Re: A Contemporary Christmas Carol : Sun Dec 29, 2013 3:41 pm  

BobbyD wrote:

I'm not missing any point, but you carry on patronising. Do I qualify as being unable to work as my condition, being alive, is terminal? Should we just make a law that companies aren't allowed to employ people with cancer in case they do die? What about non terminal HIV/Aids? MS? You know, just to be on the safe side?

We get the point, you don't think that ANYONE is actually unfit to work therefore no form of support payment should be made to them, even those with less than twelve months to live with a degenerative condition should be exempt from working for money rather than just receive it from the state.

I don't think that you really believe that actually, you're just acting a tw*t because it makes you feel good on the internet.

Re: A Contemporary Christmas Carol : Tue Dec 31, 2013 11:08 pm  

I don't understand why anyone would want to allow people to claim benefits just on the say-so of those claimants. People lie. That is actually a fact. Benefits exist because those of us fortunate enough to be in work pay taxes. It is absolutely correct that anyone claiming a benefit - whatever the benefit may be - should provide the necessary evidence to support that claim. I have to do so whenever I claim jobseekers allowance (which at present I don't have to because at present I am in work). Why should a person claiming ESA not also have to provide evidence?

Re: A Contemporary Christmas Carol : Tue Dec 31, 2013 11:41 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

I don't understand why anyone would want to allow people to claim benefits just on the say-so of those claimants. People lie. That is actually a fact. Benefits exist because those of us fortunate enough to be in work pay taxes. It is absolutely correct that anyone claiming a benefit - whatever the benefit may be - should provide the necessary evidence to support that claim. I have to do so whenever I claim jobseekers allowance (which at present I don't have to because at present I am in work). Why should a person claiming ESA not also have to provide evidence?

I have never said we shouldn't have to provide evidence. I am quite happy to do that. What I do say is that the evidence provided by GP's, Consultants and Specialists should be used as conclusive proof of illness/disability by Atos and the DWP instead of them going against specialist advice and finding ill people fit for work. I also don't think that evidence should have to be produced every 6-12 months when its a degenerative disease or an amputee for example. They are wasting your money by assessing these people in this time frame. But hey, what do I know

Re: A Contemporary Christmas Carol : Wed Jan 01, 2014 8:45 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

I don't understand why anyone would want to allow people to claim benefits just on the say-so of those claimants. People lie. That is actually a fact. Benefits exist because those of us fortunate enough to be in work pay taxes. It is absolutely correct that anyone claiming a benefit - whatever the benefit may be - should provide the necessary evidence to support that claim. I have to do so whenever I claim jobseekers allowance (which at present I don't have to because at present I am in work). Why should a person claiming ESA not also have to provide evidence?

Most benefits aren't provided just because a claimant asks for them, even Child Allowance has to be accompanied by evidence that a child exists, claims for WTC and CTC have application forms which are at least a dozen pages long and ask for proof of right to claim which are individually checked (I've been checked) and disability/incapacity have always required proof from suitably qualified medical professionals and sometimes an interview with the Department providing the benefit (whatever name they were using for themselves at the time).

What is bizarre about the current situation is that you have a private business examining all medical claimants without reference to their medical notes or supporting evidence from their medical practitioners - take the example of the blind mental patient that I linked to two pages back - his ATOS assessment which concluded that he was fit for work and not entitled to housing benefit was carried out by a physiotherapist who had no experience of mental health issues or knowledge of his blindness, and why would a physio be expected to understand mental health problems, more importantly why would they be placed into a job that they have no qualifications for in the same way that you wouldn't call an ice cream van if your central heating boiler broke down ?

Re: A Contemporary Christmas Carol : Wed Jan 01, 2014 9:19 am  

JerryChicken wrote: Most benefits aren't provided just because a claimant asks for them, even Child Allowance has to be accompanied by evidence that a child exists, claims for WTC and CTC have application forms which are at least a dozen pages long and ask for proof of right to claim which are individually checked (I've been checked) and disability/incapacity have always required proof from suitably qualified medical professionals and sometimes an interview with the Department providing the benefit (whatever name they were using for themselves at the time). What is bizarre about the current situation is that you have a private business examining all medical claimants without reference to their medical notes or supporting evidence from their medical practitioners - take the example of the blind mental patient that I linked to two pages back - his ATOS assessment which concluded that he was fit for work and not entitled to housing benefit was carried out by a physiotherapist who had no experience of mental health issues or knowledge of his blindness, and why would a physio be expected to understand mental health problems, more importantly why would they be placed into a job that they have no qualifications for in the same way that you wouldn't call an ice cream van if your central heating boiler broke down ? Judge ruled mental health assesments were "unfair" by Atos in May: http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2013/0 ... l-illness/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... y-ill.html http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013 ... lth-unfair

JerryChicken wrote: Most benefits aren't provided just because a claimant asks for them, even Child Allowance has to be accompanied by evidence that a child exists, claims for WTC and CTC have application forms which are at least a dozen pages long and ask for proof of right to claim which are individually checked (I've been checked) and disability/incapacity have always required proof from suitably qualified medical professionals and sometimes an interview with the Department providing the benefit (whatever name they were using for themselves at the time). What is bizarre about the current situation is that you have a private business examining all medical claimants without reference to their medical notes or supporting evidence from their medical practitioners - take the example of the blind mental patient that I linked to two pages back - his ATOS assessment which concluded that he was fit for work and not entitled to housing benefit was carried out by a physiotherapist who had no experience of mental health issues or knowledge of his blindness, and why would a physio be expected to understand mental health problems, more importantly why would they be placed into a job that they have no qualifications for in the same way that you wouldn't call an ice cream van if your central heating boiler broke down ? Judge ruled mental health assesments were "unfair" by Atos in May: http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2013/0 ... l-illness/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... y-ill.html http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013 ... lth-unfair

Re: A Contemporary Christmas Carol : Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:43 am  

Hull White Star wrote: Judge ruled mental health assesments were "unfair" by Atos in May: http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2013/0 ... l-illness/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... y-ill.html http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013 ... lth-unfair This quote probably says it all ... However, the DWP said it would appeal against the ruling, and stated it did not intend to halt the assessment process. The incident I linked to occurred in September '13 so its clear that even High Court Judges have no influence over the assessment process.

Hull White Star wrote: Judge ruled mental health assesments were "unfair" by Atos in May: http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2013/0 ... l-illness/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... y-ill.html http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013 ... lth-unfair This quote probably says it all ... However, the DWP said it would appeal against the ruling, and stated it did not intend to halt the assessment process. The incident I linked to occurred in September '13 so its clear that even High Court Judges have no influence over the assessment process.

Re: A Contemporary Christmas Carol : Wed Jan 01, 2014 11:16 am  

JerryChicken wrote: This quote probably says it all ... The incident I linked to occurred in September '13 so its clear that even High Court Judges have no influence over the assessment process. I think because he was also blind/partially sighted, he would have had a HCP (Health Care Professional) ie the physio assess him on that. Even so, the fact the had a mental illness too should warrant a HCP who is trained in mental illness to assess him, which is, in Atos land is a "Mental Function Champion", I kid you not: http://www.atoshealthcare.com/claimants/faq_view/17

JerryChicken wrote: This quote probably says it all ... The incident I linked to occurred in September '13 so its clear that even High Court Judges have no influence over the assessment process. I think because he was also blind/partially sighted, he would have had a HCP (Health Care Professional) ie the physio assess him on that. Even so, the fact the had a mental illness too should warrant a HCP who is trained in mental illness to assess him, which is, in Atos land is a "Mental Function Champion", I kid you not: http://www.atoshealthcare.com/claimants/faq_view/17

Re: A Contemporary Christmas Carol : Wed Jan 01, 2014 12:54 pm  

Hull White Star wrote: I think because he was also blind/partially sighted, he would have had a HCP (Health Care Professional) ie the physio assess him on that. Even so, the fact the had a mental illness too should warrant a HCP who is trained in mental illness to assess him, which is, in Atos land is a "Mental Function Champion", I kid you not: http://www.atoshealthcare.com/claimants/faq_view/17 I think what is clear from the story is that none of this was in place prior to at least September '13. In December the coroner specifically blamed cuts to his benefit as a contributory element to the suicide and when the newspaper story was written (Dec) the statements from the housing association were that they would help anyone struggling to pay their rent - yet they had issued an eviction notice, to a man with a diagnosed mental health problem. The DWP when contacted in Dec said that he had an opportunity to appeal - he is fooking dead and they are being blamed by a coroner and all they can say is "he can appeal". But despite all this and despite the fact that they may now be appointing "Champions" for mental health issues the point still remains that until very, very recently it was considered to be perfectly acceptable to send an ice cream van out to assess your central heating boiler problems - how long have ASOS been doing the job, several years, and they have only just considered what sort of "experts" should be doing the assessments ? How much public money have we paid them ?

Hull White Star wrote: I think because he was also blind/partially sighted, he would have had a HCP (Health Care Professional) ie the physio assess him on that. Even so, the fact the had a mental illness too should warrant a HCP who is trained in mental illness to assess him, which is, in Atos land is a "Mental Function Champion", I kid you not: http://www.atoshealthcare.com/claimants/faq_view/17 I think what is clear from the story is that none of this was in place prior to at least September '13. In December the coroner specifically blamed cuts to his benefit as a contributory element to the suicide and when the newspaper story was written (Dec) the statements from the housing association were that they would help anyone struggling to pay their rent - yet they had issued an eviction notice, to a man with a diagnosed mental health problem. The DWP when contacted in Dec said that he had an opportunity to appeal - he is fooking dead and they are being blamed by a coroner and all they can say is "he can appeal". But despite all this and despite the fact that they may now be appointing "Champions" for mental health issues the point still remains that until very, very recently it was considered to be perfectly acceptable to send an ice cream van out to assess your central heating boiler problems - how long have ASOS been doing the job, several years, and they have only just considered what sort of "experts" should be doing the assessments ? How much public money have we paid them ?

Re: A Contemporary Christmas Carol : Wed Jan 01, 2014 1:33 pm  

JerryChicken wrote: I think what is clear from the story is that none of this was in place prior to at least September '13. In December the coroner specifically blamed cuts to his benefit as a contributory element to the suicide and when the newspaper story was written (Dec) the statements from the housing association were that they would help anyone struggling to pay their rent - yet they had issued an eviction notice, to a man with a diagnosed mental health problem. The DWP when contacted in Dec said that he had an opportunity to appeal - he is fooking dead and they are being blamed by a coroner and all they can say is "he can appeal". But despite all this and despite the fact that they may now be appointing "Champions" for mental health issues the point still remains that until very, very recently it was considered to be perfectly acceptable to send an ice cream van out to assess your central heating boiler problems - how long have ASOS been doing the job, several years, and they have only just considered what sort of "experts" should be doing the assessments ? How much public money have we paid them ? Unfortunately because Atos are a private company you cannot put in for a FoI request. But below is one put into the DWP asking that question: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... o_taxpayer The Department for Work and Pensions re-awarded Atos Origin IT Services Ltd, trading as Atos Healthcare, a new Contract to perform Medical Services on behalf of the Department from 1st September 2005. The total cost of these services amounts to approximately £801 million over a ten year period. This figure not only covers the total numbers of examinations undertaken over the full term of the contract, but also costs relating to written and verbal medical advice, fixed overheads, administrative costs, investment in new technology and other service improvements. The figure also covers salaries and expenses. I'm assuming this amount doesn't cover appeals and tribunals which are paid for out of public money (and Atos gets the money even if the appeal/tribunal is overturned/sucessful, so it will be way in excess of the £801million quoted. And thats a 10 year contract, only until 2015. Considering Atos are one of the companies that have been brought in to assess DLA/PIP which will go way beyond 2015, I assume that figure will balloon again.

JerryChicken wrote: I think what is clear from the story is that none of this was in place prior to at least September '13. In December the coroner specifically blamed cuts to his benefit as a contributory element to the suicide and when the newspaper story was written (Dec) the statements from the housing association were that they would help anyone struggling to pay their rent - yet they had issued an eviction notice, to a man with a diagnosed mental health problem. The DWP when contacted in Dec said that he had an opportunity to appeal - he is fooking dead and they are being blamed by a coroner and all they can say is "he can appeal". But despite all this and despite the fact that they may now be appointing "Champions" for mental health issues the point still remains that until very, very recently it was considered to be perfectly acceptable to send an ice cream van out to assess your central heating boiler problems - how long have ASOS been doing the job, several years, and they have only just considered what sort of "experts" should be doing the assessments ? How much public money have we paid them ? Unfortunately because Atos are a private company you cannot put in for a FoI request. But below is one put into the DWP asking that question: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... o_taxpayer The Department for Work and Pensions re-awarded Atos Origin IT Services Ltd, trading as Atos Healthcare, a new Contract to perform Medical Services on behalf of the Department from 1st September 2005. The total cost of these services amounts to approximately £801 million over a ten year period. This figure not only covers the total numbers of examinations undertaken over the full term of the contract, but also costs relating to written and verbal medical advice, fixed overheads, administrative costs, investment in new technology and other service improvements. The figure also covers salaries and expenses. I'm assuming this amount doesn't cover appeals and tribunals which are paid for out of public money (and Atos gets the money even if the appeal/tribunal is overturned/sucessful, so it will be way in excess of the £801million quoted. And thats a 10 year contract, only until 2015. Considering Atos are one of the companies that have been brought in to assess DLA/PIP which will go way beyond 2015, I assume that figure will balloon again.

Re: A Contemporary Christmas Carol : Wed Jan 01, 2014 3:19 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

I don't understand why anyone would want to allow people to claim benefits just on the say-so of those claimants. People lie. That is actually a fact. Benefits exist because those of us fortunate enough to be in work pay taxes. It is absolutely correct that anyone claiming a benefit - whatever the benefit may be - should provide the necessary evidence to support that claim. I have to do so whenever I claim jobseekers allowance (which at present I don't have to because at present I am in work). Why should a person claiming ESA not also have to provide evidence?

Please point to anyone, either on here or even in the general population, who has advocated self-certification of claimants.