This sort of thing annoys non disabled people

krisskross

clemmatis wrote: »

Yes, of course. But as I said, nobody (so far as I can tell) doubted your basic description then. They raised points about the propriety of your claiming AA for care needs when, it appeared -- and your own words there suggest -- in fact, you had mobility needs, for which you could not claim.

They did make some other points too, obviously.

Doesn't impaired mobility impinge on other aspects of life leading to care needs? Just a little f'rinstance: My husband has RA which seriously affects his mobility. Because of this he is unsafe to shower when no one is around as he could fall or slip. So he has a care need but if he didn't have the mobility issue he wouldn't have the care need.

dori2o

sparkycat2 wrote: »

Often they are unaware of what benefits they can claim and what award levels they should be getting. They maybe barely capable of managing to live independently or rely on assistance to do so.

People claiming benefits also include those living in the community in residential care homes, sheltered homes, supported homes, group homes, those with on call care teams, those reliant on carer's, etc...

Not all claimants of disability benefits are 100% competent at managing their own affairs, but that does not mean they all have appointees or conservators to manage their affairs. Or that when they seek assistance those assisting them in filling in forms, etc... are going to do a good job.



In my opinion the DWP should ask for evidence from those responsible for the care, diagnosis and treatment of the claimant and expert medical evidence and weight of medical evidence. As the primary source of information in making award decisions and decisions on award levels. Not just to verify what the person puts on the claim form.

I mean gee whiz if someone is claiming say care or mobility components of DLA they are likely to have people providing for those care and mobility needs, or be suffering detrimental effects to their life or be at severe risk.

If they are claiming DLA components due to mental disability or illness, it is not incomprehensible that they might not be very good at filling in forms and might not be the most reliable or competent source of information about their condition and capabilities.



The system in my opinion should be medical condition centric based on diagnosis and prognosis and expert opinion and hard evidence as to what the claimant is and is not capable of and the care and support they need.

Not capability centric based on opinion of what someone might or might not be capable off or what they see themselves as capable or not capable of doing.

The problem is that those who don't believe in benefits, who believe the sick should just accept it and live their life based on the cards thet have been dealt, who believe the sick should neither be seen or heard, will never accept the fact that peoples GP's or consultants are unbiased.

They believe that every GP/Consultant is unprofessional in that they will exaggerate the care/mobility needs needed by their patients and therefore cannot be trusted.

They are happy however for these same HCP's to perform the ATOS assessments where the Dr's have no idea of past history, speak only to each claimant for 44 or less minutes, and make assumptions based on loaded (on the DWP's side) questions.

Whether it is DLA, ESA, PIP or UC, those who know how to play the system and have done so successfully for 20+ years will still be able to play the system with PIP/UC. They understand how it works, they understand what to say and what no to say.

The only people who will suffer in this are the genuinely ill and disabled who only want what they are entitled to and don't want to lie about their health in order to get it.

One example of this happened to a friend of ours with his ESA claim.

The Dr's/consultants have told him that he will, within a couple of years, be paralised. His back is knackered as a result of spending almost 20 years in the mining trade and a further 20 years in the building trade.

His Dr's have told him to use a wheelchair where possible to keep pressure off his back.

He went to the ESA assessment and was asked if he could walk from one end of the room to the other.

Being the kind of person he is, and not wanting to embarras himself by saying no, he did it.

The ATOS dr claimed in his report that the gentleman would recover from his condition within 6 months.

Now if the NHS suddenly discover a drug or procedure that will stabilise a crumbled spine or will stop a degenerative muscle wasting condition, in the next 6 months, then yes he may one day be fit for work again. But until then he can't possibly be.

He didn't even get into the WRAG and was put straight onto JSA.

Despite sending 20+ letters from consultants, GP's and social services, the DWP relied on the assessment report from ATOS.

There's not one person in receipt of ESA/DLA who would mind being tested regularly. But only if that test is fit for the purpose of testing people for their ability to work, or their care needs and is conducted fairly, and only if the decision making process relies on ALL information provided, not just ATOS's word.

clemmatis

krisskross wrote: »

Doesn't impaired mobility impinge on other aspects of life leading to care needs? Just a little f'rinstance: My husband has RA which seriously affects his mobility. Because of this he is unsafe to shower when no one is around as he could fall or slip. So he has a care need but if he didn't have the mobility issue he wouldn't have the care need.

Clearly it can. But that is not the issue raised by the posts.

There is another issue: describing a condition/need as though it were always at its worst, as though every day were a "worst day".

