Anyone else worried about the ESA time limit changes?

heater

WRITE TO YOUR MP TODAY – and get him/her to sign this Early Day Motion
Early day motion 1791
» Session: 2010-11
» Date tabled: 11.05.2011
» Primary sponsor: Sarwar, Anas
» Sponsors:
» Durkan, Mark
» Russell, Bob
That this House believes that it is the sign of a responsible society that it supports disabled people to lead an independent and fulfilling life; further believes that, while reform is needed, the Government’s current plans are causing unnecessary uncertainty and creating risks for disabled people up and down the country; further believes that the Government has failed to appreciate the cumulative impact of the changes it is proposing; further believes that ill-thought through reform of disability benefits could push thousands of disabled people into poverty; considers it irresponsible to time limit to one year the payment of contributory employment and support allowance which will affect people suffering from cancer and fluctuating conditions; calls on the Government to abandon plans to remove the mobility component of disability living allowance from 80,000 people in residential care homes; further calls on the Government to retain automatic entitlement for people who have severe impairments, meaning that blind people, the mentally impaired and double amputees will not have to face the distress of applying for support that they genuinely need; expresses serious concern that 100,000 families with disabled children will see their support halved as a result of the decision to replace the disability element of child tax credit; and further believes that disabled people should have to wait only three months rather than six months before they can apply for the new personal independence payment.
Please ask your MP to sign this EDM

Cpt.Scarlet

signis wrote: »

Why?

If someone is that disabled or ill they would be in the Support Group anyhow in which case the time limit will not apply.

Surely the Work Group is there to get people who are not that ill or disabled and being totally unfit for work, back into employment or actively looking for work. Then 12 months should be long enough to do this.

Or are you saying that there are some in the Work Group who should really be in the Support Group? If so, there is a system in place and it is called 'an appeal'!

Sorry, but there are far too many so called 'self diagnosed' who think they are unfit for work but are in the Work Group. I say, take control of your life and start now looking for a job!

You clearly don't understand how the system works, there are plenty of people in the Work Group, who have degenerative illnesses, who will never be capable of work and yet do not qualify for the Support group, maybe at some time in the future their conditions will become so bad that they will be eligible, but in may cases, they will have already lost entitlement for ESA by then and will be unable to re-claim because of their NI history. The Goverments own figures suggest that as many as 40% of Work Group members will lose their benefit as a result of the time limit.

heater

signis wrote: »

Why?

If someone is that disabled or ill they would be in the Support Group anyhow in which case the time limit will not apply.

Surely the Work Group is there to get people who are not that ill or disabled and being totally unfit for work, back into employment or actively looking for work. Then 12 months should be long enough to do this.

Or are you saying that there are some in the Work Group who should really be in the Support Group? If so, there is a system in place and it is called 'an appeal'!

Sorry, but there are far too many so called 'self diagnosed' who think they are unfit for work but are in the Work Group. I say, take control of your life and start now looking for a job!

Hello Signis

You must be very naive if you suppose that all people too disabled to work are going into the Support Group. Also, there are people with fluctuating conditions such as mental illness who could perhaps work a few hours one day but not guarantee that they will be able to turn up the next. How long do you think an employer will put up with this?

And for those who may one day be able to go back to work, who are you to say that one year will be sufficient time? Do you think that all disabled people feel able enough to appeal? Disability benefits are not as easy to obtain as you have obviously been lead to believe and even filling in a form can be a very stressful ordeal for some.

I don't know where you get the impression that "self-diagnosed" people would ever be in line to receive disability benefits anyway. In my experience, the authorities don't like to take as gospel what the claimant writes and says and prefers instead to take notice of what the medics and other professionals think about the claimant.

Contributory ESA is awarded to those who have worked and paid into the system, people who thought they would be protected in case of sickness. I think it's only fair that they get more than someone who has not worked and paid into the system. You, yourself, might become disabled one day. How would you feel if you didn't think that you would ever be able to return to work and would lose everything you had ever worked to achieve or had to rely on a partner to provide for you for the rest of your or their life? People always think that it will never happen to them.

heater

signis wrote: »

Why?

If someone is that disabled or ill they would be in the Support Group anyhow in which case the time limit will not apply.

Surely the Work Group is there to get people who are not that ill or disabled and being totally unfit for work, back into employment or actively looking for work. Then 12 months should be long enough to do this.

Or are you saying that there are some in the Work Group who should really be in the Support Group? If so, there is a system in place and it is called 'an appeal'!

Sorry, but there are far too many so called 'self diagnosed' who think they are unfit for work but are in the Work Group. I say, take control of your life and start now looking for a job!

Signis, in answer to your question "Why?"

First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me. Martin Niemoeller

rogerblack

signis wrote: »

As far as I know there are three options. (1) FIT FOR WORK, (2) UNFIT AT THE MOMENT BUT LIKELY TO BE FIT IN THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE AND (3) UNFIT NOW AND UNLIKELY TO BE FIT FOR WORK.

