At last, some sense on IB

[woolybananasbrother]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=4G12W424LRHZPQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2008/02/02/nbenefit102.xml

I wonder how many here in France will be reviewed.[6]

[Geordie girl]

Hopefully all of them.......................[6]

 

 

[woolybananasbrother]

There are those who genuinely deserve some support. Others however....[6]

[Hoddy]

While it is obviously right that people should not have any benefits to which they are not entitled, I hope that you will spare a thought for those honest people who genuinely claim this money.

My late husband was called in on two separate occasions to be re-examined. As someone who had always previously been in employment he found the process demeaning and distressing.

Hoddy

[Geordie girl]

Of course wooly but to find the bad eggs a few good ones have to be cracked too There will always be the ones in genuine need and then others who just play the system to their own gain.  [:)]

 

[woolybananasbrother]

Hoddy I couldn't agree more that the process is hideous. And I have great sympathy for those who deserve and need and should have through a gentle, caring process. However as things stand now, IB is a scroungers charter and should be totally rebuilt.

[ali-cat]

[quote user="Geordie girl"]

Hopefully all of them.......................[6]

[/quote]

Couldn't agree more - then maybe the UK Government can actually get someone who can tell which conditions & illnesses are permanent & have crippling pain attached which stops any chance of work.

I was reviewed in December, by a French consultant at my local CPAM office & will not need to be assessed again until 2012.  The doctor was horrified that the UK Government made me attend reviews as soon as he saw my medical notes & took one look at me trying to get out of the chair & walk.  He said it should never be necessary because of my diagnoses.

[Gluestick]

Whilst I obviously agree that there are many claiming IB rather than working, one of the core reasons that the number of claimants grew, was government at the time (Thatcher) cancelling Unemployment Benefit after a finite period.

In areas with high intrinsic unemployment, such as ex coal mining and steel areas, GPs were constrained to do something when worried claimants reached the end of their benefit entitlement: so they tended to sign them off as suffering from "Anxiety State", "Stress" etc.

Since that time, and whilst government has trumpeted loudly about New Deals and Fresh Starts, nothing structurally has actually been done to create, real, new employment.

I attended one of the first presentations on the then current scheme, given by the head honcho for East of England. As is usual, at the end of the usual pathetic "Death by Powerpoint" bit, he asked if there were any questions.

Me being me was numero uno: "You have made no mention of where the new funding is coming from and how much it is!" I said, teasingly.

He was flumoxed: "What new funding? There is no funding!"

"Then precisely how and why, " I said, " Does government expect employers to rapidly expand their businesses to absorb all the currently unemployed etc into their extant businesses?"

There was a hushed period of quiet................................

The net result of government playing silly political games is that people with genuine disabilities have been treated as putative thieves and effectively discriminated against in terms of idiotically low benefit payments, compared with the rest of Europe. Any benefit claimant is treated as a charity case, whereas the core raison d' etre of Social Security was intended to act as an insurance scheme against unforeseen life changes in the future.

What is always forgotten is that WE HAVE PAID FOR IT!

Quite a few years ago, all benefit levels were set on the old Social Security Urgent Need threshhold: which was intended for temporary survival, not forever thereafter. And since then the levels of benefit have been awarded miserly annual increases well beneath real RPI.

Yet the UK can  give billions in foreign aid to such as Mugabe!

If any private saector insurance company acted as the UK government have with Social Security over the past 30 years, the directors would all be in prison.

And IMHO circa 1,000 MPs ought to be!

 

[Ron Avery]

Perhaps work should be defined?  I fulluy accept that many people get IB because they are incapable of any work, but equally some because they cannot do the job that they were doing.  Does that preclude the latter group from any work?

As many jobs nowadays just require sitting at a computer or checkout  and typing or answering the phone, that "work" makes a lot of people who can use a PC but have problems with physical work, able to "work".  When I posted about IB fraudsters living in France on another thread, the howls from the IB claimants resounded across the land with claims about how the majority were genuine and about how thorough and rigourous were the checks in the UK before IB was paid, well it seems those who had a "thorough" check were in the minority as has now been evidenced.

I stand by what I said earlier, there are a lot of IB scroungers in France hiding away thanks to benevolent GPs in the UK who put them on IB in the first place, when they were "stressed" out and depressed by the news that their O/H was getting early retirement and moving to France, then aided by couldn't care less French GPs who have allowed those payments to continue. It seems that their days of raking in payments they are not entitled to and never have been, are  at last numbered.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

I can't see HMG going through with it.

Take 1.9million off IB and class them as what? Unemployed? Can you imagine what that would do to the unemployment stats? They'd be as bad as France's.

People I know in the social field have always maintained that one of the side-line purposes of IB was to keep the unemployable seperate from the unemployed, so this chap is probably not that popular with the Powers That Be at the moment, even if they did give him the job.

[Rose]

Such an emotive subject and powerful arguements on both sides.  My Mum had MS and worked until she was forced to quit... and hated being in receipt of any benefit... I employed a young woman of 19 who in 7 months only worked about 26 days... the rest she was off sick with stress.  She refused to talk to us or write or to undergo medicals or to allow us to contact her GP... as she was 'too stressed.'  In the end (after consulting with our insurers legal department and following all correct procedures) we dismissed her... her first reaction was to go to the Citizen's Advice (funny how she could do this but not talk to us)... anyway... That was a few years ago but I understand that she worked on and off since but  always followed the same pattern ... and is now in receipt of IB... for stress... and apart from the not working, her old colleagues tell me she leads a fairly full and normal life... [:@]

I know that this is just one case and I know that there are people who do need help (like my mum did) and they should get help (and lots of it) ... I also suspect that many of those in need of support get just as mad about abuses to the system as the rest of us!!

I'm with the Ron on this one... there cannot be 1.9 million people in need of IB in the UK... what percentage of the working population is that?

[Rose (& Greyman)]

That's more than 1 in 15 of the UK working population. MORE THAN 1 in 15 are INCAPABLE of ANY work !!!! Can you believe it.... well no I know you can't but apparantly the politicians have for many years. Why do we vote for these idiots.

[ali-cat]

Ron, please try to think about someone else for a change. 

People who are genuinely incabable of working are usually the ones that feel that people are smirking at them & calling them "scroungers" behind their backs - because the only time they are ever seen out & about is when they are actually feeling capable of getting out & about.  Unless you have x-ray vision how would you know who is ill & who isn't?  Does having one good day a week, or a month, mean that I'm a scrounger?  Have you any idea how insulting your comments are?

I had one of those jobs which just involved "sitting at a desk" and now can't even do that - it's why I rarely post now, as I can't sit for long periods of time to read & reply to threads! 

Yet, if you see me out shopping next week (if I'm up to it - & don't have to ask Mr Cat to go alone) I can just imagine the snide comments & bitter looks which you would no doubt throw in my direction. 

[Rose (& Greyman)]

Ali-cat, I think most people have genuine sympathy for those in your situation and don't begrudge the help you get in any way. However, it is precisely for your reason that the statistic of 1 in 15 of the working population on IB needs to be dealt with. How can it be possible that 1 in 15 cannot work at all. It's plain common sense that this can't be right. The deserving 1 in 50 or whatever should have all the resources focussed on them and the others frankly thrown to the wolves like the rest of us.

[ali-cat]

Thank you greyman - but I know that if someone saw me in "Super-U" they would never guess that I'm walking around with 6 torn discs in my back & additional compilcations!!  Ok, I do use a walking stick - but in this neighbourhood some may thing it's a fashion accessory!! [:)]

Just a thought ..... if someone, who had been receiving ICB, was told they were capable of returning to work, who would employ them?  Would an employer look at their past sick-records & take them on knowing that their sick-leave would probably be very high? 

If my condition improved (which unfortunately is not possible) how could I prove to a potential employer that I'd never have a similar problem again?!!

[Rose]

Hi Ali-Cat... I sympaphise with your situation and you're right, you cannot and would not be able to return to work.  As such the state should ensure that you have the support you deserve; I know from my parents situation that there was never enough. 

You are also right in saying that often illnesses aren't visible and from an outside perspective wrong judgements can be made... However, sadly there are some people who abuse the system and they are drawing funds away from those in need and this is wrong.  The state I am sure is aware of this and aware of the flaws in the system... whatever action they take I suspect will make some quarter unhappy but... in order to redress the balance and to make life easier for those in your situation (both emotionally and financially) action must be taken.

Let's hope that common sense rules the day... [:$] 

[Ron Avery]

"Ron, please try to think about someone else for a change"

Like who? I said for the 88th time there are many who are genuinely cannot work and are entitled to IB.  Yet each time I say that along comes a claimant to say how ill they are and why they cannot work.  Yet many claimants I know have land they look after and do building projects like a friend's neighbour,  he gets IB for back trouble yet keeps horses and goats and grows his own food, digging, planting and rotovating all apparently no problem.

So for the 89th time, Nobody is saying that genuine cases should not receive IB so get off your high horse, Mrs cat  or are you saying that people who are not really ill should get a payment they are not entitled to just because they can fiddle it? 

Just think, if the fiddlers were got off it, there might be more for genuine claimants

[Rose (& Greyman)]

I think if the system was professionally run so only genuine medical claimants got on to it then the poor reputation of IB would go away and we'd all know anyone receiving it had passed a stringent test. Some say having the test is demeaning but it seems a small price to pay and after all having to work in a low paid job is also demeaning but it's what you have to do to keep food on the table.

If you were deemed able to work at a later date I agree you may struggle to find work in the real world (although any discrimination would be illegal !) but you would then switch to jobseekers and other allowances - provided if you were capable of working you were genuinely trying to find work.

It's just a case of ensuring benefits are focussed on the genuine benificiaries, not the scroungers.[:)]

[Frederick]

My experience of coming into contact with patients who are on IB who perhaps should not be tells me its mostly  the younger ones who take the system for a ride .....Short of a Lazarus moment I have had many miraculous events take part in my Citroen when I have taken them home after assesments.. like crutches left in the back of the car when they have got out and walked indoors . The lost property office at Waterloo had loads of them left on trains ....whats that all about  ? 

[Gluestick]

Most interesting what has come out in this thread!

We all agree that those people who deserve and honestly qualify for IB or indeed, any other social benefit ought to receive it.

However, we are all incensed -some more than others -  about claimants who quite obviously are swinging the lead!

We all know or have known people who regularly cheat on the whole raft of benefits: claiming to be unemployed but work for cash; claiming to be medically unfit for work but who live very active and physical lives; and so on.

Of course, all that has happened is each successive government has been afraid to bit the bullet on many such issues and simply continues with the gag and simply increases taxation in all forms instead!

And then has the incredible temerity to try an claim how well they have done and are doing!

The only route to reforming all these issues is to cut taxation,dramatically so that government has less to waste and has to be more calculating what goes where and how much.

At the moment, they have been in a phase of self-perpetuation and organic internal growth: for example, the fat slob Prescott decided there should be an "Office for London".

I went there to co-present a technology transfer seminar, only a year or two after it opened. I was amazed how in such a short period a large office was crammed with bureacrats all clutching bits of paper. Doing what?

Their "Technology" experts were clueless and I had to debug the internal - state of the art and expensive - IT and projection system before we could actually use it!

And afterwards, of course, we then had a slap up buffet with wine and beer flowing...................

Us taxpayers must be totally insane to put up with this shameful waste of public resources.

Having watched both my Mum and Mum in Law struggle to survive on the measly UK pensions and tiny benefits and being too proud to claim any more, all the kids had to fight to make them take their extra entitlements: meagre though they were.

Neither had expected to live to nearly 90 and nearly 97.

Having a number of friends rendered disabled after demanding and effective careers, society owes them more: much much more!

 

[ali-cat]

[quote user="Ron Avery"]

So for the 89th time, Nobody is saying that genuine cases should not receive IB so get off your high horse, Mrs cat  or are you saying that people who are not really ill should get a payment they are not entitled to just because they can fiddle it? 

[/quote]

Ron - If this is your 89th attempt you are obviously not making your point effectively. 

Perhaps it is because this issue is raised so often that genuine claimants feel the need to be defensive.  Not only so often but always with the same righteous indignation and blanket condemnation.  Just for once it would be a refreshing change if these issues could be discussed with some intelligence. 