I'll link the posts again

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=10279255&postcount=33

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=10345571&postcount=34

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=10352531&postcount=36

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=10382371&postcount=38

dori2o

clemmatis wrote: »

Clearly it can. But that is not the issue raised by the posts.

There is another issue: describing a condition/need as though it were always at its worst, as though every day were a "worst day".

I'll link a post again

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=10279255&postcount=33

What about those conditions where everyday is a worst day.

I can't remember the last time I had a good day.

Or does there become a point where the bad days are so frequent that they become the good days and only where the condition deteriorates further and is then worse than normal does it beome a bad day?

You see the problem with describing good and bad days.

To someone who is affected by their condition all the time, what is a good day and what is bad?

Are disabled peoples good days different to able bodied peoples normal days?

I agree where a persons condition fluctuates you should try and describe they way you are affected in both circumstances.

But for people like me, whose condition doesn't switch off, ever, and therefore are in pain every second of every day, how do you distinguish a good from a bad day.

Everyday to me is a bad day and has been for the past 7 years or so with pain continuing to increase and mobility continuing to worsen

sparkycat2

dori2o wrote: »

There's not one person in receipt of ESA/DLA who would mind being tested regularly. But only if that test is fit for the purpose of testing people for their ability to work, or their care needs and is conducted fairly, and only if the decision making process relies on ALL information provided, not just ATOS's word.

Personally I think there should still be life time awards for things that are simply never going to improve. In cases where the weight of medical evidence is overwhelming and the condition is incurable or degenerative and the person is not expected to adapt or get any better at managing or coping with their illness/disability.
I think it is cruel to keep re-assessing people. Especially if the process causes them worry or distress or the assessment process it self is likely to be detrimental to their health or due to their health they are going to struggle to comply with the assessment process, or not be able to comply with the assessment process.

Richie-from-the-Boro

ATOS01
ATOS02


ATOS03 - """Joyce said many claimants were set up for a fall even before they came into her office in Cadogan Street, Glasgow.

She said: “If they made it in by themselves, that was seen as a sign they could function.

They also had to fill in a form. If they did it, it showed they could think, write and were capable of managing.

We also had to assess their appearance. If a woman was wearing make-up and was nicely dressed, she was deemed as functioning and capable.

If someone came in with a toddler in tow, they were doomed because if they could manage a child, they could surely work.

If someone had a pet, they were able to function and if they smiled while talking about a pet, I had to mark down that they smiled spontaneously and were therefore not depressed.

It was so unfair. There could be a very depressed or ill person sitting in front of me but on paper, thanks to the leading questions I had to ask, they could be judged fit to work.”

Joyce says Atos bosses expected assessors to get through 10 cases in a day and reprimanded her for being too nice. She said: “It was impossible to do 10 a day as each claimant had a 44-minute slot. The medical director called me in one day and told me I was too nice.

I never found out how the decisions went but when I was doing the interview, I knew what the outcome would be.

Atos went by the philosophy that if you had a finger and could push a button, then you could work. Ridiculous.”"""

Nice people ATOS04 see #8

clemmatis

dori2o wrote: »

What about those conditions where everyday is a worst day.

I can't remember the last time I had a good day.

Or does there become a point where the bad days are so frequent that they become the good days and only where the condition deteriorates further and is then worse than normal does it beome a bad day?

My point relates to fluctuating conditions and to the posts in the other thread, the posts to which I have now linked twice. And I didn't say "good day", I said, "the worst"/not the worst.


But to answer your question

1. the DWP's rules are clear

2. if all days are bad but some are worse than others, you say so.

You see the problem with describing good and bad days.

No. You describe your condition.

Are disabled peoples good days different to able bodied peoples normal days?

Yes. "Good day" clearly means "not as bad as other days". But I didn't say "good day", I said "the worst"/not the worst.

I agree where a persons condition fluctuates you should try and describe they way you are affected in both circumstances.

The posts to which I linked discuss a fluctuating condition. I am only concerned with that.

insured

Margaret, I have looked at my original post again and I have removed the part of it which refers to your claim as I think it seems too much like a personal attack and I did not want that. Neither did I want the thread to revolve around your entitlement to AA as I think it detracts from something else you said.
I responded to your post because I think a response like "We English" to a post from a person from, or who appears to be from Poland, is racist and bigoted.
This has been a lively and interesting debate, but you are the only person who has brought nationality and race into the discussion and I think it is unecessary.
My friend is Jewish and her husband is very involved in their local synagough. She recently found out that he was having an affair with their son's girlfriend. Obviously I went to see her to offer support, but it would have been quite incorrect of me to start by saying "He is a heel and "we English" think this is wrong". Being English has nothing to do with morality.
In the same way, you starting a reply with "We English" to someone who you thinks is incorrectly claiming benefits is racist.
The historical anyalysis does relate to you when you begin threads like "we English", just like the Daily Mail loves to report on and dwell upon bad behaviour by foreigners, especially Muslims and Eastern Europeans.

margaretclare wrote: »

what else is one to say?


