That 40% which you so casually refer to are genuinely in need, some of them with very serious illnesses. Yet they are forced to endure months of worry and uncertainty, just because the Government have decided that taking a sledgehammer to break an egg is a good idea.
Unfortunately the whole system has become bloated due to the huge numbers who shouldn't have been claiming. It's taking an age to sort out and I'm sure everyone wants the system speeded up.
When only 1 in 8 ESA claimants is incapable of any type of work it's slightly larger than an egg that needs breaking.
Successive governments have massaged unemployment figures by having lax rules for claiming sickness benefits to the point we now have people unable to work because of acne.
It's not sustainable, the coalition know it, Labour know it.
Only a selfish few want to maintain it and thankfully they have almost zero public support.
We are talking about DLA here you need no medical condition to claim it and no medical evidence to support your claim
Are you intentionally talking from your bottom? Go have a look at the claim form. If you supply no evidence they contact your Dr and almost certainly send you for a medical with ATOS.
Are you intentionally talking from your bottom? Go have a look at the claim form. If you supply no evidence they contact your Dr and almost certainly send you for a medical with ATOS.
Had you ever claimed, you'd not make THAT claim.
Yes I have I get it for child. The questions surround caring for someone and their ability to do things independently.
The evidence does not have to come from the medical world people are not assessed to claim it at present as suggested.
My sons GP was never involved and would have no idea whether he fit the criteria for DLA.
Unfortunately the whole system has become bloated due to the huge numbers who shouldn't have been claiming. It's taking an age to sort out and I'm sure everyone wants the system speeded up.
When only 1 in 8 ESA claimants is incapable of any type of work it's slightly larger than an egg that needs breaking.
Successive governments have massaged unemployment figures by having lax rules for claiming sickness benefits to the point we now have people unable to work because of acne.
It's not sustainable, the coalition know it, Labour know it.
Only a selfish few want to maintain it and thankfully they have almost zero public support.
Oh, don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting for one moment that there are not folks conning the system.
What I am saying is that the current approach by the government is and has been shown to be, not fit for purpose.
Surely to god before embarking upon paying ATOS millions to carry out medical assessments, the first move should have been contacting employees in their own Health Service - namely GPs and ask them to assess each claiment in their practice. Only where there is some question about the case should the need arise for further medical examination.
Or are the Government now of the opinion that GPs are no longer fit for purpose and cannot be trusted to provide medical assessments?
Yes I have I get it for child. The questions surround caring for someone and their ability to do things independently.
The evidence does not have to come from the medical world people are not assessed to claim it at present as suggested.
My sons GP was never involved and would have no idea whether he fit the criteria for DLA.
Didn't say he'd know the critreria, but that he'd know the patient and their needs. My daughters GP knows her needs well, as does her paediatrician, her Portage, speech therapist and school. All gave evidence to submit with her claim.
Your claim about not needing a medical condition or evidence is simply nonsense, as anyone who has actually claimed DLA would know.
Oh, don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting for one moment that there are not folks conning the system.
What I am saying is that the current approach by the government is and has been shown to be, not fit for purpose.
Surely to god before embarking upon paying ATOS millions to carry out medical assessments, the first move should have been contacting employees in their own Health Service - namely GPs and ask them to assess each claiment in their practice. Only where there is some question about the case should the need arise for further medical examination.
Or are the Government now of the opinion that GPs are no longer fit for purpose and cannot be trusted to provide medical assessments?
Labour introduced Atos and I don't think the GP/patient relationship lends itself to an impartial decision. I believe GP's aren't keen on this arrangement anyway. There's also the issue of how they manage their current caseload while having to carry out assessments.
The WCA isn't a medical either, it's a functional assessment.
Many claimants don't understand this.
We are talking about DLA here you need no medical condition to claim it and no medical evidence to support your claim
What a load of rubbish! Of course they need medical evidence.
I was lucky enough to be given high rate mobility/middle rate care DLA without an assessment. I had to send in letters from my consultant and MS nurse as well as full information on the form.
If I hadnt sent them in. I probably would have had an assessment.
Labour introduced Atos and I don't think the GP/patient relationship lends itself to an impartial decision. I believe GP's aren't keen on this arrangement anyway. There's also the issue of how they manage their current caseload while having to carry out assessments.
