Thousands will lose benefits as harsher medical approved

nogginthenog

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

When have I ever said that?

You may see all this talk of Nazi Germany as a metaphor but I don't think that this is the way many people mean it. I also think that there may be some very frightened and upset people reading this thread who see the comments as literally true.

Please give people credit.
So you do support FOI pertaining to LIMA and voice recording at the medical or alternatively having the right to check the computor input at first encounter.
maybe also the right to cross examine the atos doctor, or the right to claim costs.
And of course you never diss'ed or argued with people who have in the past posted about said freedoms and rights and hopes with a view to change.
This is so refreshing.

cit_k

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Why is is "ableism" to expect claimants to fill in forms to claim benefits - should money just be handed out on a person's word?

Its odd they wont take the word of a doctor + the claimaint, but they will hand out more money per month to MP's for food without any receipts, just on their word.

Oldernotwiser

cit_k wrote: »

Its odd they wont take the word of a doctor + the claimaint, but they will hand out more money per month to MP's for food without any receipts, just on their word.

Oh for pity's sake leave the MPs and the bankers out of it; those are completely separate issues!

Oldernotwiser

nogginthenog wrote: »

Please give people credit.
So you do support FOI pertaining to LIMA and voice recording at the medical or alternatively having the right to check the computor input at first encounter.
maybe also the right to cross examine the atos doctor, or the right to claim costs.
And of course you never diss'ed or argued with people who have in the past posted about said freedoms and rights and hopes with a view to change.
This is so refreshing.

Because I disagree with you and many of your ideas, it doesn't mean that I am against fairness and freedom! There are other issues at stake here as well as those that obsess you and, for me, they are often more important.

cit_k

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Because I disagree with you and many of your ideas, it doesn't mean that I am against fairness and freedom! There are other issues at stake here as well as those that obsess you and, for me, they are often more important.

What is more important than the right to a honest, fair open system?

cit_k

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Oh for pity's sake leave the MPs and the bankers out of it; those are completely separate issues!

They are not seperate issues, who do you think votes in benefit changes?

Honesty cannot be automaticaly expected for those setting the rules, not when those people set rules that imply that all claimaints are dishonest and have to prove innocence.

It should be the same system for both sets.

The fact it is not, and the cover up over expenses, shows the level of morality of the people behind the current system.

seven-day-weekend

nogginthenog wrote: »

Please give people credit.
So you do support FOI pertaining to LIMA and voice recording at the medical or alternatively having the right to check the computor input at first encounter.
maybe also the right to cross examine the atos doctor, or the right to claim costs.
And of course you never diss'ed or argued with people who have in the past posted about said freedoms and rights and hopes with a view to change.
This is so refreshing.

No, actually, I DON't support voice recording at the medical.

a) it is not necessary, no-one is out to get you.
b) people can make geniuine mistakes. How would you like your mistakes to come up and smack you in the face, or worse still, be held up against you in a court of law. The appeals system is there for sorting out errors or wrong decisions.

Nor should you be able to cross-examine the DR. He/She is not in court. He/She is doing a job like anyone else and should be able to get on and do it. You don't cross-examine your accountant, or your plumber, about how they do their job or think you know better than them, you just trust they are qualified and know how to do it correctly.

Oldernotwiser

cit_k wrote: »

imply that all claimaints are dishonest and have to prove innocence.

.

All claimants should have to prove that they qualify for the benefits that they're claiming. That is not the same thing as proving that they're innocent!

Noggin's post states that the examiners should provethat they're innocent (cross examining the doctor - how ridiculous!) which is even more @rse upwards!

seven-day-weekend

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

All claimants should have to prove that they qualify for the benefits that they're claiming. That is not the same thing as proving that they're innocent!

Noggin's post states that the examiners should provethat they're innocent (cross examining the doctor - how ridiculous!) which is even more @rse upwards!

And this is the heart of the issue, ONW - some people seem to think it is a great intrusion/hardship/torture to have to do this.

I'm not saying mistakes are never made, nor that the medicals can not be stressful, but no system is perfect and there is always the right of appeal.

As for the conspiracy theorists, well most conspiraciy theories have no substance, why should this one be any different?

cit_k

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

No, actually, I DON't support voice recording at the medical.

a) it is not necessary, no-one is out to get you.

The facts would show that for many, that is not true.

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

b) people can make geniuine mistakes. How would you like your mistakes to come up and smack you in the face, or worse still, be held up against you in a court of law. The appeals system is there for sorting out errors or wrong decisions.

People can make genuine mistakes, however, outright LIES are not a genuine mistake, the occassional missing of a small bit of info maybe, but not stating the opposite of what is said, or altering completely what someone states, or even making things up completely, all commonly reported.

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Nor should you be able to cross-examine the DR. He/She is not in court. He/She is doing a job like anyone else and should be able to get on and do it. You don't cross-examine your accountant, or your plumber, about how they do their job or think you know better than them, you just trust they are qualified and know how to do it correctly.

Actually, if you are already in receipt of the sickness benefit then the assessor is obtaining evidence, for use in a trial, as once you are granted benefits the onus is on the secretary of state to prove you are no longer eligible for benefits.

In other words, they have to prove you are not eligble.

The evidence gathered by the assessor forms part of the evidence used by the decision maker on behalf of the secretary of state.

Just like any other trial you should have the right to cross examine.
Not only that, but if a plumber does a job, you wont pay him until you have inspected the work, if a accountant messed up your books last year, you would want to check his work the next year before submitting the books at the very least.

If you went to the doctor and each time you left he gave you medication for something completely unrelated to your problems, that never helped, you at the least would be questioning that doctor, and certainly double checking all his decisions, and making sure he understood what you had told him.

The doctors (often not even doctors, nurses or occupational therapists are used) which are sometiimes retired, and do not always have a licence to practice medicine (some have even had the licence revoked for some reason) are often reported to be unprofessional, and often reported to lie about, miscontrue, and invent claimaint testimony.

If you are arrested for a crime, the ONUS is on the police to prove your guilt.
As part of that process you are interviewed.

The interviews are RECORDED for everyones safety, no one has a problem with that.

If they take a witness statement, they ask you to READ IT and CONFIRM it is a accurate representation of what they told you. No one has a problem with that.