Topic/Thread not aimed at genuine claimants.

As Dave has pointed out, 400k people claiming because they are depressed, don't we all get depressed in our lives? Maybe if these people worked instead of sitting at home all day they wouldn't be depressed.

Quote from: Dave on February 11, 2012, 23:19:20 PM

Quote from: Serious on February 11, 2012, 22:17:35 PM

Until she went into hospital my mother was as well as any other 82 year old, most of the time. After she did get taken in she died within 4 weeks of lung cancer.

So she presumably wasn't a cancer patient then? Rather someone who had it (and seemingly didn't know that she had it?)... nor was she presumably working at the age of 82.

Not quite, she was quite fit and did house work and cooked for herself. If she had wanted then she could have worked. Just because you draw a pension doesn't mean someone is incapable of working and many pensioners do full time jobs.

As to her condition, until she went into hospital and was x-rayed nobody had any idea that she had cancer. When she was taken in they thought she just had some infection.

Your mum was a pensioner - not a good example to use in this arguement. She wasnt claiming benefits, only a pension which she/her partner contributed to their whole lives.
 She may well have been fit enough to work, but I doubt many employers would take the risk.

Quote

Just being an alcoholic or drug dependant isn't enough to get you sickness benefit, neither is just being depressed. Being obese certainly won't get you any special treatment

Except all of those have caused people to claim - especially 'depression'

re: obesity, alcohol and drug related issues:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13152349

While those figures are paraded about by politicians there is one little issue, someone can suffer from multiple issues on the list. One fairly close friend had an issue with his knee joints and back, which badly reduced his sleep. He became alcoholic because drinking alleviated the pain more than the drugs the doc was giving him. Does that put him on the sick because of the alcoholism or the inability to walk or sleep properly? It's a case of 'tick all that apply', not just one, each additional issue gives you more points and it's the total that matters. He ended up obese as well, because of his inability to exercise and drink problem. He died due to liver failure.

sometimes you need to peel back the layers. If the drugs wasnt working, he should have went for a 2nd opinion.

Quote

He promised "tough action" after government figures showed 80,000 people claimed incapacity benefits due to drink, drug or weight-related issues.

Notice the figures at the bottom - Depression isn't only a reason to claim its the top reason... nearly 400,000 claimants. This is exactly why the system needs reform - far to many people taking the mickey on conditions that are difficult to diagnose/prove.

Yep, but how many of those are ONLY suffering from depression? How many is it an additional issue?

The actual list of points is this, you are expected to score at least 15 points to get incapacity benefit, and getting those can be a struggle. Their doctors will push you off the list if at all possible.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=534086

Some of them are strange and have no bearing on someone's ability to work, for instance, can a person in a wheelchair work? They could easily hold a call centre job, so yes, they can work.

How about someone who's deaf? Again, deafness doesn't stop you from working.

Incontinent? Wear a nappy.

How about this?

f Overlooks or forgets the risk posed by domestic
appliances or other common hazards due to poor
concentration

This only scores 1 point, so they are fit to work. Who cares if the have altzheimers?

The problem is that the criteria for getting incapacity benefit has no relevance to your ability to work, it's just a list of items you might or might not be able to do.

Question, if you were a businessman, would you employ Marvin the robot to work in your factory?


good posting a link to incapacity benefits... a benefit that no new claimaints have been able to get for a few years & those on it are being re-assessed for ESA the replacement.
One of the biggest 'cons' what they go for is DLA. Thats their golden ticket. Paired with ESA a claimant can get about £200 a week in benefit cash, housing benefit, council benefit, etc.
Also sometimes a free car, etc. Nothing stops a disabled person working & getting DLA btw - so yea, a wheelchair person could work in a call centre. Ive worked at a few places that employ people in chairs, as well as the deaf & blind. Credit to them for wanting to work...

It's hard to believe someone with dementia only gets 1 point on that scale.

After seeing my great aunts house burn down after she put an electric kettle on the stove... It's surprising that such a dangerous state of mind is given such a low consideration.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

This post on MSE sums it up

Very interesting, food for thought. By those criteria I wouldn't get IB and I've got cancer! Perhaps I should become an alcoholic, they get more points than I do The only points I get would be for my hearing loss, and that's never stopped me working!

