Thousands will lose benefits as harsher medical approved

jimbms

I have to say that in reading about this bill all I can see is the genuine disabled will be the ones who suffer and all due to the minority who abuse the system. In my opinion DLA should be done as it is here In the IoM where every claimant has a medical examination by an independant doctor (This is free BTW), this has not only served to prevent the false claiments but in many cases people have found their DLA has increased due to things being included they never even thought about. Sme may say a medical for all is unfair but what it has shown is that very few claims fail and the odd few that do most get accepted on appeal and the minority who try to do false claims have been discouraged due to the compuulsary medical.

Indie_Kid

jimbms wrote: »

I have to say that in reading about this bill all I can see is the genuine disabled will be the ones who suffer and all due to the minority who abuse the system. In my opinion DLA should be done as it is here In the IoM where every claimant has a medical examination by an independant doctor (This is free BTW), this has not only served to prevent the false claiments but in many cases people have found their DLA has increased due to things being included they never even thought about. Sme may say a medical for all is unfair but what it has shown is that very few claims fail and the odd few that do most get accepted on appeal and the minority who try to do false claims have been discouraged due to the compuulsary medical.

I quite like this idea. At least this way, those of us who put in claims, won't get told things like "there's nothing wrong with you" or "you have had this since you were born; you should've adapted by now" - I was told this and haven't had any of my problems since birth. (records go back to aged 5 months)

Oldernotwiser

jimbms wrote: »

I have to say that in reading about this bill all I can see is the genuine disabled will be the ones who suffer and all due to the minority who abuse the system. In my opinion DLA should be done as it is here In the IoM where every claimant has a medical examination by an independant doctor (This is free BTW), this has not only served to prevent the false claiments but in many cases people have found their DLA has increased due to things being included they never even thought about. Sme may say a medical for all is unfair but what it has shown is that very few claims fail and the odd few that do most get accepted on appeal and the minority who try to do false claims have been discouraged due to the compuulsary medical.

I don't see how a medical will weed out people who are falsely claiming hidden disabilities like depression and bad backs.

[Deleted User]

jimbms wrote: »

I have to say that in reading about this bill all I can see is the genuine disabled will be the ones who suffer and all due to the minority who abuse the system. In my opinion DLA should be done as it is here In the IoM where every claimant has a medical examination by an independant doctor (This is free BTW), this has not only served to prevent the false claiments but in many cases people have found their DLA has increased due to things being included they never even thought about. Sme may say a medical for all is unfair but what it has shown is that very few claims fail and the odd few that do most get accepted on appeal and the minority who try to do false claims have been discouraged due to the compuulsary medical.

there are probably what 200 dla claimants on the IOM at anyone time,quite easy therefore to do medicals for all,far different here where there are 2 million claiming.

jimbms

woodbine wrote: »

there are probably what 200 dla claimants on the IOM at anyone time,quite easy therefore to do medicals for all,far different here where there are 2 million claiming.

Try 2000 and to manage claims each one has to see one of 3 doctors every 3 or 6 years and 3 members of DHSS staff handle claims, no proportionaly increase that for 2 million and I would say It comes to about the same proportion of admin to claimants if not less plus the added fact in the uk they use 0845 or 0870 numbers both of which generate and income and you have to pay some medicals I would say the cost would be less if used.

cit_k

Have a read of my post elsewhere which is relavent to the new descriptors (all part of welfare reform goal of increasing the number on JSA by decreasing the number on IB/ESA)

It sheds rather a lot of light on why they did this, and why they should also NOT be doing this, in fact they should be ripping up the welfare reform post haste...