Oh, as a matter of interest:

You are being rather pedantic. The Telegraph link states :

“An official impact assessment of the plans, released this month, reveals the scheme will cut benefit payments by £2.24 billion annually – and lead to about 500,000 fewer claimants”

I think you’ll find that “500,000 fewer claimants” represents a cut of about 20% in the number.

Maybe, but my point is that they (the government) obviously want fewer claimants, but that’s different to giving ATOS a target that basically says “for every five people you assess, one has to fail the test”.

On a kind of aside, wasn’t DLA basically brought in to buy off/support miners who would otherwise have gone onto the unemployment figures when all the mines were shut?

this is wher ethe great saving will be as many disabled will no tbe able to compley even if they try.

I’ve claimed JSA on two separate occasions in the past. I would have preferred not to but the insurances I took out against redundancy required me to in order to pay out.

Complying with the requirements isn’t hard; you just have to find and apply for jobs. That said, lot’s of people even without any kind of disability still need help with doing even that and there are schemes to help with this.

It doesn’t matter what the outcome of any application is, you will qualify for JSA as long as you’ve made the effort to find and apply for work.

Ernie, INH is not being pedantic, he’s making an important point. Estimating the savings is not the same as saying ‘find 20% of people we can remove the benefit from or else’.

they (the government) obviously want fewer claimants, but that’s different to giving ATOS a target that basically says “for every five people you assess, one has to fail the test”.

So you don’t deny that the government wants ATOS to cut the number of DLA claimants then – you just dispute that ATOS has been given a target ?

I’m sure ATOS knows exactly what is expected of it, specially as targeted results is very much the protocol followed by UK governments these days.

You lot need to get a better understanding of what DLA is and how it is awarded. Its not all about ability to work.

My wife gets DLA (we use it to get a car on the Motability scheme) because she has cerebral palsy. She has held down her current job for 27 years!

So you don’t deny that the government wants ATOS to cut the number of DLA claimants then

Not speaking for INH, but I would agree with the statement ‘the government thinks it can reduce the the cost of DLA by 20% by getting a certain number of people off the benefit and back into work or removing benefit for people currently receiving that might not need it’.

The parts that are debatable are whether that is ‘fair’, which is only something the electorate can decide collectively and whether it’s realistic.

I agree that you don’t need to have a performance target written into a contract in order to induce a certain type of behaviour that trends towards the unspecified goal. What gets measured becomes important, ergo, people at ATOS will be tacitly working towards a target. After all, their job relies on the contract.

It doesn’t matter what the outcome of any application is, you will qualify for JSA as long as you’ve made the effort to find and apply for work.

That’s because the requirements for JSA are very simple. Are you applying for jobs? Thats a yes/no answer.

But Whats JSA got to do with disability living allowance assessment? Thats massively more complex in assessing somebodies illness or disability, and subsequent ability to work. The main problem with this assessment seems to be the total lack of consistency in the criteria, due to being carried out by unskilled and barely trained staff. And the suspicion that outcomes are being pre-ordained by a target-driven culture

I assume that the government has said to ATOS “here’s a set of tests we want you to apply to current DLA claimants”. I assume that the government thinks that the test criteria are such that 20% of the current claimants will be deemed to be no longer eligible [edited after Mad_pierre’s valid point]

That’s different to the government saying “here’s a test, make sure 20% fail it”.

I’m sure ATOS knows exactly what is expected of it,

I’m sure ATOS knows exactly what it is contractually obliged to do and it will do nothing else and will be able to prove that anything deemed unseemly was a contractual obligation. There’s no room for tipping of winks when it comes to deals like this, especially when they’re in such a controversial area

My wife gets DLA (we use it to get a car on the Motability scheme) because she has cerebral palsy. She has held down her current job for 27 years!

There is a question here that I really want to ask, but fear it will tip the thread into the abyss. Can anyone think of a sensitive way of putting it?

FWIW, I don’t have a problem with the ‘what’ (that being a rigourous assessment of need for this, or indeed any, benefit), or particularly the ‘why’ (an aim to reduce the benefit bill) but there do seem to be massive problems with the ‘how’ (the assessment method).

Zulu-Eleven – Member

Which of these people is worthy of DLA?

i) ex soldier, leg blown off in afghanistan, uses prosthetic leg to get around
ii) person who gets panic attacks and cannot go out the house without company
iii) drug addict Alcoholic who’s alcoholic girlfriend claims for help feeding and washing him as he’s too pissed to bother doing it himself
iv) obese person who can’t get to the shops because they are too fat to get out the door (thank god for tesco home delivery service)

According to the Daily Telegraph article the government doesn’t think that your ex soldier with their leg blown off in Afghanistan and who uses a prosthetic leg to get around, “is worthy of DLA”.

The rigorous new process being introduced by Mr Duncan Smith could lead to those without limbs, including former soldiers, having their payments reduced as their everyday mobility is not undermined by their prosthetic limbs. [/b]

Can I take it that you don’t support the government on these changes Zulu-Eleven ? Or do you agree that disabled ex soldiers are unworthy ?

disability living allowance assessment? Thats massively more complex in assessing somebodies illness or disability, and subsequent ability to work.

