Thousands will lose benefits as harsher medical approved

seven-day-weekend

Kronkston wrote: »

I think the system they use is very unfair for example this woman as found unfit to work but not unfit enough to claim benefits.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/169556/Job-hunter-told-she-s-too-weak-to-work-but-too-healthy-to-claim-benefits

Actually, if you read it properly, she was found not capable of doing a particular job, but capable of doing other work, under two different assessments that were looking for different things.

Kronkston_2

What do you mean she was found not able to do a job and then they say she can't get benefits.
If you are not fully fit to do most jobs you should be able to get benefits.
Jaobs are hard enough to get for the fully fit, never mind those with problems.

Invasion

She was unfit to do a job. You are not entitled to incapacity benefit/ESA just because- for example- you have a bad back and can't do jobs involving heavy lifting. You are expected to find a job that you CAN do, if there is one. For many people who are suddenly unable to do their normal job, there are quite a few others that they can do.

seven-day-weekend

She was examined to assess her fitness for a particular physical job and was deemed not to be up to it.

This does not mean she is not fit to do other types of work, which is what the second medical was assessing.

Theefore she was turned down for Benefit as she is capable of working, albeit not in the job she got an interview for.

System

Kronkston wrote: »

What do you mean she was found not able to do a job and then they say she can't get benefits.
If you are not fully fit to do most jobs you should be able to get benefits.
Jaobs are hard enough to get for the fully fit, never mind those with problems.

On the old IB that would have been the case but with ESA they've changed the requirements

cit_k

Invasion wrote: »

However it gives you this information, but doesn't give you a simple step- such as a petition- to stop it from happening... I think there were better, less *throw-it-in-your-face-that-you're-going-to-be-forced-back-to work* ways of writing this information and B&W's concerns.

Petitions never do any good...

Kronkston wrote: »

I am very suspicious about the site, it does not seem to be a charity rather a profit making organisation.

They seem to be charging for everything I suspect their motive is money as much as anything else, I mean why are they not a charity?

Any information they have should be freely available as all the business done in government is usually freely available as far as I know.

It is a business, just like the DWP is a business.
There are few places where you can get all the information in a easy to find format, yes, most (not all) of the information is available elsewhere, but it would take forever to find it, and you probably never would, as you would not even know what to look for.

Kronkston wrote: »

Also they are a private company so you can't see the accounts, but either way I am uneasy about the morality of their organisation charging people form what is essentially public domain information.
Their prime interest seems to me to be to generate revenue, the more people they scare the mote who sign up, that's troubling me regarding how they operate.

Odd then that they give the main information away completely for free, and most of the site is available for free? They dont pressure anyone to join, and have to pay for the upkeep of the site. Professional hosting does not come cheap.
You cant run a site like that on a free hosting site. It costs serious money.
They could advertise, but that is not their business model, it keeps them independant.

They have obtained a lot of information from FOI requests, yes anyone can do that, but they did, and if they wish to charge, its a free country surely?

cit_k

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Absolutely Invasion. I know when my husband was at his worst, this type of thing would have really caused him a lot of stress.

I agree that these proposals should be brought to peoples' attention, but really should not be written in such tabloid newspaper terms.

Yet its fine to tear shreds out of genuine claimaints in the national press on a frequent basis?
At least this is telling it as it is, and not making up stories, what they say, is all in black and white.

It would be a worse threat to someones health if these proposals went through, yes its not nice to read what they are planning, but if someone knew the plans hitler had, would they have said, its not nice for the jews to read the plans for gas chambers?

No it would not be nice, but it would be very important the truth was published.

Because the reality is, more damage will be cause by not informing people, than by informing them.

cit_k

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

On the old IB that would have been the case but with ESA they've changed the requirements

Yes, if one medical clearly shows she has limited capability for work, then surely, according to all the press/media stories, ESA should be falling over itself to help out. Thats what its there for in the eyes of the media.

Obviously those familiar with the system know that is complete tripe, and that is not the case. But they cant have their cake and eat it, its either to help people like her, or its a scam.

cit_k

woodbine wrote: »

I got this in an email as well,and the important point to note is that these PROPOSALS,havent yet been passed into law,and considering we are in the middle of an election it will be some time before they are,if they ever are.
I used to be a member of b&w but i eventually realised that they often work to their own agenda,and often put a slant on announcements to encourage people to join and cough up 20 quid for help that is FREELY avaliable elsewhere,this looks very much one such example.

Proposals that have already been submitted to, and ACCEPTED by the secretary of state. This is more than just a think tank style idea, or vague election promise, its a highly detailed set of documents, detailing new descriptors.

Its only a matter of time before the wheels turn, and the software is updated to use these new descriptors, unless they are stopped first...

Question is how?

They dont listen.

They did not take into account tribunal data for the review.
They (ATOS) reviewed themselves - highly dubious, like asking a criminal to set their own sentence.
They (ATOS) have made up medical evidence completely.

cit_k

Kronkston wrote: »

A I understand it he test is being made easier, but I have to say the so called charities who helped bring in the first one have a great deal to answer for, the allowed the government to bring in disgusting rules which caused massive distress to millions and you have to wonder whose side they are on?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2010/mar/23/employment-support-allowance-incapacity-benefit

Have you actually read the full proposal documents and addendum?

Its not being made easier, far from it, its being made much, much harder.