Benefit fraud

dekaspace

dktreesea wrote: »

Financial constraints I understand, but in the NHS they are not applied consistently. "Maybe not everywhere" just isn't good enough. If you're in a situation where the alternative is walking upright or being crippled, surely it's fair to give you the procedure you need, not tell you the NHS trust in the area you are in can't afford it?


You'ld have to be English living in Scotland to really understand my point of view. There's so much more public money available up here than there is in England. I speak of Yorkshire only because I have family there. Yorkshire has a similar population to Scotland but nowhere near the same public funds. Why shouldn't people in England have the same access to NHS services as the Scots have? I don't have to see a border post to know when I've crossed from Scotland into England on any of the minor roads. It's obvious. The state of the roads deteriorate.


Benefit fraud? The distribution of the public purse is a fraud on the people of England. If we don't have enough money for something as critical as the NHS to our health, then we should be having a medicare levy, levied on the first pound of everyone's income.

Tell that to my father who had a botched operation in the 80s that left him unable to really work, waiting till about 8 years ago to get another operation to fix the original which was itself botched.

Waiting YEARS for operations and having them cancelled to the point of turning up to hospital on the day to be told then or "oh sorry we forgot to tell you"

Turning up for surgery to be told they have the wrong type of anesthetic and either accept it or wait another year or two for a new appointment (even though its been a few years due to the cancellations and mess ups) then being told you can't get another operation as you didn't turn up when you did but they messed up.

So like in England each hospital is different, for my back operation last year I only waited 3 or 4 months but they screwed up my bandaging as it was done by a student nurse who I could hear say "what do I do, I have never done this before" as the head nurse had gone for a tea break!!!

I was told at the time to complain but I just forgot.

Yearly infections closing entire wards at least once a year

bspm

What an interesting thread!

I could write many things that may contradict/inflame posters but I won't, or maybe I will.

Disabilities are not always obvious, people with blue badges sometimes can walk, people in receipt of PIP or ESA can work less hours due to their disabilities, hey they can even go on holiday too (currently writing this sitting by the pool in Florida after a two week cruise from Barcelona to Tampa)

The bottom line is everyone is different, some deserve benefits, others don't and then there are the claimants who certainly need to be caught.

The whole benefits system is a minefield, it is difficult enough to actually qualify at times, the whole system needed a shake up and I for one welcome the checks now being carried out.

Have a nice day everyone, it is Election day here, if you think our leaders are a laugh you should take more interest in Trump V Clinton, hilarious!

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

nannytone_2

dktreesea wrote: »

It is what it is. There's no point assuming the worst possible outcome. They're interviewing you under caution probably because you didn't tell them about your change in circumstances, i.e. returning to full time work, meaning you wouldn't be entitled to ESA, even under permitted work rules. Just tell them you thought HMRC and the DWP were all integrated and it would automatically get adjusted, and when it didn't you assumed you were still entitled to it.


They'll probably just enter into an arrangement with you to pay back the whole of the overpayment.

but that isn't true, even the OP hasn't claimed that to be the truth.

you're advocating another level to this fraud and i think you should stop giving the OP 'outs' and let them take their punishment

micky2phones

sangie595 wrote: »

I think you have missed the point. People with health conditions and disabilities do not need "special employment" except in extreme circumstances. Past those, all these questions equally apply to "fit" people.

The nature of employment is so wide and varied that there are many jobs that can be undertaken by people with long term health conditions and/or disabilities. The idea that there is no possible work for people, or that they need special work, applies to very, very few. What keeps many of them out of work is attitudes of employers, who see the condition before the person and their skills.

So the answer to who should employ them is - employers!

And health and safety, time off for appointments etc., apply equally to people without such conditions or disabilities. Health and safety needs to be in place for every employee. If people need time off for appointments, that doesn't mean that they have long term conditions - or vice versa. And there is no right to time off for appointments anyway!

The fact is that many people with long term health conditions or disabilities are used to their daily lives. They manage work. They take time off for appointments outside working hours wherever possible. They don't take sick leave because they are feeling a bit under the weather. Many of them fight to be in work because they want that normal life. Employers might assume that they are less reliable - in fact many are exactly the opposite. If employers realised how much effort it takes to stay in employment, they might just be amazed and want more of them.

