Government Trying to Abolish DLA and Attendance Allowance?

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by garinda

Like most social benefits, you don't queue up anywhere to access the money, it's paid into a bank account, just like all the other benefits poorer people are entitled to.

You don't have to queue up at the workhouse door for child benefit. Therefore there is no social stigma, and I for one be much happier if the benefit that is paid to wealthy parents was finding it's way to the children who need it more.

I agree on child benefit Rindi, it should go to those most in need, at the moment a millionaire can claim it which to me is ridiculous

[Mancie]

Originally Posted by jaysay

I agree on child benefit Rindi, it should go to those most in need, at the moment a millionaire can claim it which to me is ridiculous

Chip away at the edges and you will eventually get down to the bare bone.. people not to long ago fought for a basic child allowance for all ... now you lot would push it aside because of the economic situation...take care.

[BERNADETTE]

I have signed, why oh why do they have to target the vunerable when trying to make cut backs? At this rate there will be nothing to cushion people who are genuinely in need. Do they not realise that????

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Mancie

Chip away at the edges and you will eventually get down to the bare bone.. people not to long ago fought for a basic child allowance for all ... now you lot would push it aside because of the economic situation...take care.

My point is Mancie, the rich don't need child allowance and to me they're cheeky if they take it, would sooner more went to the really needy myself, just an opinion

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Mancie

Chip away at the edges and you will eventually get down to the bare bone.. people not to long ago fought for a basic child allowance for all ... now you lot would push it aside because of the economic situation...take care.

We'll not agree on this one.

You may want to protect the right of wealthy parents to receive child benefit.

I'd much rather this be stopped, and the money saved given to those children who actually need it, and for who it'll make a real difference, and not pay for tennis lessons, that more well off parents would still fund regardless if they received this money or not.

[Mancie]

Originally Posted by garinda

We'll not agree on this one.

You may want to protect the right of wealthy parents to receive child benefit.

I'd much rather this be stopped, and the money saved given to those children who actually need it, and for who it'll make a real difference, and not pay for tennis lessons, that more well off parents would still fund regardless if they received this money or not.

OK..but who will decide which parents should have child allowance?...it would not be Gordon Brown or Cameron.. it would be some poor sod behind a bullet proof screen in the DHSS.

[BERNADETTE]

I thought this thread was about the threat to stop DLA and AA

[garinda]

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE

I thought this thread was about the threat to stop DLA and AA

Not all organisations that represent disabled people are opposed to this green paper, and welcome the changes it could bring, and which it would be harder for those feigning disability to abuse.

'There was universal support at the roundtable for the green paper's proposal to create a single needs assessment for a disabled person that would be "portable" – recognised by any local authority wherever an individual lived in England. Seen as a landmark in social care policy, the new assessment would break down one of the biggest barriers to social and economic mobility cited by people with a disability. One participant described it as a "huge leap forward."

Moving forward | Care and support reform | guardian.co.uk

[BERNADETTE]

I don't see it as a step forward however much they try to dress it up. There is already monies being paid out for this very cause which is being swallowed up elsewhere.

[garinda]

'...the six underlying principles behind the service. They are that a national care service will be committed to help people retain their independence; assessment for need will be the same wherever a person lives; services will be integrated and easy to understand; they will be designed around individual need and everybody who qualifies for care will get some of that support funded by the state.'

Social care green paper: Can we bear the burden? | Society | The Guardian

That can only be a good thing, because at the moment there are many needy people not getting the corect entitlements because the present system is too fragmented, and you need a degree to access what is actually available.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE

I don't see it as a step forward however much they try to dress it up. There is already monies being paid out for this very cause which is being swallowed up elsewhere.

At the moment social benefits for disabled adults come from three seperate bodies, and it's a bloody nightmare.

Luckily at the moment I'm quite compus mentis, but I know many people who struggle to get what they are entitled to, to help with their care, because the current system is so complicated.

[BERNADETTE]

Of course people deserve to have services that help them keep their independence but the cynical side of me just can't see them getting it right. Who decides what your needs are if you are vulnerable? The way I read it on the carers sites I visit it is the complete lack of adequate qualified paid carers that is the problem. I just can't see this working.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE

Who decides what your needs are if you are vulnerable?

The same people who decide now if someone is entitled to these benefits in the first place.

At present many thousands of people who are entitled to these benefits, and who could keep some sort of independence, are slipping through the net, because it's so damn complicated. Whilst at the same time the current system allows thousands of others to succesfully fraudulently claim, when they shouldn't be getting a penny.

Watch BBC 1 at 9.15am, or Google News 'benefit fraud', to see how easy the present system is to defraud for those who are savvy to the holes in the current way it's fragmentedly organised, and which pays money to those swinging the lead, leaving some genuine claimants in dire straits.


The present system has many flaws, and I'm of the opinion that change isn't necessarily always for the worse.

For many it couldn't get much worse.

[Mancie]

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE

Of course people deserve to have services that help them keep their independence but the cynical side of me just can't see them getting it right. Who decides what your needs are if you are vulnerable? The way I read it on the carers sites I visit it is the complete lack of adequate qualified paid carers that is the problem. I just can't see this working.

Over worked people fiddling about with desk loads of paperwork will decide..it would cost more in working out who might need what and when than it's worth.. next thing you know bods will start talking about "savings" in the NHS ..savings in the NHS or welfare should not be on any respectable party agenda.. if they are then they can come clean and tell us the bottom line.. then we can all decide.

[BERNADETTE]

Originally Posted by garinda

The same people who decide now if someone is entitled to these benefits in the first place.

At present many thousands of people who are entitled to these benefits, and who could keep some sort of independence, are slipping through the net, because it's so damn complicated. Whilst at the same time the current system allows thousands of others to succesfully fraudulently claim, when they shouldn't be getting a penny.

Watch BBC 1 at 9.15am, or Google News 'benefit fraud', to see how easy the present system is to defraud for those who are savvy to the holes in the current way it's fragmentedly organised, and which pays money to those swinging the lead, leaving some genuine claimants in dire straits.


The present system has many flaws, and I'm of the opinion that change isn't necessarily always for the worse.

For many it couldn't get much worse.

Yes I agree that their are many who are defrauding the system and have been watching the programme you mention. When Ian was awarded DLA they didn't just accept his word for what was wrong, he had to see somebody at the doctors. You will always get people who think it is ok to defraud the system and tightening things up should help.
But why take DLA and AA off genuine claimants??