Tottie left to what lot? You sound like a right Hooray Henry.Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish wrote on Thu, 27 August 2015 20:49
+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
I think you have just stumbled upon the flaw in the system.Originally Posted by Feedback wrote on Thu, 27 August 2015 21:04
Tottie left to what lot? You sound like a right Hooray Henry.Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish wrote on Thu, 27 August 2015 20:49
Doctor signs them unfit for work, ATOS or whoever working on behalf of DWP signs them fit for work, within 2 weeks they are dead
headlight
Also, please bear in mind that I'm as left wing as they come.Originally Posted by Gluey wrote on Thu, 27 August 2015 21:06
Just search the internet for real world examplesOriginally Posted by jaffa1 wrote on Thu, 27 August 2015 21:09
However, todays headline about the number of dead would have been much better served if there was also info on the number of dead we would ordinarily expect to see. Was that purposefully left off in order to throw a smokescreen over an embarrasing stastic? Who knows?Originally Posted by Gluey wrote on Thu, 27 August 2015 21:10
Therefore I am still aliveOriginally Posted by headlight wrote on Thu, 27 August 2015 21:07
This is so so true.I do not know people who have died,but 2 people after their atos assessment ended up in hospital.They just have a tick list,how did you get here ect,if you say on the bus or i can walk a 100 yrds they are fcked.Originally Posted by headlight wrote on Thu, 27 August 2015 21:07
I'm sure you know how Google works but it might save time if you could find one case where the deceased's doctor/consultant agreed with the DWP decision that their own diagnosis was wrong, and that their patient was in deed fit for work.Originally Posted by jaffa1 wrote on Thu, 27 August 2015 21:11
No one is suggesting they may have been fit for work. The question is whether they would have died irrespective of whether they worked or not. We are asking is work the cause of death rather than the underlying disability or illness
So if they have an illness that is terminal get them out to work,lung cancer,no problem we can get a few months work out of you lazy scrounger,you are going to die anyway.Originally Posted by Feedback wrote on Thu, 27 August 2015 21:29
Furthermore, just having an illness doesn't mean you don't have to work, even if it is potentially fatal. Plenty of people, for example, would still work even during treatment for cancer.Originally Posted by jeepster wrote on Thu, 27 August 2015 21:35
I do not disagree with that some can work with cancer,but what about the ones who have their benefits stopped when they are to ill to work.Originally Posted by Ray Mears wrote on Thu, 27 August 2015 21:51
I'm not arguing that the current policy is right - just that the use of the data in this instance is a little disingenuous.Originally Posted by jeepster wrote on Thu, 27 August 2015 21:57
this country is ****ed, we cannot even get, people who are fit and healthy into regular employment, let alone people who are supposedly fit for work but claiming sickness benefits.
its just another cop out by the government to try slash the welfare budget, because this country his more concerned about the people on the lowest earnings, rather than hitting the big hitters at the top of society, who have been fiddling tax for years, that is where the serious money would come from.
Its people like you who get hit the hardest too, really feel for you chris.Originally Posted by chris wrote on Thu, 27 August 2015 22:06
However, the point is that in many cases, the decision was plainly wrong, and likely to be based on targets or financial goals rather than the patients' needs.Originally Posted by jeepster wrote on Thu, 27 August 2015 21:35
I have some friends and family working in the medical profession and they are totally disgusted by what is going on. In one case 30 years of experience is being undermined by people who are not even qualified to diagnose any medical condition.Originally Posted by bobh wrote on Thu, 27 August 2015 22:09
****ing Tory scum , feck them all
headlightOriginally Posted by Feedback wrote on Thu, 27 August 2015 21:29
wondered when you'd clock inOriginally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY wrote on Thu, 27 August 2015 22:51
I am amazed this policy isn't receiving far greater criticism than at present. In time I do think the likes of IDS will be held accountable. I certainly hope so.Originally Posted by bobh wrote on Thu, 27 August 2015 22:09
I can't waitOriginally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish wrote on Thu, 27 August 2015 23:16
But if you support these shocking tests , being made worse by the year by the Tory ****s then go and **** yourselfOriginally Posted by Pearcey wrote on Thu, 27 August 2015 23:47
They are so unfit for work that a medical professional such as a doctor, consultant etc has stated that they are unfit for work & signed them off.
An ATOS employee then decides that the doctor is wrong & that in fact they are fit for work & declares them fit for work in direct contradiction to their doctors diagnosis.
Within 2 weeks of that ATOS decision they are dead.
How can this be, in the words of one of Cameron"s favourite soundbites, "the right & fair thing to do" ?
Shouldn"t all these doctors, consultants etc be struck off then as obviously they can"t do their jobs ?
Maybe people should just go straight to ATOS if they think they are unfit for work & cut out their doctors as ATOS can over rule them anyway ?
headlight[/quote]
Just to put things in perspective and I am defending no one but ATOS (who no longer have the contract) are not at fault here neither are the new holders Of the contract Maximus.
The problem is with the WCA (Work capability assessment) its the DWP NOT Atos or Maximus who declares someone capable or incapable of work.
At a WCA interview the claimant is asked a set of questions and the assessor ticks a set of boxes baed on the answers given which each generates a score. As far as I now you have to reach 15 points or more to be declared unfit for work.
Now it is widely accepted that the WCA is not fit for purpose as it is to generalised and not tailored to an individual merely generic in its format.
When the WCA is submitted to the DWP it is they who decide if you are fit or unfit based on your score not based on any opinion from the assessor.