In saying that, I am not having a go at anyone claiming ESA. Yes, I agree that many probably could do some sort of employment - but the barrier to them doing so is often not them but employers (and society) who seem to think that ill health and disability make people incapable, unreliable and stupid. If you are rejected often enough, it's easy to come to believe that you aren't fit for employment. And whilst the government are keen to focus on the individual claiming benefits and why they aren't getting back to work, they do nothing about the employers who routinely exclude people from employment with various subterfuges, to get around the Equality Act. If you want more people off benefits and in work, then there has to be a willingness to employ those people. Currently that is not there.

Hi, Very well said and written, much better put that in my post.
Infact you really explained what was/has been in mind for a long time. Thank you

catz1ct

sangie595 you are 100% correct in what you are saying.

I had a meeting with the DWP recently and they said they are moving away from the days where someone would be signed off by a doctor for being sick and live the rest of their life claiming benefits. It’s about helping them find work for people that they can do which is difficult and I think employers should be more consider towards employees and offer them more opportunities and different ways of working.

I know someone who refuses to work just because she said if she got a job she would need a 2 hr lunch break. Well maybe she does need a 2 hr lunch break but perhaps she needs to consider what type of work she can do. She doesn’t even need to work full time, even just a few hours a week. After all she can look after a new born fairly easily so in my opinion there must be something out there for her.

curty510

catz1ct wrote: »

I know someone who refuses to work just because she said if she got a job she would need a 2 hr lunch break.

wow! she must take a pretty big lunch!:rotfl:

ev8

catz1ct wrote: »

sangie595 you are 100% correct in what you are saying.

I had a meeting with the DWP recently and they said they are moving away from the days where someone would be signed off by a doctor for being sick and live the rest of their life claiming benefits. It’s about helping them find work for people that they can do which is difficult and I think employers should be more consider towards employees and offer them more opportunities and different ways of working.

I know someone who refuses to work just because she said if she got a job she would need a 2 hr lunch break. Well maybe she does need a 2 hr lunch break but perhaps she needs to consider what type of work she can do. She doesn’t even need to work full time, even just a few hours a week. After all she can look after a new born fairly easily so in my opinion there must be something out there for her.

But is this person who needs a two hour lunch on sickness benefits?

If so, there must be more then her just needing a long lunch, I mean that's not an illness or disability is it.

dekaspace

catz1ct wrote: »

sangie595 you are 100% correct in what you are saying.

I had a meeting with the DWP recently and they said they are moving away from the days where someone would be signed off by a doctor for being sick and live the rest of their life claiming benefits. It’s about helping them find work for people that they can do which is difficult and I think employers should be more consider towards employees and offer them more opportunities and different ways of working.

No its about money pure and simple. if it was about helping people find work they would have better disability advisors like I have been on ESA 3 years now meant to get monthly appointments with DWP, so far had none bar a initial appointment and even told lack of funding.

If they wanted to help people into work they wouldnt shove them onto things like unpaid or unsuitable work just to mess with statistics and would help with people with health problems before they got to the point where they needed disability benefits.

Lanzarote1938

dekaspace wrote: »

No its about money pure and simple. if it was about helping people find work they would have better disability advisors like I have been on ESA 3 years now meant to get monthly appointments with DWP, so far had none bar a initial appointment and even told lack of funding.

If they wanted to help people into work they wouldnt shove them onto things like unpaid or unsuitable work just to mess with statistics and would help with people with health problems before they got to the point where they needed disability benefits.

Do you not think that some of your problems with landlords, bosses, authority, DWP etc could perhaps be your own fault?

catz1ct

dekaspace wrote: »

No its about money pure and simple. if it was about helping people find work they would have better disability advisors like I have been on ESA 3 years now meant to get monthly appointments with DWP, so far had none bar a initial appointment and even told lack of funding.

If they wanted to help people into work they wouldnt shove them onto things like unpaid or unsuitable work just to mess with statistics and would help with people with health problems before they got to the point where they needed disability benefits.

Wait until Universal Credit is fully rolled out. The goverment want to cut the welfare bill.