Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Nearly 900,000 people who were on incapacity benefit dropped their claim to the payments rather than undergo a tough medical test. What does this tell us? Were 900000 people fraudulently claiming the benefits, since they're not confident they'll pass the test? Are 900000 people who rightly deserve the benefit intimidated by it and too frightened/anxious to take it?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-of-tests.html

    Are Labour to blame for this? I think so- Labour had a general attitude during their last government that the way to win elections was to buy votes by increasing benefits for virtually everybody, and paying for it through borrowing and by taxing the very same people more. It seems to me that sickness benefit, for these 900000 people at least, was another slice of that political cake.

    This benefit should be there for those who need it and nobody else. That way there is more to go around for those who really do need it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Labour are definitely to blame - no doubt many of the claimants were those let in under their extremely lax border controls. 900,000 people is an immense number when you consider benefits are supposed to be for the minority of people who need them. This can only be a good thing - less money spent testing people who were going to fail anyway. Where that money saved will actually be spent is another matter - lining the pockets of Mr Cameron and his pals, I suspect.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Some people would still be entitled. It's just that they have been stigmatised so much and so many barriers placed in their way they can't cope any more and have decided to do without.

    Some obviously were chancers but as with every change the genuine claimants suffer more than the fraudulent one as he fraudulent ones have not scruples and find ways around the changes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes some of them were fraudulent, but the company ATOS (who does the medical assessment is f**ked up), they are forced to meet targets by the gov there for people in need are paying the price.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-19433535


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/oct/03/work-woman-care


    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/he...nd-fit-1565456

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19844675

    http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/1...hris-grayling/
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    It's possible that some felt they were well enough to work again, or claimed another benefit, such as income support, meaning they don't have to go through the assessments and appeals.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    My mum dropped her second level appeal because on her medical examination the doctor asked her a bunch of questions about her daily life and then lied about the answers in her report, and failed to report 4 out of 5 of the conditions she suffers with. This report was then used to deny her reapplication for DLA after the CAB and job centre told her she wouldn't be eligible for JSA, despite her condition worsening due to the stress.
    Now, she wants to drop the appeal again because she's really upset by the whole process and doesn't want to go through it again but we're keeping her going because we really need the money. She tried to help me with some uni work when I injured by back and she couldn't do any typing or writing or anything for more than half a day without having to take two days off and ask my brother and dad to help me instead (when they were back from college and work, respectively).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    My mum dropped her second level appeal because on her medical examination the doctor asked her a bunch of questions about her daily life and then lied about the answers in her report, and failed to report 4 out of 5 of the conditions she suffers with. This report was then used to deny her reapplication for DLA after the CAB and job centre told her she wouldn't be eligible for JSA, despite her condition worsening due to the stress.
    Now, she wants to drop the appeal again because she's really upset by the whole process and doesn't want to go through it again but we're keeping her going because we really need the money. She tried to help me with some uni work when I injured by back and she couldn't do any typing or writing or anything for more than half a day without having to take two days off and ask my brother and dad to help me instead (when they were back from college and work, respectively).
    From what I've heard from relatives in similar situations to you, I'd agree. I think that these tests are right and that they need to take place, but the way they are being carried out seems to be very poor.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpiggyTopes)
    From what I've heard from relatives in similar situations to you, I'd agree. I think that these tests are right and that they need to take place, but the way they are being carried out seems to be very poor.
    I do agree that people need medically assessing. I'll use my mum as an example. Say her rheumatoid factor numbers go down, this might be a case for reassessing to see if her condition has gotten better and she needs less money. Or if her numbers go up, then she might need reassessing to see if her money needs to go up. The same for her anti-CCP, her blood sugar, any differences in her endoscopy.
    But these assessments should not be performed by someone who will get a bonus for saying more people are fine. It should be objective. This shouldn't have been given to a private company, the money should have gone into hiring NHS doctors who aren't familiar with the patient to do it. Hospital doctors for example could do the assessments on days they have no appointments as an extra bit of income as an incentive for properly trained medical staff to do it, but they have no incentive to say people are okay if they're not! Or if you want to offer a bonus incentive it should be they have to have below a certain percentage of successful appeals in a certain time period! And ATOS wouldn't have got any bonuses then.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by SpiggyTopes)
    From what I've heard from relatives in similar situations to you, I'd agree. I think that these tests are right and that they need to take place, but the way they are being carried out seems to be very poor.
    I don't think anyone objects to the assessments; but it's the way they're carried out. I know people who have requested a recorded assessment and the equipment has been broken.:rolleyes:

    And then there's the fact that you have people with a diagnosis of x, which means they should be assessed by someone with experience of working with people (including nurses, psychiatrists, etc) who have that diagnosis and they end up with a midwife. Nothing against midwives; but can't see how they're qualified to assess people with certain medical conditions.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    I do agree that people need medically assessing. I'll use my mum as an example. Say her rheumatoid factor numbers go down, this might be a case for reassessing to see if her condition has gotten better and she needs less money. Or if her numbers go up, then she might need reassessing to see if her money needs to go up. The same for her anti-CCP, her blood sugar, any differences in her endoscopy.
    But these assessments should not be performed by someone who will get a bonus for saying more people are fine. It should be objective. This shouldn't have been given to a private company, the money should have gone into hiring NHS doctors who aren't familiar with the patient to do it. Hospital doctors for example could do the assessments on days they have no appointments as an extra bit of income as an incentive for properly trained medical staff to do it, but they have no incentive to say people are okay if they're not! Or if you want to offer a bonus incentive it should be they have to have below a certain percentage of successful appeals in a certain time period! And ATOS wouldn't have got any bonuses then.
    Would there not be a possibility that this would encourage doctors to allow every claim, because then they would have no successful appeals?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpiggyTopes)
    Would there not be a possibility that this would encourage doctors to allow every claim, because then they would have no successful appeals?
    That's a good point, which is why I think that it should be done by doctors for extra cash just for doing it, with no bonuses. I was just trying to suggest something else as well...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    That's a good point, which is why I think that it should be done by doctors for extra cash just for doing it, with no bonuses. I was just trying to suggest something else as well...
    I agree, as soon as you put a bonus incentive anywhere there's always going to be somebody who'll take advantage of it.

    I've just noticed your location- were you Milti-21ed too!?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by British199)
    Yes some of them were fraudulent, but the company ATOS (who does the medical assessment is f**ked up), they are forced to meet targets by the gov there for people in need are paying the price.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-19433535


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/oct/03/work-woman-care


    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/he...nd-fit-1565456

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19844675

    http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/1...hris-grayling/
    I'll take your point. But there's alos many, many more who aren't paying the price. They're merely getting back to work after being found capable of working.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I'll take your point. But there's alos many, many more who aren't paying the price. They're merely getting back to work after being found capable of working.
    Only because they have no choice.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    While I would like to believe that there is a rampant 'something for nothing' culture that is being tackled, I am unable to trust the statistics that government departments give anymore, as evidence such as the presence of jobcentre sanction targets (see video below) seems to suggest that circumstances are being forcibly manipulated to create an exaggerated impression of said culture.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/v...-stopped-video
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpiggyTopes)
    Nearly 900,000 people who were on incapacity benefit dropped their claim to the payments rather than undergo a tough medical test. What does this tell us? Were 900000 people fraudulently claiming the benefits, since they're not confident they'll pass the test? Are 900000 people who rightly deserve the benefit intimidated by it and too frightened/anxious to take it?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-of-tests.html

    Are Labour to blame for this? I think so- Labour had a general attitude during their last government that the way to win elections was to buy votes by increasing benefits for virtually everybody, and paying for it through borrowing and by taxing the very same people more. It seems to me that sickness benefit, for these 900000 people at least, was another slice of that political cake.

    This benefit should be there for those who need it and nobody else. That way there is more to go around for those who really do need it.
    That's what I call a result! Honest working taxpayers are tired of being swindled.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Nothing but distorted figures, demonisation, lies and dived and rule *******s. You've been conned.

    Imagine we were talking about death rates in a particular city. It’s a huge city, so every month 10,000 people or so die of various causes. Then the government opens a new hospital. A year later, someone looks at these figures and uses the total of people who had died since the hospital opened to support a headline:

    New hospital kills 120,000 people!

    It would only take a look at the data to see that the death rate was the same as usual, and that the headline was nonsense – but a lot of people wouldn’t know where to look, or want to bother to look, and so might be fooled. You might have mobs attacking the hospital to burn this ‘deadly edifice’ down – all because of the cynical, knowing abuse of information.
    Name:  ib-esa.jpg
Views: 47
Size:  36.6 KB

    http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/20...han-it-looked/
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 3, 2013
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.