Juan Mourep
Vital 1st Team Regular
Mmmmmmmmmm pie :136:
F@@@ The Disabled
- Thread starter The Fear
- Start date
V
Villan Of The North
Guest
Is the statement "F@@@ the disabled" just Fear demanding sex in exchange for forum membership again? :11:
G
Guest
Guest
The pie chart is a breakdown of where the welfare is spent...Not a chart stating the amount of claimants claiming disability that can actually work.
12 months ago the the government found 37% of those on incapacity benefit were in fact able to work. A further 34% were able to work after completing a program and "only" 29% were classed as disabled and can never work...
My figure was 50%...meaning I guessed that 50% were genuine cases and 50% could actually go to work..Of course I missed out the programs they attend that help them back to work...But my 50% of genuine cases still reads better than the reported 29%, I just rounded it all up!
12 months ago the the government found 37% of those on incapacity benefit were in fact able to work. A further 34% were able to work after completing a program and "only" 29% were classed as disabled and can never work...
My figure was 50%...meaning I guessed that 50% were genuine cases and 50% could actually go to work..Of course I missed out the programs they attend that help them back to work...But my 50% of genuine cases still reads better than the reported 29%, I just rounded it all up!
HeathfieldRoad1874
Miserable Sod
No GT, 36% of claimants for the new employment and support allowance (ESA) have been judged capable of work, and a further third of the initial claimants dropped out before completing the claim.
It doesn't mean they were claiming before, and if they were they may have been eligible under the old rules, but not under the new.
It's not fraud - it's a re-assessment.
It doesn't mean they were claiming before, and if they were they may have been eligible under the old rules, but not under the new.
It's not fraud - it's a re-assessment.
kefkat
Vital Football Legend
There is also the case of the fact of people appealing and winning: People who appeal now are put onto JSA whilst there claim is in appeal, manipulating the figures once more. Also of the appeals 43% are overturned at appeal which they don't make public information, showing how much ATOS mess up.
Here is an up to date link
http://mikesivier.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/esa-appeals-more-than-double-and-decisions-in-the-claimants-favour-are-increasing/
Here is an up to date link
http://mikesivier.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/esa-appeals-more-than-double-and-decisions-in-the-claimants-favour-are-increasing/
BlackCountry Villa
Vital Football Hero
I have a lot of respect for the disabled. Anyone who has to spend their life on crutches for whatever reason has my admiration. I've been on crutches all this week because I fell down the stairs on Sunday. And I was on crutches for 8 weeks a couple of years back when I fractured my ankle. They're a fecking ball ache and are knackering! Big up the disabled massive.
Ricardomeister
Vital Youth Team
As has been said on numerous occasions, although Atos' performance has been very poor for a long time, the main problem is the WCA as illnesses and disabilities cannot always be conveniently pigeonholed into tick boxes. In the first 9 months of 2013/14 we have had over 107,000 successful ESA appeals (with the success rate for the last quarter having risen yet again to 45%). That is in addition to many thousands more that have been overturned on reconsideration.
I doubt that anybody seriously believes that Atos have quit the contract due to death threats. They have quit because their brand has become toxic because of their failures re the WCA and because they are a convenient scapegoat for the incompetence of DWP ministers. As long as the politicians from the main parties continue to support the current flawed assessment process, little will change imo.
I still find it laughable when people try and claim it was easy to get benefits under Labour. I am no fan of theirs but a bit of basic research of the DWP's benefits tables shows that claimant numbers for sickness benefits (ie Invalidity Benefit/Incapacity Benefit/ESA/SDA) went up by more than 2.1 million under the last Tory government but fell by around 150,000 under Labour.
The other thing that is laughable is when people try to claim that benefit fraud is much higher than the official figures (usually because they claim to know people who are fiddling the system...although the self-proclaimed medical experts always seem to have no medical qualifications, no sight of the claimant's claim file and have not conducted a suitable physical/mental assessment). Again a few minutes' research will show that the fraud rates are done within 95% confidence intervals (ie re the headline figure for all benefits of 0.7%, the DWP are 95% confident that the true figure is somewhere between 0.6% and 1%). The National Fraud Office have also confirmed that the fraud figure of £1.2bn pa covers "identified and hidden" fraud as well as giving the estimate the top, green "BRAG" status, meaning they have "excellent" confidence in the figure quoted.
It is really sad that a tiny minority try to claim that sickness and disability fraud is much higher than what is shown in the official figures and credible evidence. Their unsubstantiated claims can be safely dismissed and I actually pity those people who feel the need to adopt such behaviour.
Re the number of claims that are closed before assessment, again a bit of research (and basic common sense) shows that a major reason(from DWP research) is that people recover and return to work or move onto JSA etc. That is even more the case given that so few assessments are actually done within 13 weeks (the average was 19/20 weeks according to DWP figures).
If anybody is interested in the most recent DWP figures for ESA eligibility after assessment, they are:
New Claims - 66% entitled, 34% "fit for work"
Repeat Claims -91% entitled, 9% "fit for work"
IB migration - 87% entitled, 13% "fit for work"
The percentage that are entitled will increase after all appeals are heard.
It is, again worth stressing the words of the Work & Pensions Committee re "fit for work". They said:
" being found "fit for work" does not equate to denial or disbelief about the existence of an illness or health condition: rather the condition is acknowledged but its impact has been assessed as not being so serious as to prevent the person from returning to work at some point in the future. "
I doubt that anybody seriously believes that Atos have quit the contract due to death threats. They have quit because their brand has become toxic because of their failures re the WCA and because they are a convenient scapegoat for the incompetence of DWP ministers. As long as the politicians from the main parties continue to support the current flawed assessment process, little will change imo.
I still find it laughable when people try and claim it was easy to get benefits under Labour. I am no fan of theirs but a bit of basic research of the DWP's benefits tables shows that claimant numbers for sickness benefits (ie Invalidity Benefit/Incapacity Benefit/ESA/SDA) went up by more than 2.1 million under the last Tory government but fell by around 150,000 under Labour.
The other thing that is laughable is when people try to claim that benefit fraud is much higher than the official figures (usually because they claim to know people who are fiddling the system...although the self-proclaimed medical experts always seem to have no medical qualifications, no sight of the claimant's claim file and have not conducted a suitable physical/mental assessment). Again a few minutes' research will show that the fraud rates are done within 95% confidence intervals (ie re the headline figure for all benefits of 0.7%, the DWP are 95% confident that the true figure is somewhere between 0.6% and 1%). The National Fraud Office have also confirmed that the fraud figure of £1.2bn pa covers "identified and hidden" fraud as well as giving the estimate the top, green "BRAG" status, meaning they have "excellent" confidence in the figure quoted.
It is really sad that a tiny minority try to claim that sickness and disability fraud is much higher than what is shown in the official figures and credible evidence. Their unsubstantiated claims can be safely dismissed and I actually pity those people who feel the need to adopt such behaviour.
Re the number of claims that are closed before assessment, again a bit of research (and basic common sense) shows that a major reason(from DWP research) is that people recover and return to work or move onto JSA etc. That is even more the case given that so few assessments are actually done within 13 weeks (the average was 19/20 weeks according to DWP figures).
If anybody is interested in the most recent DWP figures for ESA eligibility after assessment, they are:
New Claims - 66% entitled, 34% "fit for work"
Repeat Claims -91% entitled, 9% "fit for work"
IB migration - 87% entitled, 13% "fit for work"
The percentage that are entitled will increase after all appeals are heard.
It is, again worth stressing the words of the Work & Pensions Committee re "fit for work". They said:
" being found "fit for work" does not equate to denial or disbelief about the existence of an illness or health condition: rather the condition is acknowledged but its impact has been assessed as not being so serious as to prevent the person from returning to work at some point in the future. "
V
Villan Of The North
Guest
Working in personnel I regularly come across the long term sick and on occasions those that will never return to work, sometimes not in this job and sometimes not in any job.
