New attacks on I.B claimants

Indie_Kid

krisskross wrote: »

I understand that this commonly held view is incorrect.

I've heard this claim numerous times and have never read anything to back it up. As far as I'm concerned, it's incorrect too.

seven-day-weekend

TBH, and without meaning to upset anyone, I don't understand the problem people have with the medicals.

Surely you can't expect the Government to keep paying out without ever checking that people still fulfil the criteria? Conitions do change and improve and even those that don't can often be more easily managed, or a new drug or operation will be used that wasn't available previously. After all they could be paying out to some people for a lifetime! 60, 70, even more years!

I appreciate that there are certain conditions that are lifelong, will never improve or be copable-with or treatable etc, but these are surely in a minority and everyone else should be checked periodically.

I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory of bonuses for signing people as fit to work. I honestly believe that the vast majority of people have a fair medical.

Indie_Kid

But you can't prove half the issues people have which make them unfit for work.

When I had my DLA tribunal, I got asked how I got there and did I have any problems finding the court? (because I said that I need supervision in unfamiliar places, for varus reasons) I explained that I did and the difficulties I had that day. But how do they really know I had those difficulties? I have no proof that I had any problems and they can't disprove that I had no problems.

Prinzessilein

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

TBH, and without meaning to upset anyone, I don't understand the problem people have with the medicals.

I have no problem whatsoever with having a medical. I am quite happy to have one every year - if the government wishes.

However, i object to the current system in which non-medical people can overrule my GP and my specialist. If I am to have a medical, I would like to see a specialist in my condition. How else can they make a fair and informed decision?


As to my earlier remark about ATOS employees receiving a bonus ....this information was given to me by someone who worked for ATOS. She told me a little about the computer program they use, how inefficient it is - leaving no scope for answers that didn't fit the given choices. She also told me that there is a bonus paid for signing someone as fit for work. She actually had a quota of 'fit for work' that she was required to meet each month.
I accept that I am taking one person's statement about the company - but she is someone I have every reason to trust.

krisskross

sh1305 wrote: »

But you can't prove half the issues people have which make them unfit for work.

When I had my DLA tribunal, I got asked how I got there and did I have any problems finding the court? (because I said that I need supervision in unfamiliar places, for varus reasons) I explained that I did and the difficulties I had that day. s.

Why would this make you unfit for work? Once you have been a couple of times it is no longer an unfamiliar place.

krisskross

Prinzessilein wrote: »

However, i object to the current system in which non-medical people can overrule my GP and my specialist. If I am to have a medical, I would like to see a specialist in my condition. How else can they make a fair and informed decision?

I honestly thought that the Atos people carrying out the medicals were medical professionals. And what if you were saying you had 3 different conditions, would you expect to be seen by 3 specialists? What if one said you couldn't work and 2 said you could?

Indie_Kid

krisskross wrote: »

I honestly thought that the Atos people carrying out the medicals were medical professionals. And what if you were saying you had 3 different conditions, would you expect to be seen by 3 specialists? What if one said you couldn't work and 2 said you could?

From what I understand, nurses do carry out the medicals; but they're not always qualified in specific conditions or types of conditions.

Aputsiaq

krisskross wrote: »

LOL.

MSE is a hypochondriacs dream site. Not only will it tell you all the signs and symptoms of almost everything it will also tell you how best to fill in the DLA claim forms to capitalise on it.

Absolutely 100% agree!

WhiteHorse

krisskross wrote:

If the government only cared about money and not about supporting people in need then I doubt the Welfare State would be paying out more to benefit claimants than is received in Income Tax revenues

The government only cares about VOTES and calculates everything accordingly.

Aputsiaq

specialist doctors couldnt possibly carry out this work. They are already doing more than they can cope with for the NHS and the government would go bankrupt paying for their services.
Like the poster above says (krisskross), if you have several illnesses, which consultant/specialist do you see? What if they say you are fit for work? Would everyone demand a right to see a different one? And a different one? What if two doctors have two differing opinions, whos is right? Whos do they use?
What if one consultant has differing views than another? My doctor has a rather refreshing attitude to depression but not many DLA claimants would like him to fill the forms.

Even if the govenrment DO use consultants/specialists...they will still be issued with targets and instructions. How do you all think so many have ended up claiming illness/disability benefits in the first place? (clue: targets. unemployment figures. down by over a million)
Now those targets have to change....because they have realised their cockup.
Anyone who is claiming DLA for depression or fairly mild to medium AS disorders need worry because the benefit will be tightened up, along with the criteria for claims.
They messed up big time and they have to get that money back somehow.