Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Incapacity Reform

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    kaffrin wrote: »
    Agree with this. What's to stop people faking difficulty on the tests?

    And what about people (like me) who have really bad days and good days with their illness?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Melian wrote: »
    And what about people (like me) who have really bad days and good days with their illness?

    I understand that. But I have good and bad days with my illnesses and still work full-time. Should I get benefits because sometimes I struggle?

    Don't get me wrong, I think there are people who are incapable of work, and I don't for a second begrudge them the benefits they need. But I think there are a whole load of people who may be genuinely ill, but they are still perfectly capable of working. I know that cause I'm one of them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    For those that don't know, I'm a welfare benefits advisor for a charity. I deal every day with the most vulnerable people in the country- people that a Minister of the Government so lovingly calls scrounging scum.

    I am deeply worried by the whole thing. There is a lot of focus on the "responsibilities" of those who are incapable of work, yet there isn't anywhere near as much focus on the "responsibilities" of the Government to create an employment market that can accomodate the most vulnerable people- the disabled, lone parents and the young.

    What the Government rely on is people not understanding how the benefits system works, and not understanding what the long-term effects of these policies really are. People never really appreciate the welfare benefit system until it affects them.

    The tests such as being able to walk up a flight of stairs without holding on, or being able to walk 400 yards (which is about 1/3 mile), are still directly relevant to the workplace- it's all well and good being able to sit at a desk, but what if the office is on the third floor? What if the office is a mile from the bus stop? To get from my desk to my photocopier I have to walk up and down two flights of steep stairs- great if you can't climb a flight without having to hold onto something or take a rest.

    Most medical examinations take around 12 minutes to complete, by a doctor who is paid for by the DWP, and some of the decisions I've seen are absolutely shocking. The opinions of GPs and hospital consultants are binned in favour of some doctor who's seen the client for 10 minutes in his life. I've had a 60-year-old woman with chronic asthma, severe osteo-arthritis and debilitating aghoraphobia get told she's capable of work; I've had someone with ME get told that her illness is all in her head.

    In isolation the changes sound fair enough, but the combined effect is very different. Given that the incapacity test is based on points, it means that more people will find it hard to get the benefit they need. There are fewer points available, and the banding between severity of illness has been narrowed, meaning even more people will fall through the cracks.

    Because, of course, if someone can't look for work they can't get JSA either. So no money for them.

    Anyone who thinks that it's easy to get incapacity benefit should come and sit with me for the day. It would open a fair few eyes, put it that way.

    Like most legislation by this Government, on face value it seems reasonable, but it doesn't take much scratching beneath the surface to see what it is really all about. And whilst we have a media that labels anyone on IB as scrounging scum, this Government will continue to victimise and attack the most vulnerable people in society to pay for tax cuts for the most privileged.

    I'm glad to see that the Child Poverty Action Group have given these proposals the kicking they deserve too. When CPAG attack something, people should sit up and take notice, as anyone who works in the advice industry will tell you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit, noone has said that people who are unable to work should be denied benefits, the opposite in fact, i think most people would agree that people who need help deserve whatever they can get.

    obviously you work within this field so probably have a bit more insightful view than the rest of us, but from the outside these new proposals dont seem to be aimed towards stopping benefits of vunerable people.

    there were some figures locally here in Burnley recently which showed there are more people on IB than actually claiming JSA, not sure how accurate they were but surely that cant be right? i know there was this motivated push to get people off JSA and moving them to IB is more often the not the easiest transition for some of the states you see round here.

    just personal opinion of course
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Going off topic slightly, but what does everyone think about this: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20071119/tuk-2-000-people-too-fat-to-work-6323e80_1.html

    Personally, I think it's just an excuse for some people not to work.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fat people should be working yes, unless they are actually too big to leave the house, as should people with acne or other "disabilities" such as that.

    i honestly think stuff like depression as well shouldnt be so clean cut, i share a office with someone who is currently on medication and regular theropy sessions for chronic depression but it doesnt effect her work, she just carries on doing what she can.

    of course there will be people who are a lot sicker than her but its just an example.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Melian wrote: »
    Going off topic slightly, but what does everyone think about this: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20071119/tuk-2-000-people-too-fat-to-work-6323e80_1.html

    Personally, I think it's just an excuse for some people not to work.

    Sounds silly, but being morbidly obese actually would seriously hinder your chances of getting a job.

    The vast majority of office chairs have a maximum weight limit of about 25st, and doing an active job, or being up and about all day just wouldn't be an option. It is effectively a physical disability.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    koe_182 wrote: »
    i honestly think stuff like depression as well shouldnt be so clean cut, i share a office with someone who is currently on medication and regular theropy sessions for chronic depression but it doesnt effect her work, she just carries on doing what she can.

    There are some people who have depression whereby it can be serious enough for them not to be able to work. That ebing said, in general it is probably better for some people to work.

    Thw problem I think with those kinds of tests, is that it doesn't take into account peoples' illnesses. I have a condition called Nystagmus (basically, my eyes move without me controlling them and there's a certain position I can put my head in so that they stop moving) and as a result of this, I am in constant pain. According to the current test, I am capable of working, but I know I'm not. I also have terrible hand-eye co-ordination as a result of this.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    koe_182 wrote: »
    or not working at all and claiming benefits?

    I think it's a bit harsh to imply that was J's intention. He said he has ambitions. He used to be in the navy full time and left due to scitzophrenia (if I'm correct J) and got full time financial support, but he said further up he wanted to do something with his life - but rather than go into a job like basket weaving he's gone to uni (and losing out on some of his income support) to try and get a good job for himself.

    Normally I would take the other side of the argument as I do believe in the UK currently that we err on the side of caution i.e. we tend to give people benefits if they might need it when a lot of that is wasted on those who can work but don't. But I object to people (not you personally, a communal 'people') picking on J personally when from what I've seen he's not scrounging and he's saying he doesn't want to work in a crap job so is getting an education. Same as many of us.

    And with regards to depression, a friend of mine works for one of the major pharmaceutical companies in Europe as a medical economist (not sure what that is but it's stupidly well paid where he has lunch with executives / grads with £200 bottles of wine!) and he said there was definate evidence that giving someone suffering from depression a routine where either they talk to the same person at the same time every week or something like that improves their condition much more than any drug on the market. Simply talking, or getting them to help out at the allotments, can help so much.

    But I'm not an expert, he is, and is making serious bucks doing research and analysis into this kind of thing, and he says it's beyond dispute really. I mean, of the depressed people I know they seem to all stay inside, have irregular sleeping patterns, try to cut social contact outside and so on. Whilst there'll be 50 people coming here and telling me I'm wrong next :p I'm just going on the people I know (my mum - notice I've posted before about her sleeping for 36 hours in one go before, and other family members).

    But I think there should be more of a push to get those that are disabled, into enabled people. If they can't walk, does that mean they don't have ideas. Or if they're sad (to put it one way), does that mean they don't get satisfaction out of a job well done? I think putting people on DLA is the easy way out sometimes and is a symptom of a social welfare system that has been set targets and needs to get people out the door as quickly as possible. By giving them a stamp on their file saying disabled, then putting them on the list for benefits you can deal with the next case.

    But I don't think I've ever met a disabled person who would, if they thought about it, call themselves 'disabled' - because they're still able to do some things. I think it comes back to the point others have made about being able to do different jobs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    koe_182 wrote: »
    Kermit, noone has said that people who are unable to work should be denied benefits, the opposite in fact, i think most people would agree that people who need help deserve whatever they can get.

    obviously you work within this field so probably have a bit more insightful view than the rest of us, but from the outside these new proposals dont seem to be aimed towards stopping benefits of vunerable people.

    That's the problem- from the outside these proposals seem perfectly fair and reasonable, and that anyone who falls foul of them isn't really that ill anyway.

    In order to be deemed incapable of work after 196 days, you need to pass a medical called the personal capability assessment. In order to be incapable of work you need to score 15 points on the physical assessment, 10 points on the mental health assessment, or 15 points in combination. So far so good.

    Problem is the scoring. If you are too scared to leave the house by yourself, you score one point. If you have disruptive behavioural problems (i.e. you could start a fight in an empty room) that's a whopping two points.

    If you cannot stand up from a chair without having to hold onto something, that's only seven points. If you cannot sit down for 30 minutes because of the pain, that's only seven points. If you cannot climb a flight of stairs without having to take a rest, that's only seven points.

    It is impossible to claim incapacity benefit simply because you cannot walk 400 yards or climb stairs without holding on to the bannister.

    It will affect people who cannot do things such as sit down for long period of time, or stand up for long periods of time, because it will become much harder for them to get the points to keep their benefit. It will catch people who have a lot of problems, but don't have a big enough combination of them to score the points. If you can't sit down or stand up, that's not enough.

    As I say, the Government is relying on people not understanding the benefits system; on the face of it, the proposals seem fine, but they are far from it.
Sign In or Register to comment.