Calling all ESA Appeals Experts! Failed medical

alwaysonthego_2

healy wrote: »

I think you intended to say syndrome!

Na na na na!

I was just testing your eye sight, obviously it is up to speck!

Garry_Anderson

Garry wrote:

Yep - you wrote, "Contracts are usually given to the cheapest bidder, nothing to do with targets" - and you are clearly wrong.

Quote; "In awarding contracts, there are two options: lowest price or the most economically advantageous tender. The latter is equivalent to the Government’s value for money objective and should be the option chosen."

So - contracts ARE NOT awarded to the "cheapest bidder" - but those giving value for money are chosen i.e. those firms that help reach economical objectives e.g. reaching target cuts.

healy wrote: »

I am not wrong and you repeating things will not change that.

Contracts are awarded to the cheepest bidder, ask anyone who works for the Civil Service.

The quote you have given mentions nothing about cutting benefits therefore as ever you have no proof.

Quote: There is a common misconception that 'value for money' equates to 'the cheapest'.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/contracts/

Clearly - you do not understand that departments now use "the Government’s value for money objective" and do not go for "cheepest" - nor that value for money means that they look for firms that help reach economical objectives e.g. making target cuts.

nogginthenog

NASA wrote: »

Such groups/organisations/individuals usually have a vested interest so their 'findings' should not be accepted as fact either.

Surley the only vested intrest they and we all have is to see that everbody plays by the rules! and that the right outcome prevails.

healy

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

Quote: There is a common misconception that 'value for money' equates to 'the cheapest'.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/contracts/

Clearly - you do not understand that departments now use "the Government’s value for money objective" and do not go for "cheepest" - nor that value for money means that they look for firms that help reach economical objectives e.g. making target cuts.

I do not understand why you keep quoting the same things it will not make your posts correct.

You are still wrong, as you have not provided any evidence or proof that ATOS are failing claimants due to targets they are set by the DWP.

Garry_Anderson

healy wrote: »

I do not understand why you keep quoting the same things it will not make your posts correct.

You are still wrong, as you have not provided any evidence or proof that ATOS are failing claimants due to targets they are set by the DWP.

Duh - I am correct and have proved you are wrong about gov departments going for "cheepest" contract - when that is not the guidelines.

Value for money objectives would include help in reaching economical objectives e.g. reaching targets to make cost savings in benefits.

Do you deny they want to cut one million claimants?

Quote: 11. July 2006 - The government target of a one million reduction in the number of people on Incapacity Benefit (IB) within 10 years may be far too ambitious, according to an independent report.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/07/11/18814.aspx

healy

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

Duh - I am correct and have proved you are wrong about gov departments going for "cheepest" contract - when that is not the guidelines.

Value for money objectives would include help in reaching economical objectives e.g. reaching targets to make cost savings in benefits.

Do you deny they want to cut one million claimants?

Quote: 11. July 2006 - The government target of a one million reduction in the number of people on Incapacity Benefit (IB) within 10 years may be far too ambitious, according to an independent report.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/07/11/18814.aspx

You are not correct and all you are doing is repeating the same thing.

You have no proof that there are targets to fail benefit claimants. Give us some figures, give us some evidence.

You have already posted that link numerous times, I have read the article and there is no mention of targets given to ATOS.

The Doctors/Nurses do not get paid for failing people, they get a flat rate fee per medical whether the claimant passes or fails.

alwaysonthego_2

healy wrote: »

You are not correct and all you are doing is repeating the same thing.

You have no proof that there are targets to fail benefit claimants. Give us some figures, give us some evidence.

You have already posted that link numerous times, I have read the article and there is no mention of targets given to ATOS.

The Doctors/Nurses do not get paid for failing people, they get a flat rate fee per medical whether the claimant passes or fails.

I think a song is called for;

'I'm so dizzy my head is spinning, like a whirlpool ....'

healy

alwaysonthego wrote: »

I think a song is called for;

'I'm so dizzy my head is spinning, like a whirlpool ....'

.....it never ends.

Good choice!

NASA_2

nogginthenog wrote: »

Surley the only vested intrest they and we all have is to see that everbody plays by the rules! and that the right outcome prevails.

Self preservation?

Garry_Anderson

"I have read the article and there is no mention of targets given to ATOS."

Err.. Heals, how do you think the target of one million people are going to be cut from benefits - perhaps DWP are hoping ATOS are 'subconsciously influenced' by this

You have not explained, why exactly are DWP economical objectives ignored when finding the best 'value for money'.