Begg hits out at government benefit cuts

Ms Begg's statement is incoherent in terms of both policy understanding and language, and her reference to the 'purpose' of DLA is grammatically nonsensical as well as poorly argued. Those with genuine disabilities in need of support have nothing to fear from medical assessment. Indeed, disabled citizens should be supportive of Osborne's agenda for benefits reform as individuals with no need for DLA will be denied money that can instead benefit those in true need. Ms Begg is failing to recognise the bigger picture: we are not witnessing a policy change designed to disadvantage genuinely disabled people but rather one that will help them - by getting money to where it is NEEDED. I support any move to cut off the 1000s of fraudulent 'welfare parasites' in the UK - the economy can do without them.

Gia Kaye is absolutely deluded if she genuinely believes that these cuts and medical assessments are designed so that money can be streamlined and given to those in need. Statistically, only 0.5% of claimants of DLA are doing so fraudulently. The sheer cost of financing these medical assessments and administration will wipe out any hopeful 'savings'. Is she also forgetting that DLA IS NOT MEANS TESTED. It is there to support people with the extra costs that their disability imposes on them. It worries me that in Osborne's Budget speech that he is concerned by the fact that in 18 years the number of claimants of DLA have tripled, isn't this because there is now more transparency through disability rights groups making people aware of their rights and benefits that they are ENTITLED to claim. Also, for as long as the medical model of disability is used, there will be a proportion of disabled people who will be disenfranchised by these changes. Why should genuine claimants be made to go through the financial worry, and stress due to the humiliating,degrading process of giving deeply personal information again and again to complete strangers for the sake of 'weeding out' the few fraudulent claimants of DLA.

In my time receiving DLA for a c4/5 spinal injury I have undergone three medicals by the DWP - though the original granted a life-time award and the following two agreed, but nonetheless changed me to indefinite. How much wasteful cost involved there when my medical records were available to be openly viewed.

Originally awarded Invalidity Benefit - I then received a cut via Incapacity Benefit - now called ESA - how many forms - letter headings and information leaflets had to be scrapped and reproduced for those exercises that judging by this latest idea were all so inefficient - all resulting in the same conclusion that one has the same disability under any heading.

So forgive me if I view this latest edict from our rulers with anything but pessimism. All reports show - and have done for years - that real benefit fraud is committed by organized crime and identity theft. In any interview in front of endless select committees - all paid for by the tax payer - a few years back - it was stated by the person under examination that they would soon face a time when we would be spending more on preventing fraud than could be possibly be clawed back by the pursuance of it - indeed more was lost by error on the part of the DWP. One would therefore assume with all this effort on my behalf, I, along with all the other people whom the system lists as qualified to receive DLA would be financially better off now than ever - well, are we? - No, because the rating system used has failed to keep up with real living costs - Oh then lets blame it on too many people jumping on the bandwagon - but common sense surely tells us that in a highly competitive job market the easier, less stressful jobs which suited those disabled but able to work (as with the industrial jobs that supported it) disappeared decades ago, unless of course you are qualified to the hilt with degrees?

At one time, under the Thatcher administration the jobless total reached roughly 5 million. When it went down to lower than a million - did unemployment benefit rise due to the amount saved? Of course not - nor will disability benefits or services be improved once the latest questionable figures bandied by preaching headlines are shown to be nothing other than excuses to cut social services until primed for the private sector - as many are already.

This procedure re cutting benefits has more to do with pleasing the world bank and the current right-wing agenda of all mainstream political parties rather than helping those most in need.

When I worked to bring up my family I never received Working Tax Credit or extra pay for having kids - I had to pay for that out of my own pocket. Is anyone questioning the morality of subsidising employers who fail to remunerate employees with a liveable wage - full-time working parents claiming money back from the state just to survive - work that one out - who claim without tests whilst those in desperate need of help to afford mobility aids to remain independent as they can and save local authorities the price of social care (such as usable wheelchairs) are left to fork out thousands out of their own pocket from a ring fenced cartel that the mobility industry has become - the government doesn't even require them to adopt a practise of advertised open pricing.

Yes, disability needs better and more efficient legislation - try enforcing our rights rather than punishing us for what those who are fit fraudulently claim in our name. You could start by publishing the figures of just how much money each change over the past decades has cost in administration to the tax-payer - bet it's more than than anyone has ever fiddled - except perhaps MPs.

If anyone thinks that the medical tests are to find people conning the system then they are deluded.

It will be to downgrade the levels they are on and remove some others. This way will save money and THAT is the main emphasis.

For those that are saying "there is nothing to worry about the medical assessments if they are genuine" need to think back a few years to when ATOS/visiting GP's were featured on the old forum here, they were 'allegedly' being paid more for failing people who appiled for DLA or who appealed.

THIS seems a good start to the new ConDem coalition--

http://news.scotsman.com/arts/Author39s-suicide-39due-to-slash.6438473.jp

Money saved, job done?