The one observation I have to make about this is that the follow up from employers in conjunction with doctors and the social security/benefits people needs to be consistent and thorough with an aim to help people return to work. This weeds out many of those trying to take advantage of the system.
I have come across a number of cases where people are a bit too happy to be on benefits. There is no doubt that there is a physical (or psychological) issue but the attitude of the individual combined with the following up of the aforementioned group of people can be the difference between someone on disability benefit for the rest of their lives and a return to some kind of working life.
I think the group of people that have a disability of some kind but could work given the correct facilitation are those that are, by many, perceived to be conning the system and I must say, it is frustrating watching my next door neighbour do exactly this - she is loving living on my tax contributions.
If a person can work then they should but they should be facilitated for, perhaps with the tax payer footing the bill for any initial investment required, in the long term it will pay for itself.
Attitude(of the "claimant") and follow up are decisive in this area and the only way to change the attitude of some is to push them in the right direction. Ultimately almost everyone can do some type of productive work and if the right environment is cultivated and facilities are put in place it will be a long term benefit to both the individual and society.
All that said, if a person can afford not to work and not claim any sort of benefit then I see no duty for them to work, I'm not a communist. lol
The one observation I have to make about this is that the follow up from employers in conjunction with doctors and the social security/benefits people needs to be consistent and thorough with an aim to help people return to work. This weeds out many of those trying to take advantage of the system.
I have come across a number of cases where people are a bit too happy to be on benefits. There is no doubt that there is a physical (or psychological) issue but the attitude of the individual combined with the following up of the aforementioned group of people can be the difference between someone on disability benefit for the rest of their lives and a return to some kind of working life.
I think the group of people that have a disability of some kind but could work given the correct facilitation are those that are, by many, perceived to be conning the system and I must say, it is frustrating watching my next door neighbour do exactly this - she is loving living on my tax contributions.
If a person can work then they should but they should be facilitated for, perhaps with the tax payer footing the bill for any initial investment required, in the long term it will pay for itself.
Attitude(of the "claimant") and follow up are decisive in this area and the only way to change the attitude of some is to push them in the right direction. Ultimately almost everyone can do some type of productive work and if the right environment is cultivated and facilities are put in place it will be a long term benefit to both the individual and society.
All that said, if a person can afford not to work and not claim any sort of benefit then I see no duty for them to work, I'm not a communist. lol
HeathfieldRoad1874
Miserable Sod
There will always be those wanting to abuse the system, but thankfully it is nowhere near the 50% quoted earlier. The problem is that it is usually cheaper to allow these to carry on, rather than waste resources on trying to find every single one. That's the nature of the modern World.
Some great posts here with real information. I think we should ban the Daily Mail, and then perhaps this Country could have a more balanced view about things. Why does everything have to go to the extreme on these subjects?
Some great posts here with real information. I think we should ban the Daily Mail, and then perhaps this Country could have a more balanced view about things. Why does everything have to go to the extreme on these subjects?
V
Villan Of The North
Guest
To be fair, if you want a job in Birmingham City council all those things are a big advantage J :3:
kefkat
Vital Football Legend
Agrees with JF Re your post Ricard. What alot of people don't release they don't tell you about is the disabled are allowed to do allowed work which is generally voluntary work on ESA/Old incap. Alot do that. People may say that then they can work. The difference is voluntary is just that, voluntary. It doesn't mean a person can work to an employer timescales or expectations.
Alot of the disabled do give back. End of the day too, the monies they get go back into supermarkets, shops, taxi's and so on. Plus it is keeping people in work etc. in the benefits offices. Without there would be no jobs for them so it really is a circle of what would you do if there wasn't anyone on benefits as there would be people out of work because of so then you would still a benefit system.