As already said, nothing to do with ability to work – its about care needs and support with the extra expenses caused by limited mobility.

The main problem with this assessment seems to be the total lack of consistency in the criteria, due to being carried out by unskilled and barely trained staff.

up to 2010, apparently 46% of DLA awards were based on checking with the claimants own GP (46%) or just the information on the form (16%) or some other source (like ringing up a carer) (36%).

Only 6% of claimants had their claim medically assessed by a specialist for the purpose of their claim.

do you think that was reasonable?

So you don’t deny that the government wants ATOS to cut the number of DLA claimants then – you just dispute that ATOS has been given a target ?

If you read what he has said…. IHN was pointing out that estimating the impact of the plans is different to giving somebody a target to work towards. So far you’ve called him a pedant and harangued him for an opinion that you have projected onto him – no wonder the other thread got closed.

Can anyone think of a sensitive way of putting it?

I’ll go.

Mad-Piere: Whilst I’m sure she is completely entitled to it, is the DLA that your wife recieves an essential, or a nice-to-have?

Feel free to tell me that it’s none of my business.

There is a question here that I really want to ask, but fear it will tip the thread into the abyss. Can anyone think of a sensitive way of putting it?

Just ask it

According to the Daily Telegraph article the government doesn’t think that your ex soldier with their leg blown off in Afghanistan and who uses a prosthetic leg to get around, “is worthy of DLA”.

I would agree with that.

I do however think they should get a significant (six figure) payout as compensation for their loss.

Only 6% of claimants had their claim medically assessed by a specialist for the purpose of their claim.

do you think that was reasonable?

If that’s true, then its patently ridiculous. Again: my problem isn’t with the principle, the problem is how insensitively and shoddily the whole process is being conducted. Not to mention the inaccuracy, as the majority of appeals are overturned once qualified medical staff are involved, which is costing a fortune! Thus the whole purpose of the process -the reduction of the costs, just isn’t materialising

Just ask it

As INH said; what does the payment enable your wife to do that she would not otherwise be able to do?

Seems like the most sensitive way to ask, not least because that is what the payments should be based on.

Or do you agree that disabled ex soldiers are unworthy ?

The fact that they are ex-soldiers has nothing to do with their worthiness, and is the kind of rhetoric that makes reasoned debate difficult.

What makes anyone worthy is their requirement for financial assistance due to their illness or disablement. How they came to be in that situation is unimportant.

ernie_lynch – Member

The rigorous new process being introduced by Mr Duncan Smith could lead to those without limbs, including former soldiers, having their payments reduced as their everyday mobility is not undermined by their prosthetic limbs.

That’s where it gets complicated though… a mate of mine is a partial amputee. It does limit what he can do a little- he can’t carry heavy things, or run for a bus, or stand for extended periods- but day to day he gets around pretty much the same as everyone else. He’s more mobile than many obese people, and way more mobile than I was for a long time after I broke my hip. So should be get a payout or not? Should the obese people? Should I?

(I don’t have an answer for this question. Maybe, maybe, no, is the best I can do)

Ex soldier shouldn’t be relevant- there’s supposed to be other methods to recognise that.

So far you’ve called him a pedant and harangued him for an opinion that you have projected onto him – no wonder the other thread got closed.

Oh here we go, someone starts coming out with the usual aggressive and baseless bollox.

Saying : “You are being rather pedantic” hardly constitutes haranguing someone. ffs.

I’ll decide if I’m being harangued thanks chaps, don’t fight over me.

I am so far harangue-free. Carry on.

[edit] and maybe lets’ all take a breath, eh?

Ernie – thats my point though, under the existing rules, the ex soldier with a missing leg would have a fairly good chance of not getting DLA awarded – and there would be a significant chance the person with sever panic attacks wouldn’t

the sad thing about DLA, is that the last two examples I gave would be the ones most likely to get paid, and they are the two that I would personally have the most reluctance about it being paid to.

Binners – stats from here:

http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/adhoc_analysis/2011/dla_evidence_award_values_nov11.pdf

Ernie, come on, right there in your response you’ve got very aggressive. You feel strongly about this subject and I can really respect that and honestly you’re views are shaping the way I think. Just don’t resort to swearing.

The fact that they are ex-soldiers has nothing to do with their worthiness, and is the kind of rhetoric that makes reasoned debate difficult.

My question was specifically aimed at Zulu-Eleven, not you.

I assumed that as he had brought the disabled ex soldier into the debate, that he had strong feelings concerning the issue. A reasonable assumption imo.

Here we go…..

@mad pierre,

I accept that a car on motability is often adapted to the user because they have needs and that this adaptation costs money.

However if i want a car i have to pay for it out of my earnings.

Is the car allowance a figure to help cover the increased cost, or does it cover the whole cost, ie is tax payers money putting you in a position that is more than just assistance?

As above – I don’t think the soldier should get DLA if they can function as well as most other people can, with a prosthetic leg.

But I do think they should get massive compensation for their loss.

The point being that you need to separate the two issues. One is about sacrifice and compensation, the other about need.

