"Tough Love" Cuts for sick and disabled!

Makeandsave

I would welcome the help and support if its going to get me better and help me get back in to work, BUT i guess this is just going to cause more stress and make some people conditions worse if atos have anything to do with it.

Richie-from-the-Boro

The real story hidden behind these proposals is the use of the "conditionality test" in order to improve the supply of numbers to the Work Program industry.

On the one hand the numbers of ESA bums~on~seats going into the Work Program up to March this year was very significantly lower than expected. Whilst on the other hand at the same time the business models and supply chains are being affected by the low number of participants. Guess what if the DWP bring forward the "conditionality test" proposed for Universal Credit to this year .. .. the DWP get their Work Related Activity figures up, the Work Program gets their profit model back and everyone is happy again.

Well so long as you use Government policy to provide profits for the Work Programme that should make this whole Government machine happy as Larry.

.1.

.2.

.3. look for the words Work Programme

borkid

rogerblack wrote: »

As I mentioned above - there is refuse, and refuse.

There is refusing because you want to stay eligible for benefit as you can't be bothered working, and there is refusing because you have been asked to do something that is inappropriate, based on someone who does not understand your health condition.

'Swinging the lead' is unfortunately likely to not be determined by someone with any deep understanding of the persons medical condition, but by someone with at best a weeks training.

As an example, I was so exhausted by my last Work Focussed Interview that I was basically in bed for 4 days.
I have in the past after a couple of hours out in town been brought back home by the police, as I was acting strangely, because I was so tired.

(post-exertional malaise - it's a symptom of chronic fatigue syndrome. Exertion, especially when fatigued causes extended periods of disability)

And most people don't realise there is more to it than just fatigue. I even had an ex nurse say to me ' but it's just tiredness'. I don't have ME but a close relative does.

Doom_and_Gloom

I don't get ESA but I do get DLA. I don't use the medication that I was advised to take but the pain clinic understand because of the long term damage on my organs if I was to take them. They also impair judgment and concentration than pain does (their words). Basically taking the medication would make me more reliant on the government as I would have no chance of getting a job in that condition. Would also make me cost the NHS more through the expensive medications, more doctors appointments, regular blood tests, very likely organ transplants etc. So for me it's best to go without. My last resort is a very risky operation, one that could cause damage anyway (leave me permanently paralysed) and can't reverse any damage already caused as it is.

Instead I went for physio to learn ways of slowing down the damage and weakening of my muscles - my sessions were further apart than most people's as too much too soon can cause damage as can pushing myself so they had to play carefully. The pain clinic helped me find out ways of managing the pain in ways not using medication. I'm still in pain and my condition is slowly deteriorating but I am managing and feel like I could work part time as long as I find a suitable job. Something that as I said would be impossible on the medications.

If I get told the only way of getting the DLA was taking the medication I would fight that decision to the end. I'm not putting my health on the line for people who have no clue and neither should others. Would people who get forced to, as they have no other choice to be able to get the money to survive, be able to sign a piece of paper saying they didn't want to and any ill effects caused by taking the medication be the fault of the government? I'm guessing no but that is exactly what the case could be!

Karena_3

UnderPressure wrote: »

"Under the proposals, claimants would be expected to attend regular sessions with a health care professional who could require them to attend therapy and other treatments to help them recover."

If this placed a requirement on health care professionals to provide regular, appropriate and researched therapy and other treatments and there was a requirement that this be adequately funded many claments would celebrate....they might at last be able to access the help that is currently denied them.

The rehab statistics for alcoholics and drug addicts were not good last time I read them.The long term recovery statistics are even bleaker.Recovery in terms of years clean of drugs rather than months.It would be interesting to find out how recovery would be measured...rather than tick box attendance.

I am sure the providers of long term effective programmes that address the underlying difficulties would love to be funded to provide these.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/25/emma-harison-bullied-out-of-a4e

If any company might be interested in being funded to provide short term quick fix treatment they could always explore the experience of a previous candidate in a similar role.:eek:

littlerat

The government will realise it costs far more to actually treat people than leave them to perish, so it'll all be scrapped anyway.

tiddlertot

There are two aspects to this.
Those that choose not to want medical intervention and those that do.The doer's will get on with it and hopefully get themselves off benefits and into something more productive like work!