The WCA isn't a medical either, it's a functional assessment.
Many claimants don't understand this.
But it is a flawed measure, I would be physically and mentally able to drive, the fact that I could never legally get a driving licence doee not alter the functional fact.
Strictly speaking no blind person could ever be correctly deemed unfit for work (unless there were other factors) yet 75% are not in paid employment, does that make them all scroungers or is the problem with employers
Didn't say he'd know the critreria, but that he'd know the patient and their needs. My daughters GP knows her needs well, as does her paediatrician, her Portage, speech therapist and school. All gave evidence to submit with her claim.
Your claim about not needing a medical condition or evidence is simply nonsense, as anyone who has actually claimed DLA would know.
Again it you who is talking nonsense. In our Dla claim it was our evidence and the schools evidence which decided. You do not need a medical condition to claim DLA it always been stated on their website. Things maybe changing now but when we claimed it was made clear that no medical condition was needed
Again it you who is talking nonsense. In our Dla claim it was our evidence and the schools evidence which decided.
Your evidence and the schools evidence counts as medical evidence. It's not medically-sourced, but it is still medical evidence, which you said wasn't needed...
In fact, the schools evidence would have been quite weighty, being caregivers loco-parentis for the child, and being independent by default.
You do not need a medical condition to claim DLA it always been stated on their website. Things maybe changing now but when we claimed it was made clear that no medical condition was needed
Wrong. You need a condition. You don't need a diagnosis (as one may not have been reached yet).
Well yeah, actually. It says more people are surviving...
*hands katywil some logic cake*
It also says:
1) Disabled people have become more independent and less hidden, many now attempt to get into the workforce and do not just disappear into institutions
2) We have a greater appreciation of mental health, learning disabilities etc.
3) Women are now more likely to be included as a large proportion of them were previously not part of the workforce.
Your evidence and the schools evidence counts as medical evidence. It's not medically-sourced, but it is still medical evidence, which you said wasn't needed...
In fact, the schools evidence would have been quite weighty, being caregivers loco-parentis for the child, and being independent by default.
Wrong. You need a condition. You don't need a diagnosis (as one may not have been reached yet).
Since when were schools medically qualified? All the school are confirming is the parents comments regarding what is capable of doing compared to the average child of the same age.
Also like I say you don't need a medical condition you just need to show you child needs a lot of support compared to the average child.
i dont need logic cake. thanks. can the nhs not cure a few blisters?
A "few blisters" could mean something where your skin literally drops off your body, where you cannot eat or drink because of the blistering in your throat, where breathing is painful, where you cannot hold anything because of the blistering on your hands, unable to walk because of the blistering on your feet.
But it is a flawed measure, I would be physically and mentally able to drive, the fact that I could never legally get a driving licence doee not alter the functional fact.
Strictly speaking no blind person could ever be correctly deemed unfit for work (unless there were other factors) yet 75% are not in paid employment, does that make them all scroungers or is the problem with employers
Can you come up with a better one?
We'd all like a perfect system but there isn't one at the moment.
This has been refined due to Professor Harrington's recommendations and is what we have.
The appeals system is working and the only problem is the length of time things take.
This should improve with less claimants.
If it doesn't then the whole process will have to be looked at again,
Since when were schools medically qualified? All the school are confirming is the parents comments regarding what is capable of doing compared to the average child of the same age.
Yes, of their cognitive development, which is medical evidence. I didn't say they were medically qualified, in fact I said the exact reverse, so you might want to read again.
Also like I say you don't need a medical condition you just need to show you child needs a lot of support compared to the average child.
Which indicates a medical condition of some sort, if it's severe enough to warrant DLA, whether you have a name for it yet or not.
TBH, you seem to be getting stuck on some definitions here, making you think itseasier to claim for some than is the reality.
Comments
Unfortunately the whole system has become bloated due to the huge numbers who shouldn't have been claiming. It's taking an age to sort out and I'm sure everyone wants the system speeded up.
When only 1 in 8 ESA claimants is incapable of any type of work it's slightly larger than an egg that needs breaking.
Successive governments have massaged unemployment figures by having lax rules for claiming sickness benefits to the point we now have people unable to work because of acne.