The DLA she receives is due to her lack of mobility. This is what I was trying to point out. DLA (as very early posts pointed out) is not to do with ability to work. She has worked and paid taxes all her life.

Essential or nice to have? Well it’s not that simple. She has been fortunate enough to have a job a short distance from our house (and at the time her nearby mum’s house) since she left school. She can’t drive, ride a bike, run or get anywhere far away or get there fast. If she lost that job then “essential” but I guess as it is then you could currently say “nice to have” because I could afford to fill in.

Before we met then again it was probably “essential” as due to discrimination she has never earned as much as her peers. This has changed a bit but (as you can see on this forum!) the general population’s lack of understanding of disabilities leads to assumptions, prejudices and discrimination – this is not necessarily deliberate on the part of those that discriminate but they do it.

The only thing which I feel strongly about geetee, is batfink making stupid allegations that me saying “You are being rather pedantic” is the sort of stuff that gets threads closed. ffs.

DLA – http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Disabledpeople/DG_10011925
Not work related and usually doe snot take into account your income

ESA
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Illorinjured/DG_171894

support for those who cannot work due to disability

INH is not being pedantic, he’s making an important point. Estimating the savings is not the same as saying ‘find 20% of people we can remove the benefit from or else’.

That is a pedantic pin dance barely worthy of thought. So the govt set the rules , rules they think will reduce claims by 20 % . The central point is the effect and or aim is to reduce the claimants via re classification.
Not sure it is up to the elctorate surelya Doctor can decide if you are fit to work. When a Dr disgarees with the Govt appointed Dr for the contract to assess what happens then?
Its clear that whatever it is it is not about medical assesments made by independent medical doctors as the NHS provides those already

geetee1972 – Member

Just ask it

As INH said; what does the payment enable your wife to do that she would not otherwise be able to do?

Seems like the most sensitive way to ask, not least because that is what the payments should be based on.

as a chronic pain sufferer, my wife has to use crutches to walk all the time and a wheelchair for a distance of 20mish+. she also gets DLA and we have a motability car. My understanding and certainly our use of both the above is that they offset to a degree the fact that most of everyday life is either far more difficult or expensive than for a non-disabled person, and that while the amount she gets could/should never be an attempt to financially “normalise” her life, it certainly gives her more independence than she would otherwise have. Disability Living Allowance as a title sums it up pretty well.

Mad_pierre – thanks for that.

Out of interest (and again, none of my business), has your wife had to take the new assessment?

[edit]same goes for flatboy

They are changing ESA rules for CLAIMANTS – ie those who do not work

they are not changing DLA [ in general] though the results of ESA will impact on your DLA payments and other

Ie if you loose ESA you will loose [ i assume higher rate DLA and other payments like say carers allowance].

ESA = Dont work and unable to work due to disability, illness whatever

DLA = impairment payment due to disability – no assesment of suitability to work

Just my 2 cents but i’m 19, and for the last 2 years of my life i’ve been claiming DLA (£209/month FWIW) for a disability that does not hinder my ability to work at all. That’s £5K just to me in the last 2 years that i’ve got on top of my last 2 years wages, also. In my eyes, though, it is simply “Well every other tom, dick and harry is claiming for stuff so i’m going to aswell.”

I accept that a car on motability is often adapted to the user because they have needs and that this adaptation costs money.

However if i want a car i have to pay for it out of my earnings.

Is the car allowance a figure to help cover the increased cost, or does it cover the whole cost, ie is tax payers money putting you in a position that is more than just assistance?

theflatboy has already answered this above pretty well. Ignore that we choose to use the allowance for a car. The allowance is to help her cope with the parts of life that are more difficult for her than normal folk like you or I.

Out of interest (and again, none of my business), has your wife had to take the new assessment?

In all honesty I am not sure! There is often paperwork and Doctors letters etc moving about! However as she gets the allowance for a permanent, uncurable condition then I’m not sure how it works….

That is a pedantic pin dance barely worthy of thought

Well respectfully I don’t agree with that; it’s not pedantry in my view it’s nuance.

Junky I made your argument myself earlier so while I don’t think it’s pedantry, I do agree that the outcome is broadly the same.

What gets measured becomes important.

They do re asses those with DLA but not to the extent of ESA – I assume that will be next and I assume it will be means tested so they more well off loose it [ not opposed to means testing personally]

IHN, she is on indefinite DLA and has not been reassessed though will have to be once it changes to PIP. Junkyard, DLA is changing to PIP over the next few years.

as a chronic pain sufferer, my wife has to use crutches to walk all the time and a wheelchair for a distance of 20mish+. she also gets DLA and we have a motability car. My understanding and certainly our use of both the above is that they offset to a degree the fact that most of everyday life is either far more difficult or expensive than for a non-disabled person, and that while the amount she gets could/should never be an attempt to financially “normalise” her life, it certainly gives her more independence than she would otherwise have. Disability Living Allowance as a title sums it up pretty well.

This is a great example of how you win the debate; hearts and minds.

This convinces me that neither your wife, nor Mad Piere’s should ever not receive this payment.