Firstly no-one receives long-term incapacity benefit on the say so of their own GP. Long-term IB is only sanctioned following a DWP assessment which is then reviewed regularly thereafter (and is supposedly the most rigourous assessment in Europe);

To receive incapcity benefit you must be incapable of working in ANY capacity.  The only benefit you can receive if unable to work in your previous capacity is if you are lucky enough to receive an employer's medical retirement pension;

Stress, for example, appears to be a particular favourite target during these rants.  It is no easy matter to distinguish between an individual suffering from a serious stress related illness which could be life threatening and a milder case or even 'lead-swinging'.  It certainly requires a lot more expertise than the low level functionary who often makes these decisions at DWP.  Would you be comfortable having you only source of income assessed under a system which is biased towards refusal?

No one would dispute that any system can be abused nor that the system could be improved.  Many genuinely ill people have been refused IB, not because the system is full of malingerers, but because the system is unfairly biased towards mobility problems which are not appropriate to other types of illness. The problem with grand statements about taking X thousand off Incapacity Benefit is that it appeals to the 'about time too' brigade but does not address the real problem of providing proper support to those who need it.

   

 

 

 

[Russethouse]

Isn't the core of this that not only Ron thinks there are too many people claiming but the government too. My guess is they have sound reasons for thinking it.

I know a girl who had whiplash injuries about 15 years ago - it doesn't stop her driving, lifting her shopping or playing squash, but she has claimed IB all this time. Yes, I may only see her on her good days but at that rate she must have an awful lot of them.

Perhaps if the benefit system was altered across the board so that it wasn't an 'either or situation', those who were able, could do some work and still have some support - surely this would be better for their morale and self esteem than either sitting about doing very little or working on the black ?

That would allow the government to target funds where they are most needed and give help to the most deserving.

[ali-cat]

I know exactly what you mean - but unless you're actually receiving ICB it's impossible to understand what it feels like when the "it's about time they get what they deserve" lobby start ranting & raving.  Some folks don't seem to grasp & realise how insulting it is to nearly everyone who is claiming the benefit.  It's guilt by association. 

Anyone I have met, who is claiming ICB, is made to feel like a sponger & treated with contempt as soon as people get on their little soap boxes & start tarring one and all with the same brush.  It makes no difference if someone says "I know some people deserve it ..... but" - it still makes you feel like a fraud.

A guy I knew was told by doctors & welfare workers to "get out & about & see if it helps" & when he did go out he met colleagues from work who viciously said "Oh,  I see you're having a nice wee holiday". 

Everyone knows there are people fiddling the system (just like every other benefit going) but the sort of flip comments made earlier make it very difficult for the genuine cases to feel they are not being talked about by people who know nothing about their situations.

[Tony F Dordogne]

Very well said ali-cat, obviously many of the people complaining about IB recipients have never had to claim benefit in their lives nor have they faced the indignity of going through what most people have to go through to get IB.

And of course, in the event of them becoming so ill that they have to claim any form of support here in France, they will remember their scatter-gun approach to people who genuinely are unwell and unable to work.

It's strange that many of the people I know on IB and who have been forced to take early retirement because of their medical conditions would have really liked to have worked on until they reached statutory retirement age and many I know would actually like to go back to work.  But, as somebody said earlier and as I've said here in other threads, for some of us it's not an option because if we were the employer, we wouldn't employ people with our conditions and even the DWP gave up on me and told me not to return to their offices because there was nobody - nobody - nobody, that would employ me with my health conditions. 

[Scooby]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

Perhaps if the benefit system was altered across the board so that it wasn't an 'either or situation', those who were able, could do some work and still have some support - surely this would be better for their morale and self esteem than either sitting about doing very little or working on the black ?

[/quote]

I completely agree RH.  I have been involved with cognitive behavioural therapy programmes for individuals with chronic, painful conditions and I am  firmly of the opinion that sitting at home focussing on your pain / condition creates a negative mindset which in turn increases pain levels, leads to depression and other negative behaviours.  The distraction of work can be very beneficial in reducing pain and the sense of self worth from earning your own income (or at least some of it) and not being dependent on the state is also valuable.  With the system as it is at the moment its all or nothing.  Although  'therapeutic' work is allowed, the conditions attached to it are too onerous to make of much use.  Changes were made a few years ago so that if you went back to work and found it too much you could return back to receiving IB at the previous level - i.e. gave you had a safety net that allowed you to try working without jeopardising your benefits if it didn't work out.  Although a step in the right direction the changes didn't go far enough (IMHO).