It's not sustainable, the coalition know it, Labour know it.
Only a selfish few want to maintain it and thankfully they have almost zero public support.
Are you intentionally talking from your bottom? Go have a look at the claim form. If you supply no evidence they contact your Dr and almost certainly send you for a medical with ATOS.
Had you ever claimed, you'd not make THAT claim.
Yes I have I get it for child. The questions surround caring for someone and their ability to do things independently.
The evidence does not have to come from the medical world people are not assessed to claim it at present as suggested.
My sons GP was never involved and would have no idea whether he fit the criteria for DLA.
Oh, don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting for one moment that there are not folks conning the system.
What I am saying is that the current approach by the government is and has been shown to be, not fit for purpose.
Surely to god before embarking upon paying ATOS millions to carry out medical assessments, the first move should have been contacting employees in their own Health Service - namely GPs and ask them to assess each claiment in their practice. Only where there is some question about the case should the need arise for further medical examination.
Or are the Government now of the opinion that GPs are no longer fit for purpose and cannot be trusted to provide medical assessments?
The GPs are too busy studying for MBAs
Didn't say he'd know the critreria, but that he'd know the patient and their needs. My daughters GP knows her needs well, as does her paediatrician, her Portage, speech therapist and school. All gave evidence to submit with her claim.
Your claim about not needing a medical condition or evidence is simply nonsense, as anyone who has actually claimed DLA would know.
Labour introduced Atos and I don't think the GP/patient relationship lends itself to an impartial decision. I believe GP's aren't keen on this arrangement anyway. There's also the issue of how they manage their current caseload while having to carry out assessments.
The WCA isn't a medical either, it's a functional assessment.
Many claimants don't understand this.
I thought the standard way to DLA nowadays is through ESA (where doctors medical certification is needed) then wait for an ATOS test.
Well yeah, actually. It says more people are surviving...
*hands katywil some logic cake*
No. You can be ineligible for DLA and eligible for ESA, and vice-versa. Or elible for both, or neither. ATOS medicals measure differently for each.
What a load of rubbish! Of course they need medical evidence.
I was lucky enough to be given high rate mobility/middle rate care DLA without an assessment. I had to send in letters from my consultant and MS nurse as well as full information on the form.
If I hadnt sent them in. I probably would have had an assessment.
But it is a flawed measure, I would be physically and mentally able to drive, the fact that I could never legally get a driving licence doee not alter the functional fact.
Strictly speaking no blind person could ever be correctly deemed unfit for work (unless there were other factors) yet 75% are not in paid employment, does that make them all scroungers or is the problem with employers
Again it you who is talking nonsense. In our Dla claim it was our evidence and the schools evidence which decided. You do not need a medical condition to claim DLA it always been stated on their website. Things maybe changing now but when we claimed it was made clear that no medical condition was needed
In fact, the schools evidence would have been quite weighty, being caregivers loco-parentis for the child, and being independent by default. Wrong. You need a condition. You don't need a diagnosis (as one may not have been reached yet).
It also says:
1) Disabled people have become more independent and less hidden, many now attempt to get into the workforce and do not just disappear into institutions
2) We have a greater appreciation of mental health, learning disabilities etc.
3) Women are now more likely to be included as a large proportion of them were previously not part of the workforce.
So go ahead, have the cake. You do seem to be needing a slice
Since when were schools medically qualified? All the school are confirming is the parents comments regarding what is capable of doing compared to the average child of the same age.
Also like I say you don't need a medical condition you just need to show you child needs a lot of support compared to the average child.
Can you come up with a better one?
We'd all like a perfect system but there isn't one at the moment.
This has been refined due to Professor Harrington's recommendations and is what we have.
The appeals system is working and the only problem is the length of time things take.
This should improve with less claimants.
If it doesn't then the whole process will have to be looked at again,
Which indicates a medical condition of some sort, if it's severe enough to warrant DLA, whether you have a name for it yet or not.
TBH, you seem to be getting stuck on some definitions here, making you think itseasier to claim for some than is the reality.
And that's before we get onto the lip service that is paid to healthy living in this country.
After all they are good enough to spend a large part of the NHS budget, so they should know something about being a doctor.