southcoast Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 The bottom line is that its about saving on the welfare bill,dont think its about anything else its not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 There's something wrong with a society where people refer to "failing a medical" meaning they have been declared fit to work. In most of the world being declared fit to work would be a cause for celebration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 There's something wrong with a society where people refer to "failing a medical" meaning they have been declared fit to work. In most of the world being declared fit to work would be a cause for celebration. It's a simple extrapolation of the claim to sickness benefits having not been successful. If you pass the medical, your claim fails; that's confusing in general conversation so it's easier to speak of failing the medical if you fail to convince them you're unfit for work. And, of course, while actually being fit for work is cause for celebration, having someone tell you that you are when you honestly believe you are not, is very much not so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheff1johnny Posted July 30, 2012 Author Share Posted July 30, 2012 Let's see what the program brings to light, as blind people, people with cancer have been found fit for work. There are some people who don't deserve to be on benefits, people with acne (or any other pointless illness), but serious conditions should be taken on their own merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Let's see what the program brings to light, as blind people, people with cancer have been found fit for work. Why should having cancer automatically mean you are unfit for work? It's not contagious, it's not going to affect others... I say this as I've got someone working here who currently is being treated for cancer. He goes daily atm for his chemo, is working much reduced hours but doesnt want to sit at home and do nothing, even though he could quite happily on full pay. His doctors are fully supportive of this as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I'm not sure that statistic is accurate - I thought it was higher - .......... Yes. It would appear to be higher. The Guardian article on the upcoming programme says: " ...... Large numbers of people found ineligible for the benefit are appealing against the decision to find them fit for work; about 41% of those refused support go to tribunal and 30% are subsequently granted the benefit. There have been more than 600,000 appeals since the WCA started, costing about £60m a year. ..." If I am correct in thinking that it says 30% of those refused, win their appeal, that would be 73% of Appeals being successful. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/27/disability-benefit-assessors-film?newsfeed=true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 It's rather poorly worded though - is that 30% of the entire total, or 30% of the 41% that go to appeal? It's not really clear to my mind which they actually mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medusa Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Why should having cancer automatically mean you are unfit for work? It's not contagious, it's not going to affect others... I say this as I've got someone working here who currently is being treated for cancer. He goes daily atm for his chemo, is working much reduced hours but doesnt want to sit at home and do nothing, even though he could quite happily on full pay. His doctors are fully supportive of this as well. I don't think that anybody thinks that having cancer automatically means you're unfit for work, but it is a very time consuming and tiring process getting treatment, entailing either lots of sick leave or a very understanding employer, and if you're having major operations then you really aren't fit for work, just like if you had any other sort of operation. There are a huge number of people who have cancer who are quite seriously unwell because of it though, and I think that does need to be recognised. Someone with quite advanced skin cancer may be really quite well compared to someone with a very small brain or bone tumour, so there needs to be an individualised response to this which looks at how you are affected by the cancer, rather than the word 'cancer' meaning that you are automatically on life's scrap heap whether or not you wish to be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Another look at the appeals statistics: http://fullfact.org/factchecks/ATOS_ESA_assessments_overturned-3135 This would suggest that figures should be lower, but the available data is over a year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I don't think that anybody thinks that having cancer automatically means you're unfit for work..... That though was the impression I got from the post. ...so there needs to be an individualised response to this which looks at how you are affected by the cancer, rather than the word 'cancer' meaning that you are automatically on life's scrap heap whether or not you wish to be there. That is what the assessment is meant to be - it should in theory determine if you can work. If you can then the jobcentre is where you are meant to get the relevant support that you need and that is where this whole process is breaking down I fell, not with the original yes/no assesment but the handover from there on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.