MSE News: Half a million could lose disability benefits

dktreesea

guilds wrote: »

I never new we had so many Monday morning Dr/Consultants on the forum

The people who moan and seem to enjoy bashing the genuine people due to 0.5% fraud (and yes it not right) you need to turn your attention to the £5.2 billion pounds Tax evasion made by the rich.
My last tax bill was just over £43,000:eek: yes I am earning it to pay it, I play a straight game, and it sickens me the way the government deflect crap on to the working class, if I can pay my tax so should everyone else, also if we apply the benefit basher logic to taxpayers due to those who avoid paying tax, most taxpayers are fiddling the system.
A very small minority spoil it for the majority

I don't see how most taxpayers could be fiddling the system. Most of them would be on PAYE, working for someone else. The ability to fiddle the system is limited I would have thought.

Tax avoidance and tax evasion as surely two different things. If I were looking for tax evaders, Amazon and Starbucks would be at the top of my list, but even in their cases it's only tax avoidance, i.e. organising their affiars to not get affected by UK law, so in thier cases setting up in foreign climes and just trading here, rather than being UK based. That's surely the fault of the government, not of the corporations who take advantage of our laws.

Take somewhere like Australia in comparison. If you want to set up shop and trade in Australia you have to pay Australian income tax. And their laws against transfer pricing are well enforced. Companies caught transfer pricing as a way to lower their tax bill end up with millions od dollars in fines. I note that Amazon, because of that particular tax law, decided not to set up in Australia. There's nothing to stop the UK taxing UK based profits of all corporations trading on their soil. They just choose not to.

bestpud

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

Depression is not easy to fake. I certainly couldn't fool anyone into thinking I'm depressed when I'm not and those around me often know when I am depressed long before I would admit to it.

It wouldn't be that hard to do, especially for someone who has been depressed or knows someone who has.

The symptoms are online for all to see and they don't have to maintain the pretence day in day out.

Easier than faking a bad back, that's for sure.

In my opinion, faking back pain would be far easier for those who have actually suffered with it at some point, even if only for a short period, whereas depression is much easier to 'learn'.

I think most fraudsters will have had some experience of the disability they are claiming for - not many will simply pluck one out of thin air. They will almost certainly be familiar with the symptoms.

dktreesea

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

I wouldn't know, I've never suffered with a bad back. I have however suffered an extremely painful condition (now resolved thankfully) which required me to have MRIs, physio and opiate medication. I would imagine someone claiming to have a bad back would go through a similar process to receive a diagnosis.

I think what we are witnessing though, is a shift in attitude to "disability". I'm not even sure, in our brave new world of letting benefit recipients sink or swim, that what you had would be classified as being eligible for a disability payment, because the attitude might be "yes, you are sick, we recognise that, but you will recover in due time. That "just" an illness that one recovers from, like flu/pneumonia/meningitis/measles etc." At what point will one who is attempting to recover from any illness be adjudged disabled due to complications, or even just the length of time it takes to recover?

As to being depressed, yes, depression is debilitating, no doubt about it. But the attitude nowadays from the government, if ATOS actions are any indication is "so what, you're depressed. Millions of people work through their bouts of depression every day. You can do the same. Why should the taxpayer pay just because you suffer a debilitating condition?"

That's really the crux of it, isn't it. This government is of the opinion that the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay extra benefits just because the person claiming has some sort of impairment.

http://janeyoung.me.uk/2012/12/14/well-over-100000-to-lose-motability-vehicles-under-draconian-new-rules/
This article discusses the change to the disability assessment rules from being unable to walk 50 metres down to 20 metres. Yet the government claims, despite this, existing beneficiaries will get to keep their cars? Hah! So the government keeps insisting, but they also add "unless their circumstances change". My translation of that is, "unless the government move the goalposts and this time you don't make it across the line".

How far are we away from: "If you can walk, however much pain this results in, however slowly you walk, however many rests you need to take in between, whatever aids you need, like walking sticks or a walker, you are not disabled for the purposes of qualifying for extra benefits because you can still get around."

bestpud

guilds wrote: »

I never new we had so many Monday morning Dr/Consultants on the forum

The people who moan and seem to enjoy bashing the genuine people due to 0.5% fraud (and yes it not right) you need to turn your attention to the £5.2 billion pounds Tax evasion made by the rich.
My last tax bill was just over £43,000:eek: yes I am earning it to pay it, I play a straight game, and it sickens me the way the government deflect crap on to the working class, if I can pay my tax so should everyone else, also if we apply the benefit basher logic to taxpayers due to those who avoid paying tax, most taxpayers are fiddling the system.
A very small minority spoil it for the majority

I keep seeing this 0.5 % fraud rate quoted and nobody yet has been able to explain to me how this can be measured with any accuracy!

Perhaps you can?

clemmatis

Dunroamin wrote: »

Surely there's often very little physical evidence of someone having a "bad back"? Being prescribed strong pain killers proves nothing.

I asked a GP about this. He said he could tell when my back was in spasm. Of course, there are also things called MRIs... and ordinary x-rays will show compressed discs.

But if you mean there can be genuine intense pain and immobility unaccompanied by demonstrable clinical pathology adequate to explain their full extent, you are correct.

clemmatis

bestpud wrote: »

I keep seeing this 0.5 % fraud rate quoted and nobody yet has been able to explain to me how this can be measured with any accuracy!

Perhaps you can?

I can. The 0.5% figure is for DLA. It's the DWP's. It's based on their review of a number of cases. You'll find full details on their web page.

Dunroamin

bestpud wrote: »

I keep seeing this 0.5 % fraud rate quoted and nobody yet has been able to explain to me how this can be measured with any accuracy!

Perhaps you can?

I would understand better if it was described as the detected fraud rate.

schrodie

bestpud wrote: »

I keep seeing this 0.5 % fraud rate quoted and nobody yet has been able to explain to me how this can be measured with any accuracy!

Perhaps you can?

Ring the DWP they came up with the figure. It's a shame that right wing rags like the daily mail don't do that as well when they print their anti-disabled propaganda for the purposes of rousing the rabble!

Dunroamin

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

Do you seriously think all those with a serious mental illness have to do is collect a regular prescription from their GP?!

When I took early retirement on health grounds I was treated by my GP and properly assessed by a psychiatrist for depression. Fortunately, the combination of anti depressants and a change of situation "cured" me but, if I'd wanted or needed to claim benefits for this condition, it would have been very little effort to turn up at the GP's surgery every 3 months (unwashed and unmade up if I'd followed some websites' advice;)), tell him I didn't feel any better, pick up my prescription and leave.

That's what most genuine sufferers from depression do anyway, unless they're at the very extreme edge of clinical depression.

bestpud

clemmatis wrote: »

I can. The 0.5% figure is for DLA. It's the DWP's. It's based on their review of a number of cases. You'll find full details on their web page.

Must be right then because people would be sure to let them know if they were claiming fraudulently! :rotfl: