The state benefits system mega-thread.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

PIP replaces DLA

And they are doing that in limited numbers at the moment and are still making a balls up so god help us when that goes fully national.

---------- Post added at 14:45 ---------- Previous post was at 14:40 ----------

Originally Posted by Qtx

I didn't think anyone could apply for that now as PIP had replaced it. Obviously it's even further behind than IDS has admitted to the last few times he has defended his failures.

IDS and Atos should be buried alive, then buried again. They are just going to blame each other while forgetting about the disabled people waiting.

Atos have pulled out of the ESA but whoever replaces them will be just as bad one suspects.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27767779

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...lapse-benefits

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by denphone

Atos have pulled out of the ESA but whoever replaces them will be just as bad one suspects.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27767779

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...lapse-benefits

Atos officials said their staff were "vilified" simply for carrying out what was asked of them by ministers.

Ultimately I think this is what it boils down. The Conservatives wanted all the benefits cut and told Atos what to do and how to do it, then used them to take all the blame.

I heard the horror stories from all corners regarding Atos and they were indeed bad. We will never likely learn exactly what orders were given to Atos top brass from the government due to non-disclosure agreements and business sensitivity reasons. Still have a gut feeling they were following orders and did so happily just to get the contract and profits. So Atos can't be excused either

Originally Posted by Qtx

Ultimately I think this is what it boils down. The Conservatives wanted all the benefits cut and told Atos what to do and how to do it, then used them to take all the blame.

I heard the horror stories from all corners regarding Atos and they were indeed bad. We will never likely learn exactly what orders were given to Atos top brass from the government due to non-disclosure agreements and business sensitivity reasons. Still have a gut feeling they were following orders and did so happily just to get the contract and profits. So Atos can't be excused either

I agree totally

I said they were a pawn in a game right from the start

[AdamD]

The benefits system, hell anything run by the government, is a mess.
Claiming benefits in this day and age should be easy, but it's stupidly complex and stressful
I often wonder how many people who claim for mental illness conditions, end up killing themselves due to the stress, or at the very least, get much worse
I know I got a lot worse with the worry and stress of claiming and waiting on decisions.

[weenie]

Originally Posted by AdamD

The benefits system, hell anything run by the government, is a mess.
Claiming benefits in this day and age should be easy, but it's stupidly complex and stressful
I often wonder how many people who claim for mental illness conditions, end up killing themselves due to the stress, or at the very least, get much worse
I know I got a lot worse with the worry and stress of claiming and waiting on decisions.

Not a very good system is it, the waiting time for a decision is far to long as it seems to cause many alot of added stress therefore making their condition/illness worse, they really do need to sharpen up there decision time IMO.

To do that, they would need to hire more staff, and everybody complains about the numbers of civil servants..............

[Jimmy-J]

Or maybe the DWP should just ask the persons GP for their opinion on whether they are fit to work.

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J

Or maybe the DWP should just ask the persons GP for their opinion on whether they are fit to work.

To be fair GPs generally are pretty useless. There has to be a system in place that checks to see if the patient is as bad as they make out. I would rather see claimants seeing doctors at DWP medicals with some sort of specialty in the field for which the diagnosis is made.

IE someone with a bad back sees someone with a grounding in osteopathy and someone with a mental illness sees someone knowledgeable in psychiatric problems

Just seeing a general nurse or just another GP is not going to find the cheats and it is going to lead to mis diagnosis and hardship

[tweetiepooh]

If it weren't for the thieves who claim what they don't need or are entitled to it could be much easier. The system is complex because it needs to identify those crooks but the problem is that it's those very crooks who know best how to get through the system while those who really need it get held up with all the red-tape and rules.
Most who really need the benefits are honest but also likely to have issues with the system. The best system would be to simply enter in the help you need and you'd get it.

[Jimmy-J]

But if a patient is suffering from a physical or mental illness, they should already be registered with a medical professional, it should all be on record, so maybe they should trust the professional in whatever field they work, to be correct with their diagnosis of the patient.

[weenie]

Why not if it is an obvious case and hospital records can back things up why do these people have to wait? If for example they have mental health issues or an illness where stress can make it worse why not fast track these conditions that can be made worse by stress. What is the average waiting time for a reply to benefits anyway? It seems reading this post that it is extremely difficult to receive benefits although certain newspapers say the opposite.

[nomadking]

The problem with using evidence from GPs is that it will be based mainly on what the patient says. The GP will accept what is said as being the truth, as there would be no reason for the patient to lie. When it comes to benefit decisions, the patients do potentially have a reason to lie.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The problem with using evidence from GPs is that it will be based mainly on what the patient says. The GP will accept what is said as being the truth, as there would be no reason for the patient to lie. When it comes to benefit decisions, the patients do potentially have a reason to lie.

I agree, If you've only got evidence from a GP then I'd say there can't be much wrong with you.

It should be different if you are under a consultant or a number of them.

[Jimmy-J]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The problem with using evidence from GPs is that it will be based mainly on what the patient says. The GP will accept what is said as being the truth, as there would be no reason for the patient to lie. When it comes to benefit decisions, the patients do potentially have a reason to lie.

But the GP should have all copies of letters and much more information shared by other medical professionals on their systems. So all of the evidence that would backup their patients claims should be right there.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J

But the GP should have all copies of letters and much more information shared by other medical professionals on their systems. So all of the evidence that would backup their patients claims should be right there.

Not as simple as that. All any consultants letter to a GP will say is the diagnosis etc, and not how the patient might be affected by any condition.