I had a telephone call from a relative who I don't see very often, who began the conversation jovially with :-
"I won't ask how you are, I see someone who visits you two or three times a week, who keeps me up to speed"
I had to point out that we have no-one who visits two or three times a week. In fact, our most frequent visitor visits once a month, if that, rarely phones, and we certainly don't discuss anything personal. We're fine with that.
That conversation ended pretty abruptly. Sigh. I'd love to know who the mystery person is. As for the relative, they haven't responded to messages. I guess that's going to remain one of life's little puzzles.
~~~~~
I've been following the progress of Mr. Duncan Smiths Welfare Reform Bill with some interest. Since any time now it's going to be all over the press, and I'm apolitical, I'm not going to link to any particular source.
The welfare system is open to abuse, is abused. It needs reform. My personal interest is Disability Living Allowance which enables me to live a fairly normal life. Something like DLA should be targeted to those that need it. It's tough to get, as it should be.
Mr Duncan Smith says,
"Around 50 per cent of those receiving DLA did not have to provide additional evidence to support their claim, and some two thirds of current recipients have an award for life, which means they may never be checked to see if their condition has changed. That is why we are proposing to introduce, for the first time, an objective assessment to ensure financial support is getting to those in need of help"
He's wrong. Your medical history and your circumstances come under intense scrutiny. Your GP, hospital consultants and social services reports are closely studied, and one is independently assessed regularly. Certainly, you have to fill in claim form after every assessment and reassessment that, even with a trained advisor, can take 1 to 3 hours. That needs simplifying.
But you would not receive DLA based entirely on the claim form. Full stop. Ain't gonna happen.
As for his claim that " some two thirds of current recipients have an award for life, which means they may never be checked to see if their condition has changed." It's rubbish. There is no such thing as DLA for life. I've spent a lot of time talking to a wide range of people who are disabled or who care for the disabled - covering a huge range of circumstances, for some years.
The category he's talking about is 'indefinite entitlement'. All that means is you never have to reclaim. It doesn't mean you aren't checked up on, because you are. Worse, perhaps, you can be checked and interviewed by non medical professionals at any time. let me emphasise that. At Any Time. As opposed to when a claim for DLA is made.
In all that time I've only ever met one person on indefinite DLA. Me. Yup, yours truly. And I didn't make that decision. The Department of Work and Pensions did.
One final point. Disability Living Allowance prevents no-one from working. It isn't means tested. You can earn a £1000,000 a week and still be granted DLA (though god only know why you'd want to).
You simply work within your ability to do so, and rightly so.
There's one little niggle I'd love to see changed. I've never claimed (un) employment benefit (Job Seekers Allowance). But once a year I get a phone call from the local Job Centre Plus to tell me that they don't need to see me. I point out I don't claim JSA. (yes they know) I'm not registered unemployed (yes, they know) DLA isn't means tested (yup, ect.)
"So why would you need to see me?" Because, they explain, "they're required by law to tell me they don't"
Daft.
The welfare system is open to abuse, is abused. It needs reform. My personal interest is Disability Living Allowance which enables me to live a fairly normal life. Something like DLA should be targeted to those that need it. It's tough to get, as it should be.
Mr Duncan Smith says,
"Around 50 per cent of those receiving DLA did not have to provide additional evidence to support their claim, and some two thirds of current recipients have an award for life, which means they may never be checked to see if their condition has changed. That is why we are proposing to introduce, for the first time, an objective assessment to ensure financial support is getting to those in need of help"
He's wrong. Your medical history and your circumstances come under intense scrutiny. Your GP, hospital consultants and social services reports are closely studied, and one is independently assessed regularly. Certainly, you have to fill in claim form after every assessment and reassessment that, even with a trained advisor, can take 1 to 3 hours. That needs simplifying.
But you would not receive DLA based entirely on the claim form. Full stop. Ain't gonna happen.
As for his claim that " some two thirds of current recipients have an award for life, which means they may never be checked to see if their condition has changed." It's rubbish. There is no such thing as DLA for life. I've spent a lot of time talking to a wide range of people who are disabled or who care for the disabled - covering a huge range of circumstances, for some years.
The category he's talking about is 'indefinite entitlement'. All that means is you never have to reclaim. It doesn't mean you aren't checked up on, because you are. Worse, perhaps, you can be checked and interviewed by non medical professionals at any time. let me emphasise that. At Any Time. As opposed to when a claim for DLA is made.
In all that time I've only ever met one person on indefinite DLA. Me. Yup, yours truly. And I didn't make that decision. The Department of Work and Pensions did.
One final point. Disability Living Allowance prevents no-one from working. It isn't means tested. You can earn a £1000,000 a week and still be granted DLA (though god only know why you'd want to).
You simply work within your ability to do so, and rightly so.
There's one little niggle I'd love to see changed. I've never claimed (un) employment benefit (Job Seekers Allowance). But once a year I get a phone call from the local Job Centre Plus to tell me that they don't need to see me. I point out I don't claim JSA. (yes they know) I'm not registered unemployed (yes, they know) DLA isn't means tested (yup, ect.)
"So why would you need to see me?" Because, they explain, "they're required by law to tell me they don't"
Daft.
2 comments:
I agree benefits in general are in need of reform, I still worry however that deserving causes, particularly familes might get left behind. I don't think anyone objects to a fair system as long as it's fair to all. As for bureaucracy, I work hard to get rid of the beast in my workplace and we've become pretty lean, but despite what the Government tell us, there are still hidden targets and performance checks/indicators and one thing that drives this is the dreaded computer hence why you get your unecessary phone call once a year - because the computer tells them to and they have to 'tick the box.'
I agree whole heartedly RLS.
IF I understand correctly, the present government intends to move many of the services at present funded by the state onto voluntary organisations and charities - the American model.
While simultaneously withdrawing and help the state might provide with tax breaks, and local councils are not ring-fencing funding.
Fine ideals, and something that might sort of work - history has shown that neither fully socialist nor capitalist societies have been entirely successful.
If the underlying theory is to make communities more responsible for themselves and the vulnerable amongst them, network with other communities to provide a homogamy for a more transient population, (no more 'jobs for life')
Then we have a problem. It can't be rushed, and it is. Couple that with the transient nature of government in a democracy, I fear we'll end up with a patchwork of everything.
I don't want to see neither feudalism nor dictatorship. I do fear the vulnerable will suffer the new versions of democracy we've seen over that last 20 years and ahead mature.
I wish there was an easy answer.
Post a Comment