What is it that I don't understand?

That people are not always placed in the appropriate categories.

Also - that these category names are rather misleading.
It's not 'Fit for work' - but 'Scored under 15 points on the limited capability for work. test'
Similarly - it's not 'Unfit at the moment...' - it's scored >15 points, but not met any of the criteria for the Limited Capacity for Work Related Acctivity.

For example. (*)
Someone who cannot speak due to for example having a congenital abnormality that has no prospect of a cure.
They will get 15 points on the limited capability for work test.
This will entitle them to being in the 'work related activity' group, and as they will not pass the criteria for being in the support group - unable to communicate in any other way.

They are never going to 'get better' - and magically gain a tongue.
However - after 12 months on contributory ESA, they will no longer be entitled to it.

*(I happen to have to hand a copy of the pre-march tests - this may not quite apply now)

Now, you may argue that someone able to talk Is in fact capable for work - and I'd agree that in some cases they are.

But in that case - why should they get benefit at all?

The benefits system is very inflexible.
Making it work well is hard.

Cpt.Scarlet

signis wrote: »

As far as I know there are three options. (1) FIT FOR WORK, (2) UNFIT AT THE MOMENT BUT LIKELY TO BE FIT IN THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE AND (3) UNFIT NOW AND UNLIKELY TO BE FIT FOR WORK.

What is it that I don't understand?

Actually it's (1) Fit for Work, (2), Unfit for Work but able to carry out work related activity, and (3) Unfit for Work and unable to carry out work related activity.

So, no. you don't understand.

There are people in the Support group who will recover and return to work, there are people in the Work Group who will deteriorate and never be able to work. Except that those in ESA(CB), in the Work Group will lose there benefit after a year, whether they are better or not and irrelevant of whether they are able to work.

AWindsor_2

signis wrote: »

Why?

If someone is that disabled or ill they would be in the Support Group anyhow in which case the time limit will not apply.

Surely the Work Group is there to get people who are not that ill or disabled and being totally unfit for work, back into employment or actively looking for work. Then 12 months should be long enough to do this.

Or are you saying that there are some in the Work Group who should really be in the Support Group? If so, there is a system in place and it is called 'an appeal'!

Sorry, but there are far too many so called 'self diagnosed' who think they are unfit for work but are in the Work Group. I say, take control of your life and start now looking for a job!

To answer your comment;
Firstly of course there are limits to support the governement can offer but this is my situation
1.Taught as a Primary School teacher for 10 yrs. (£32,000 a year)
2. Got pneumonia and didnt recover
3. Specialist Diagnosis of severe ME/CFS
4. I'm housebound, if I leave home I collaspe, I can't even shave myself, or walk! My wife had to cut back her hours to look after me.
5. Placed in Work Related group HOWEVER I was excused from attending the work related interviews due to the health risk.
6. I was placed in work related group supposedly because ME duration is around 3-8 years not permanant.

It could happen to you! I was very healthly, very hard working, very committed to my role in providing a better future for kids and our nation. Should the government help me? You're entitled to say no but we are not all work shy lazy people living in luxury houses expecting the tax payer to pay everthing.

Cpt.Scarlet

signis wrote: »

I was simplifying them for ease of being able to understand them more clearly.

There will always be a case for losers and winners in any insurance backed benefit system.

I don't see any winners, just 100,000s of losers, oh and good luck with the PHI, there not measured by how much much you will get when ill or disabled, but by the number of exemptions that mean you don't get anything when you claim.

Cpt.Scarlet

For someone who has disabilities themselve, I find it surprising that you have such as dislike for anybody else who is in a similar position.

To answer your question, I believe that those capable of working should do so, subject, of course to there actually being a job that they can do and an employer who will employ them.

Perhaps you would care to answer my question now, how is it fair, that those who are currently unable to work due their disability should lose their benefits, not because they are now fit, but because they have been receiving ESA(CB) for a year? Why should they not continue to receive this benefit if the DWP determine them to be too unwell to work?

pinklady21

Sorry everyone - but I suspect we may be dealing with yet another sad troll.
Signis, you are of course entitled to express an opinion.
However I find your assertion that you are claiming PHI rather questionable.
If you are a genuine PHI claimant you will be doubt be aware that these policies automatically deduct at source an amount for IB/ESA.
The 75% pre illness salary figure that you quote is not paid by the insurer.
Also, you would be aware that PHI is NEVER paid on the basis of a GP report alone - certainly not for more than two years.
PHI companies are not charities and will do ANYTHING to avoid paying out.

If you wish to comment on the proposed time limiting of contributory ESA then that is the point of this thread - to continue to make offensive comments about claimants who are among the most vulnerable in our society is simply not acceptable.
Either make a positive contribution to the debate or go away.