ESA Debate

If you are someone who receives the contribution based ESA, one heck of a blooming lot! More so if that is the only benefit you receive (like me, and I am not including DLA/PIP in this). So like me, you worked full time, were savvy with savings and future planning, when you are forced to stop work you are financially penalised for your endeavours.

For those receiving ESA based on income, not a lot, because there is a threshold set for minimum living income, it’s just semantics as to which bit puts in his much which is then topped up to reach the minimum.

Essentially, those sick or disabled are permanently placed into poverty life style, with the expense of assistance, adaptions, gadgets, care costs etc.

While we are talking about ESA, could they explain why
people with incurable, progressive diseases such as MD
are subject to constant reassessment?
Is that not a waste of taxpayers money?

taungfox wrote:

While we are talking about ESA, could they explain why people with incurable, progressive diseases such as MD are subject to constant reassessment?
Is that not a waste of taxpayers money?

The problem is at what point does every condition reach that stage, how can a criteria be written that covers all conditions and all ways of deterioration for all scenarios. A person could have a very debilitating condition that lasts years, which becomes treatable to the point of improving their independence to seek active employment. The historical trap that many fell into was that they were not checked up, just ignored and left to receive their state funds without any accountability [some even returning to work]. For decades one benefit gave indefinite awards to everyone as the costs involved in reassessing and reviewing far out weighed the money saved [and in my opinion it will head that way again].

Medical science, medicine and conditions have exploded over the last two or three decades. Once upon a time a diagnosis of something was a life-shortening situation, but now it is not. It has all gotten too big, too complicated and too complex to simplify into a one-size-does-everything form or tick box script assessment.

The proposal to cut ESA by £30 a week to those placed in WRAG is deplorable because it intentionally penalises those who were not prepared to end up needing help. For Example, Joe Bloggs is a hard worker, doing his 40 hours a week job, earning a slightly above minimum living wage job, living in a part mortgage house, he is money sensible, he saves regularly and is trotting along quite nicely – one day walking to work he has a stoke, severely restricting his ability to look after himself, provide for his family, continue working. Sensible Mr Joe Bloggs now is forced to live for a length of time dictated by the State on his savings, all because his age and life long sensibleness meant he had amassed a lump of savings. Compare that to Mr Fred Doe who spends every penny as soon as it is in his pocket, lives in rented house, never thinking of tomorrow until it is yesterday – he has a stroke, and probably receives more in benefits [and all its delicious add-ons when it is income-based defined] than Joe.

Both are in similar situations but their behaviour and lifestyle will dictate how they are helped. If the powers that decide state “Okay, we will remove the £30 if the person is contribution based ESA and has over £20,000 in savings”, hmm, well that might be better except you have now doubled your admin costs because of the extra work and checks needed to establish savings and check again and again to see where it is in regard to the threshold, whether savings have been spent to get more benefits quicker, and that threshold needs reviewing according to cost of living etc.

See what I mean about complicated.

Essentially, it is cost cutting, how can pennies be saved but we make it look like we are targeting fraudsters and money grabber.

Very well put!