.

You certainly do not say that.
You do not speak for me or a great many intelligent English people when you attack someone in that bigoted way.
I would also point out that not are you the only one who has brought race into this, but you are the only one who has needed to use foul language to make a point. There does seem to be a correlation between intelligence and racism.
I am not going to reply to this again as I think it detracts away from the debate, which is interesting and lively.
Once again, I apologise for the personal attack which I have removed. If you think any more of my comments are personal attacks, I apologise and please let me know and I will remove them.
I do not think my disagreement with what I think are your racist comments are personal attacks, as I am simply disagreeing with you bringing race into this.

insured

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

ATOS01
ATOS02


ATOS03 - """Joyce said many claimants were set up for a fall even before they came into her office in Cadogan Street, Glasgow.

She said: “If they made it in by themselves, that was seen as a sign they could function.

They also had to fill in a form. If they did it, it showed they could think, write and were capable of managing.

We also had to assess their appearance. If a woman was wearing make-up and was nicely dressed, she was deemed as functioning and capable.

If someone came in with a toddler in tow, they were doomed because if they could manage a child, they could surely work.

If someone had a pet, they were able to function and if they smiled while talking about a pet, I had to mark down that they smiled spontaneously and were therefore not depressed.

It was so unfair. There could be a very depressed or ill person sitting in front of me but on paper, thanks to the leading questions I had to ask, they could be judged fit to work.”

Joyce says Atos bosses expected assessors to get through 10 cases in a day and reprimanded her for being too nice. She said: “It was impossible to do 10 a day as each claimant had a 44-minute slot. The medical director called me in one day and told me I was too nice.

I never found out how the decisions went but when I was doing the interview, I knew what the outcome would be.

Atos went by the philosophy that if you had a finger and could push a button, then you could work. Ridiculous.”"""


Nice people ATOS04 see #8

I could not agree more with this post.
My mother died when she was in her 50s and for some time before she died she was claiming IB as it was then. There is no way she could have worked in the last year at least of her life, but I think with these new descriptors, she might have failed the ESA test.
When my ESA was disallowed recently I appealed with the help of DIAL who told me that I should also claim DLA both care and mobility component.
However, after I won my appeal, I decided I could not go through the process ever again of claiming any benefits as I found the whole thing so stressful. I also agree with Roger Black, who says that he has no problem in principal with being tested, but that the way things are handled causes far too much stress for claimants.

zaksmum

insured wrote: »

Margaret, I have looked at my original post again and I have removed the part of it which refers to your claim as I think it seems too much like a personal attack and I did not want that. Neither did I want the thread to revolve around your entitlement to AA as I think it detracts from something else you said.
I responded to your post because I think a response like "We English" to a post from a person from, or who appears to be from Poland, is racist and bigoted.
This has been a lively and interesting debate, but you are the only person who has brought nationality and race into the discussion and I think it is unecessary.
My friend is Jewish and her husband is very involved in their local synagough. She recently found out that he was having an affair with their son's girlfriend. Obviously I went to see her to offer support, but it would have been quite incorrect of me to start by saying "He is a heel and "we English" think this is wrong". Being English has nothing to do with morality.
In the same way, you starting a reply with "We English" to someone who you thinks is incorrectly claiming benefits is racist.
The historical anyalysis does relate to you when you begin threads like "we English", just like the Daily Mail loves to report on and dwell upon bad behaviour by foreigners, especially Muslims and Eastern Europeans.



You certainly do not say that.
You do not speak for me or a great many intelligent English people when you attack someone in that bigoted way.
I would also point out that not are you the only one who has brought race into this, but you are the only one who has needed to use foul language to make a point. There does seem to be a correlation between intelligence and racism.
I am not going to reply to this again as I think it detracts away from the debate, which is interesting and lively.
Once again, I apologise for the personal attack which I have removed. If you think any more of my comments are personal attacks, I apologise and please let me know and I will remove them.
I do not think my disagreement with what I think are your racist comments are personal attacks, as I am simply disagreeing with you bringing race into this.

How can you POSSIBLY object to Margaretclare's use of a phrase like "We English" and say it's a racist comment? Is the world going mad?:eek: