MSE News: Half a million could lose disability benefits

Ellejmorgan

sunnyone wrote: »

She has answered that one before, the single parents benefits are less that the sickness, quite a bit less in fact so she claims ESA instead.

I was on income support but I was getting sent for interviews with a lone parent advisor, this was in 2009 and my youngest was only 3..The rules then were I wasn't forced to work unless my child was 10..
I objected to the interviews with the advisor as I was going through surgeries that year and got told claim ESA then..

That's what annoys me I'm happy to do my bit, but me working isn't an option and having the baby isn't taken into account if i'm sick yet she is if i'm on IS...

krisskross

Ellejmorgan wrote: »

I was on income support but I was getting sent for interviews with a lone parent advisor, this was in 2009 and my youngest was only 3..The rules then were I wasn't forced to work unless my child was 10..
I objected to the interviews with the advisor as I was going through surgeries that year and got told claim ESA then..

That's what annoys me I'm happy to do my bit, but me working isn't an option and having the baby isn't taken into account if i'm sick yet she is if i'm on IS...

so were the lone parent interviews more arduous and further away than the ESA reviews?

Why have another child if you are disabled and already on benefits? Seems to make your life even more complicated.

Ellejmorgan

krisskross wrote: »

so were the lone parent interviews more arduous and further away than the ESA reviews?

Why have another child if you are disabled and already on benefits? Seems to make your life even more complicated.

Don't go there please..

krisskross

Ellejmorgan wrote: »

Don't go there please..

OK. add this as too few characters

Ellejmorgan

Soapn wrote: »

quite a bit less? oh right:cool:

I'm entitled to it so I claim it simple..

ineed

sangio wrote: »

But you have to admit that the system is achieving the desired result. I wonder what the total figure is so far of those that have been on IB, probably for years, and have been thrown off ESA as fit for work, even after failing at a Tribunal hearing?

Even better, how many in total since 2008 would have been granted IB under the old system but fail to qualify for ESA even after an appeal hearing also?

As the desired result is cost cutting then yes it has had good results. But has also resulted in some genuinely ill and vulnerable people becoming collateral damage. I agree when people say IB was an "easy" benefit; often people were left on it for twenty years without a reassessment and hardly any checks. I myself get IB and I have to phone them to give updates they never ask unlike DLA.

But ESA assessments go to far the other way; people are being given a very small time frame in which to answer questions and explain their condition and are often seen by totally unrelated specialists (a midwife seeing someone with MS, just to give an example) many many people have reported mis information on assessment forms as a result of this and even felt like they were reading someone else's report. Many do win on appeal but that in itself costs the tax payer. And then there have been suicide attempts because of the way ATOS treat people and how the assessments are conducted. You can read all about those via google if you so wish to.

IB was too flawed and ESA is to harsh, so why not simply use the DLA format with a few minor tweaks? A very long form going into every detail, send along all you medical reports, prescription lists etc, if you also need to have a assessment your seen by a panel of people, including specialists and GPs etc, your allowed to have someone with you also. Then reassess people every two or five years (unless claiming short term or under going treatments that may dramatically improve conditions, which you have to declare anyway) with a new form, asking new medical reports to be sent from your GP, hospital specialist etc. And if necessary another face to face with a panel. Have special rules still for the terminally ill, don't have indefinite awards. Just have some fairness to it.

I hope PIP isn't as horrific as things I've heard about ESA, otherwise the suicide and poverty rates will go up.

ineed

sangio wrote: »

PIP will be run on the same lines as ESA.

I hadn't heard that it would be defiantly the same. If that's the case then sadly I predict a lot of misery and many more protests and riots.

cit_k

sangio wrote: »

But you have to admit that the system is achieving the desired result. I wonder what the total figure is so far of those that have been on IB, probably for years, and have been thrown off ESA as fit for work, even after failing at a Tribunal hearing?

Even better, how many in total since 2008 would have been granted IB under the old system but fail to qualify for ESA even after an appeal hearing also?

The desired result was to kick one million people of benefits by moving the goal posts.

So far, it has led to suicides, increased appeal costs, massive back logs, and widespread condemnation from virtually every source outside of the DWP / ATOS/Government.

Why would you want to compare figures from IB with ESA, they are two completely different benefits with two completely different eligiblity criteria?

cit_k

ineed wrote: »

As the desired result is cost cutting then yes it has had good results. But has also resulted in some genuinely ill and vulnerable people becoming collateral damage. I agree when people say IB was an "easy" benefit; often people were left on it for twenty years without a reassessment and hardly any checks. I myself get IB and I have to phone them to give updates they never ask unlike DLA.

But ESA assessments go to far the other way; people are being given a very small time frame in which to answer questions and explain their condition and are often seen by totally unrelated specialists (a midwife seeing someone with MS, just to give an example) many many people have reported mis information on assessment forms as a result of this and even felt like they were reading someone else's report. Many do win on appeal but that in itself costs the tax payer. And then there have been suicide attempts because of the way ATOS treat people and how the assessments are conducted. You can read all about those via google if you so wish to.

IB was too flawed and ESA is to harsh, so why not simply use the DLA format with a few minor tweaks? A very long form going into every detail, send along all you medical reports, prescription lists etc, if you also need to have a assessment your seen by a panel of people, including specialists and GPs etc, your allowed to have someone with you also. Then reassess people every two or five years (unless claiming short term or under going treatments that may dramatically improve conditions, which you have to declare anyway) with a new form, asking new medical reports to be sent from your GP, hospital specialist etc. And if necessary another face to face with a panel. Have special rules still for the terminally ill, don't have indefinite awards. Just have some fairness to it.

I hope PIP isn't as horrific as things I've heard about ESA, otherwise the suicide and poverty rates will go up.

IB has not been around 20 years, so no one could have been on it 20 years without reassassments/hardly any checks.

All people on IB are reassessed - they have to be by law, at least every few years, for some they do not know they are being assessed as it is done behind the scenes with medical professionals.

So no one is left unchecked for many years.

IB's PCA (assessment) was regarded by the SSAC as one of the toughest in the world, and IB also had many people appealing, with a high overturn rate at appeal.

ESA is just IB - retuned so one million more people will fail it and be kicked of IB.

anguk

sangio wrote: »

My mum was diagnosed with breast cancer in Jan 2002. Had left breast off. She had chemo, radiation - the lot. November 02 she was told it had spread to her liver. She died in May 03.

No one ever mentioned about any benefits she could have had. It would have just helped a little. They could just afford the daily bus fare to the hospital for her treatment. She travelled in all weathers.

She would never have claimed anyhow being too proud to accept a welfare hand out.

Sometimes though you have to swallow your pride otherwise you couldn't eat, clothe yourself or have a roof over your head. I'm a proud person and hate relying on hand-outs but unfortunately that's what we have to do and I'm extremely thankful that we do have a welfare state and the NHS even with all their flaws.