Those that don't fall into two more camps. The ones that want to stay ill to achieve the maximum benefits and those that will stay ill because they either fear intervention or that no intervention will help them anyhow.

Surely a HCP with medical evidence will be able to determine who falls into what camp? Surely isn't it as simple as if on medical evidence something could be done to get them better they should be forced to have it done?
And for those that intervention has medically been ruled out - then they carry on claiming.

All I would want to see, is the end of the constant moaning that goes on about one illness or another.

If good quality pain relief can be given to solve a claim that had been made because of pain or discomfort - don't you think that the claimant has a duty to take up that offer? I Do!

There might be a few 1,000 'bad backs' that are relieved for a start!

Richie-from-the-Boro

Fritz Lang’s 1927 film Metropolis.

Set in the year 2026, Metropolis takes place in a dystopian society where wealthy intellectuals rule from vast tower complexes, oppressing the workers who live in the depths below them. The rich idle away their leisure time in a pleasure garden with its huge towers and vast wealth, this is a playground to a ruling class living in luxury and decadence. They, and the city, are sustained by a much larger population of oppressed workers who labour as virtual slaves in the machine halls, moving from their miserable, cold tiny back to back homes to their grim, back-breaking ten-hour shifts and back again, and again, and again.

Does that sound familiar ? If that was to happen these days they would need a Work Program to keep the people going round and round the system !

dori2o

tiddlertot wrote: »

There are two aspects to this.
Those that choose not to want medical intervention and those that do.The doer's will get on with it and hopefully get themselves off benefits and into something more productive like work!

Those that don't fall into two more camps. The ones that want to stay ill to achieve the maximum benefits and those that will stay ill because they either fear intervention or that no intervention will help them anyhow.

Surely a HCP with medical evidence will be able to determine who falls into what camp? Surely isn't it as simple as if on medical evidence something could be done to get them better they should be forced to have it done?
And for those that intervention has medically been ruled out - then they carry on claiming.

All I would want to see, is the end of the constant moaning that goes on about one illness or another.

If good quality pain relief can be given to solve a claim that had been made because of pain or discomfort - don't you think that the claimant has a duty to take up that offer? I Do!

There might be a few 1,000 'bad backs' that are relieved for a start!

But what if that pain reliever caused further problems, left someone unable to function because of the side effects.

I take Morphine at quite a high dose (currently around 160mg a day) I also take around 270mg of Dihydrocodeine and 275mg of Amitriptytline.

I get very little pain relief from all of this, and even with 225mg of Amitriptyline I only get 4/5 hours sleep.

I manage to just about function on these doses but the pain is still unbelievably intense.

I could increase the doses of medication to a point that I feel virtually nothing, but the side effects of the meds (especially Morphine and codeine) would leave me on cloud nine, I wouldn't be able to drive, wouldn't be able to work, I'd probably be quite ill, and my internal organs would be suffering terminal damage.

There comes a point where you have to come to a compromise and for some, the treatment available, be it medical or medicinal, causes more problems than not having the treatment

sunnyone

colin13 wrote: »

I have progressive MS,no treatment available,but because I can sit and present well for a short time,the uneducated may see me fit for work,which I am not,as a previous poster said,it is people with little or no knowledge,who decide if we are fit for work,the whole process is only for one reason,cut the welfare bill,and to hell with the problems caused by a person not doing job correct

There are many people with progessive MS who can work, having MS dosnt mean you cant work.

dori2o wrote: »

But what if that pain reliever caused further problems, left someone unable to function because of the side effects.

I take Morphine at quite a high dose (currently around 160mg a day) I also take around 270mg of Dihydrocodeine and 275mg of Amitriptytline.

I get very little pain relief from all of this, and even with 225mg of Amitriptyline I only get 4/5 hours sleep.

I manage to just about function on these doses but the pain is still unbelievably intense.

I could increase the doses of medication to a point that I feel virtually nothing, but the side effects of the meds (especially Morphine and codeine) would leave me on cloud nine, I wouldn't be able to drive, wouldn't be able to work, I'd probably be quite ill, and my internal organs would be suffering terminal damage.

There comes a point where you have to come to a compromise and for some, the treatment available, be it medical or medicinal, causes more problems than not having the treatment

We cant talk drugs here, if we could I would ask if you had kept Swansea up to date.