Also

a Cannot sit comfortably 15

Quote from: Dave on February 11, 2012, 23:19:20 PM

Quote from: Serious on February 11, 2012, 22:17:35 PM

Until she went into hospital my mother was as well as any other 82 year old, most of the time. After she did get taken in she died within 4 weeks of lung cancer.

So she presumably wasn't a cancer patient then? Rather someone who had it (and seemingly didn't know that she had it?)... nor was she presumably working at the age of 82.

Not quite, she was quite fit and did house work and cooked for herself. If she had wanted then she could have worked. Just because you draw a pension doesn't mean someone is incapable of working and many pensioners do full time jobs.

As to her condition, until she went into hospital and was x-rayed nobody had any idea that she had cancer. When she was taken in they thought she just had some infection.

So, again, she wasn't a cancer patient then....

Try getting someone undergoing radiotheapy to work...

Anyway the point is irrelevant, the issue is people claiming who actually are capable of some work.

Main point is that about 7% of the working population is claiming it:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpubacc/404/40405.htm

Take a look at that chart - our population didn't increase that rapidly from 1979, arguably we've made advances in medicine over the past 30 or so years yet the number of claimants has risen from about 750,000 to 2,6000,000....

Did a significant portion of the population suddenly develop new illnesses that prevented them from working - while some conditions are on the rise (obesity) it still doesn't account for such a large increase. The reality likely is that the majority of those 2.6 million probably shouldn't be entitled to receive it and are in fact capable of doing some work in spite of their condition or are just plain fraudsters. Essentially a large portion of them either need to man the F*** up as there were likely a lot of people not claiming back in 1979 who were suffering with any number of similar minor conditions or they need to realise that they can't keep BS'ing about being depressed as a means to avoid work.

Main point is that about 7% of the working population is claiming it:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpubacc/404/40405.htm

Take a look at that chart - our population didn't increase that rapidly from 1979, arguably we've made advances in medicine over the past 30 or so years yet the number of claimants has risen from about 750,000 to 2,6000,000....

Did a significant portion of the population suddenly develop new illnesses that prevented them from working - while some conditions are on the rise (obesity) it still doesn't account for such a large increase. The reality likely is that the majority of those 2.6 million probably shouldn't be entitled to receive it and are in fact capable of doing some work in spite of their condition or are just plain fraudsters. Essentially a large portion of them either need to man the F*** up as there were likely a lot of people not claiming back in 1979 who were suffering with any number of similar minor conditions or they need to realise that they can't keep BS'ing about being depressed as a means to avoid work.

That problem came about because Thatcher had so many people out of work, with no real hope of getting into work. In order to massage the figures they let people who were borderline into sick benefits, which reduced the headline unemployment figure. Unfortunately they didn't take in the consequences, that once someone was on benefit it would be very difficult to shift them from that position.

Maybe, but they had no chance of getting a job then, and just as little chance of getting one now.

It seems the main time they try to shove people out of claiming is when there isn't the jobs available. Really it's a cost cutting exercise.

There are plenty of healthy, fit people out there wanting to do jobs but can't get one, the sick would be competing against these, so who gets the jobs and who doesn't? There is also a minimum wage, unless you are willing to scrap that too. These combined make it virtually impossible for someone who is pushed off the sick to get a job.

Even if they did get one there's then the problem of holding onto it. There aren't many employers who are willing to give a depressive a job and there are a huge number that are unemployable due to ability, insurance or safety issues.

Pain covers an awful lot of things, the NHS run “pain” clinics: http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Pain/Pages/Longtermpain.aspx

MY Mum was treated at a pain clinic for years due to pain caused by Arthritis, her issues started in her late 40’s and was able to carry on working till 58 with there help. Short term pain can be treated with painkillers easily enough, but in the longer term alternative methods and coping strategies are needed due to tolerances and other issues associated with long term use of painkillers.

There are plenty of healthy, fit people out there wanting to do jobs but can't get one, the sick would be competing against these, so who gets the jobs and who doesn't? There is also a minimum wage, unless you are willing to scrap that too. These combined make it virtually impossible for someone who is pushed off the sick to get a job.

And yet hundreds of thousands of polish people have managed to do just that - travel over here and get a job.

'get on yer bike' tbh... Part of the problem is that we've got a very static workforce, people in areas of the UK suffering from high unemployment seem reluctant to move to look for work compared with other European populations. We shouldn't really need as much immigration as we currently have but in reality the chance that a low skilled Geordie or Scouser would move to say the south east in search of a job is relatively slim.