benefits are a joke

[Steve Burke]

I totally agree Steve.

 

A member of my family is seriously disabled. He applied for the lower rate of Mobility Allowance I think it was called. He was turned down but appealed. He was then visited by a doctor rather than a layman and was awarded the higher rate!

 

Someone else I know is also badly disabled. Apparently she was awarded zero points, which is clearly ridiculous.

 

The system is of course used to cut government spending (by this and previous governments by the way), and certainly makes you think it's been deliberately designed to put people off from claiming by making it as difficult to possible.

 

Of course the spongers that this system is supposed to weed out (and I can't stand) are likely to know all the wrinkles and will appeal against any decision anyway. Those who are genuinely ill are often under a lot of stress because of their medical condition, and this just makes it worse. They just give up, but they're the ones who need the help most of all.

[Ken L]

A member of my family is seriously disabled. He applied for the lower rate of Mobility Allowance I think it was called. He was turned down but appealed. He was then visited by a doctor rather than a layman and was awarded the higher rate!

 

Someone else I know is also badly disabled. Apparently she was awarded zero points, which is clearly ridiculous.

 

With respect guys this is what causes so much confusion.

In almost a single breath, we have confusion between two benefits and a failure to understand what the mobility component of DLA is ll about.

First off, there is no points system in place with DLA - that's ESA.

 

Secondly, the mobility component of DLA has two rates that are paid for entirely different reasons.

The higher rate is paid if someone is "either unable or virtually unable to walk" because of a physical limitation.

The lower rate is payable if someone can walk but requires either guidance or supervision most of the time that they are walking outdoors - usually because of a sensory impairment of a mental health problem.

[Andy_1984]

im not 100% but if like you say ESA is the points based benefit then thats probably what she's on, or was on. despite what benefits she's on some idiot thinks they know more than her previous and current doctor and probably not marking up the report correctly.

 

whilst appealing last year i think her score changed about 3 times. i cant remember exactly but it went something like 20, 38, 12 (not exact figures but you get the idea) its a stupid system that i think has a lot to do with the person doing the interview, even if it has been designed not to.

 

what im curious about is if the skin tone thing isnt taken in to account when marking up her points then why even write it down on paper. the way they put it must have some effect on the outcome of any decision?

 

it must look really bad seeing "she had a tan" thinking she's been swaning off to spain on her benefit.

[grumpybum]

My wife had to go for her assessment for ESA. It was completed by a nurse. Eventually she had a phone call to tell her she had failed the medical having gained 0 points.

 

The nurse was told her dizzy/light headed/black out attacks happened up to 3 times a day lasted for up to 24 hours with 3/4 attacks per week. The nurse in her report said one attack a month.

 

Walking! my wife said 30/m. the nurse said 200m.

 

Any surprise she failed?

 

I heard but not confirmed that ATOS have been banned from operating in New Zealand and the USA for corrupt practice. Also that they receive £300, £400 and over £1000 from the government for every person who fails?

[Ken L]

Last post on the subject.

 

what im curious about is if the skin tone thing isnt taken in to account when marking up her points then why even write it down on paper.

Because the report needs to be internally consistent and justify any decision that is subsequently made. I've already given examples of the sort of notes that they are expected to make and pointed out that some such observations are medically relevant while others simply confirm that the observation has been made.

 

Walking! my wife said 30/m. the nurse said 200m.

 

Surely you realise that the disability analyst is there to make an assessment based on medical information, examination and observation and not to simply parrot what he or she is told.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Ken L

[Steve Burke]

With respect guys this is what causes so much confusion.

In almost a single breath, we have confusion between two benefits and a failure to understand what the mobility component of DLA is ll about.

First off, there is no points system in place with DLA - that's ESA.

 

Secondly, the mobility component of DLA has two rates that are paid for entirely different reasons.

The higher rate is paid if someone is "either unable or virtually unable to walk" because of a physical limitation.

The lower rate is payable if someone can walk but requires either guidance or supervision most of the time that they are walking outdoors - usually because of a sensory impairment of a mental health problem.

 

Ken, having checked, my first example was indeed for the old DLA, the second for the current benefit, presumably ESA. So no confusion there.

 

I therefore stand by my post.

 

Quite simply, the system isn't fit for purpose. Exactly where it's going wrong I don't know, but I have my suspicions.

[jedibond]

My father had a stroke a few years ago which caused him to go blind. He is 95% blind according to the consultant with no hope of recovery as it was the optic nerve that got damaged by the stroke. It still doesn't stop them asking him every year if he's still blind or not though. It is a ridiculous system as others have said and it doesn't filter out the scroungers that it's supposed to as they know exactly how to play the system to their advantage.

[grumpybum]

Surely you realise that the disability analyst is there to make an assessment based on medical information, examination and observation and not to simply parrot what he or she is told.

 

Are you for real?

 

Any GP or consultant bases his opinion on what he/she is told. So whats the difference?

 

That nurse DID NOT examine my wife and made no reference to any notes etc what so ever. The nurse asked her the question how many attacks which we answered. She saw fit to ignore the reply and make up her own. If she had read the reports or knew enough to know what medication my wife was on he would have known that several were to control these attacks.

 

On being informed she had failed and was now on ES we visited our GP explained that she needed a sick note which was duly given for 3 months.

 

We were also waiting on an appointment to see a consultant for the increased number of attacks my wife was having. This had been done BEFORE we knew anything about the assessment.

 

There are also numerous cases of cancer suffers under going chemo who have been deemed fit to work, after failing the assessment. Then we have cancer suffers with a life expectancy of 6 -12 months being deemed fit for work. Whats your explaination for this then?

Edited May 1, 2012 by grumpybum

[Now there's a right un.]

My last medical examiner in regard to my benefit, which is paid for through my stamps from when I was employed, which is still taxed, which excludes me from free NHS support, who did not acknowledge the 9 operations nor specialist reports from senior orthopaedic surgeons,

 

 

said that:

I should be okay to work.

 

I have widespread arthritis, badly damaged knee joints and I am prone to dropping unconscious to the floor at anytime.

 

Despite the fact I had suffered a massive bloodclot in my lung and almost died, despite the fact I need regular monitoring of medications given. Also despite the fact that the next bloodclot I get will kill me.

 

I was not physically examined. No contact was made to my Consultant haemotologist nor my surgeon nor my GP.

 

Yet, I was deemed fit for work.

 

Upon appeal the panel condemned the original decision maker and approved my appeal.

 

 

You have to fight for it now more than ever...

 

 

 

GOOD TIP.

 

AT YOUR NEXT MEDICAL TAKE A DICTAPHONE WITH YOU OR CAMCORDER. THEN AND ONLY THEN CAN YOU GUARANTEE THAT WHAT YOU SAY WILL BE RECORDED CORRECTLY.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Now there's a right un.

[Steve Burke]

GOOD TIP.

 

AT YOUR NEXT MEDICAL TAKE A DICTAPHONE WITH YOU OR CAMCORDER. THEN AND ONLY THEN CAN YOU GUARANTEE THAT WHAT YOU SAY WILL BE RECORDED CORRECTLY.

 

Excellent idea!

 

I hope I'm never in that situation, but if I am I'll certainly take your advice. Cheers.