this and I don't want others to believe there may be divide within those claiming some form of disability benefits.
The country may not 'all be in this together' but Id like to think some of us are