It's the chicken and the egg story, of which ever way it would put people out of work, which gets kinda deeper and more complex however I am sure you get where I am going with this
Alot of the disabled do give back. End of the day too, the monies they get go back into supermarkets, shops, taxi's and so on. Plus it is keeping people in work etc. in the benefits offices. Without there would be no jobs for them so it really is a circle of what would you do if there wasn't anyone on benefits as there would be people out of work because of so then you would still a benefit system.
It's the chicken and the egg story, of which ever way it would put people out of work, which gets kinda deeper and more complex however I am sure you get where I am going with this
The Fear
A Wise Man (once sat next to him)
What some also don't understand which then gets displayed as vile judgemental stigma attaching ignorance, is that some with illness are fine one day, a wreck the next, or in some cases fine one minute, buggered the next.
Fit people without any knowledge but who espouse their superior views really need to get a better understanding before imparting their wisdom because they really do end up looking extremely ignorant and silly.
Fit people without any knowledge but who espouse their superior views really need to get a better understanding before imparting their wisdom because they really do end up looking extremely ignorant and silly.
Villa_Grizzly
Vital Squad Member
The high success rate of appeals is often due to the presentation of certified medical evidence at that stage, the hope being that a percentage number of those re-assessed will be sufficiently frightened or legally confused by the process to the point that they do not lodge an appeal.
Further, declaring someone "fit to work" is a phrase mired in technicality and disclaimer. Someone dying of cancer in a wheelchair might be able to do some administrative work on a physical level, though given a prospective employers liability and the complex nature of that persons condition; the social implausibility of that person ever finding work and their mental state - the removal of state subsistence at that point is paramount to gross negligence and a fast track to poverty without welfare provision. This is the result of flow chart and tick-box bureaucracy, which bears no moral or human relevance to those effected or disenfranchised.
How about those wanky banks though?
I see the government have cashed in 29% of their shares in Lloyds for 4.1bn. Any chance of that money being put back into the public purse for the refunding of key public services? No, well we best keep hammering that minority percent of welfare service users who defraud the state. I'm sure that will cough up the cash society so desperately needs.
I sear to God, this is the most undemocratic government to walk our earth. No mandate on which to do any of this yet sweeping, highly impacting economic and social changes that changes the face of our society and our public services.
V
Villan Of The North
Guest
We have a guy who works for us, doing basic IT stuff, a couple of hours a day 2 days a week. The work he does is meaningful and important but nothing time critical so when he can't come in it's not a big deal. This is a classic example of what I referred to earlier, employers working hand in hand with the medical profession and the ss/benefits office. He has ME, which is extremely unpredictable and luckily for him should be over in a year or two.
The Fear
A Wise Man (once sat next to him)
ME can go on for decades, it is kinda a catch all for a lot of fatigue type afflictions.
How many employers would do that? Fabulous that yours does, truly fabulous, and if some offered to allow people to work from home, in work that doesn't need to be done in office hours would also help many. With me, having my own business,mine day I might work ten to twelve hours, next morning I may not be able to do anything, by the afternoon or night.... Etc.
But not many employers will do this, mostly because there are enough able besides and fit people looking for work.
Another thing that would help, is if someone not fit to work all the time had a time when they could do a contract or whatever they can declare it, have benefits put on hold, then when they are no longer able, they can restart the benefits without filling in all the forms again.
Practical and one would think easy enough things to help 'both sides'
How many employers would do that? Fabulous that yours does, truly fabulous, and if some offered to allow people to work from home, in work that doesn't need to be done in office hours would also help many. With me, having my own business,mine day I might work ten to twelve hours, next morning I may not be able to do anything, by the afternoon or night.... Etc.
But not many employers will do this, mostly because there are enough able besides and fit people looking for work.
Another thing that would help, is if someone not fit to work all the time had a time when they could do a contract or whatever they can declare it, have benefits put on hold, then when they are no longer able, they can restart the benefits without filling in all the forms again.
Practical and one would think easy enough things to help 'both sides'
