Fit to work

[m***@hotmail.com]

Something different from the recent spam on the group.

Enjoy.

Martin <><

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7913331/Three-in-four-sickness-benefit-applicants-fit-to-work-or-stop-claiming-due-to-medicals.html

The new “work capability assessment” was introduced along with the new
employment and support allowance, which replaced the old incapacity
benefit scheme in October 2008.

Applicants now have to go through a 13 week assessment period, during
which a doctor or medical professional questions them to see whether
they are fit enough to carry out paid work.



Of those, 76 per cent were either judged fit to work, or likely to be
fit to work because they dropped out of assessment process before it
was completed.

A further 14 per cent were transferred to a “work related group”,
which meant that while they were too ill to work at present, they
could at some point return to work in the future.

Under the old incapacity benefit system most of these applicants would
have been able to start claiming.

The new test will applied to all existing, long term incapacity
benefit claimants from October this year. If the figures relating to
new applicants were applied to the 2.2 million people already on
incapacity benefit, it could mean that nearly 1.7 millon of them
should be at work.

It is hoped the new test will eventually cut the benefit bill. Despite
its introduction, the Department for Work and Pensions is expecting to
have to pay out £13 billion in sickness benefits this year, up from
£12 billion three years ago.

People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than those
on jobseekers’ allowance.

Chris Grayling, the Employment Minister, said: “The vast majority of
people who are applying for these benefits are being found fit for
work or have stopped their claim.

“These are people who under the old system would have been abandoned
on incapacity benefits. It’s a clear indication of why reform is so
urgently needed.

“This is exactly why we are going to reassess everyone claiming
incapacity benefits for their ability to work, from this October.

“They will now be given the support they need to get back to work and
will be expected to look for work if they are able to do so.”

Matthew Sinclair, research director at the campaign group the
TaxPayers’ Alliance, said the figures showed that “a huge number of
those currently on Incapacity Benefit could and should be working”.

He said: “Keeping people who can work on benefits costs taxpayers a
fortune and does the claimants no favours as they are left dependent
on handouts instead of being helped back into work.

“It is high time for serious reform of Incapacity Benefit so that it
is less open to abuse and doesn’t trap people on welfare.”

The testing is carried out by doctors and medical professionals
working for Atos, a private contractor.

A Work and Pensions spokesman said Atos was paid to carry out the
tests, and did not receive any extra money for recommending that
applicants were not allowed to claim benefits.

Last month the Government appointed Professor Malcolm Harrington to
carry out an independent review into the assessment scheme to check it
was “fair and accurate”.

Figures published early this month showed that nearly 2,000 claimants
on incapacity benefit were claiming because they were too fat to
work.

The Government has already announced that incapacity benefit will be
axed by 2014.

[Tony]

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than those
on jobseekers’ allowance.

There yer go. It's all about money. Nothing to do with a person being
fit for work or not.

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than those
on jobseekers’ allowance.

There yer go. It's all about money. Nothing to do with a person being
fit for work or not.

So are these people unable to do any job?
Or only claiming sickness benefit for being unable to do a particular
job?

Martin <><

[Robbie]

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than those
on jobseekers’ allowance.

There yer go. It's all about money. Nothing to do with a person being
fit for work or not.

So are these people unable to do any job?
Or only claiming sickness benefit for being unable to do a particular
job?
Martin <><

It's still about the money Martin. The Government themselves have said
it's to get more people onto the lower JSA rate. The medical assessment
under ESA is a lot tougher to that under IB with the predictable result
that more people are failing the medical assessment. It doesn't mean the
health of a person changes nor the work capability of that person. What
does change is the extra amount of money in the coffers of the Treasury.

[Mike]

Post by Robbie

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than those
on jobseekers’ allowance.

There yer go. It's all about money. Nothing to do with a person being
fit for work or not.

So are these people unable to do any job?
Or only claiming sickness benefit for being unable to do a particular
job?
Martin <><

It's still about the money Martin. The Government themselves have said
it's to get more people onto the lower JSA rate. The medical assessment
under ESA is a lot tougher to that under IB with the predictable result
that more people are failing the medical assessment. It doesn't mean the
health of a person changes nor the work capability of that person. What
does change is the extra amount of money in the coffers of the Treasury.

You speak as though the gov. trying to save money is a bad thing and the
treasury is a bottomless pit, getting it's money from the fairies at the
end of Hyde Park rather than the taxpayer.

Yes it's about money and anyone who beleives otherwise is a moron and
says otherwise is a liar.

If you choose not to work through illness, however slight, but do not
have to claim benefits the gov doesn't give a toss! If you have to
claim benefits then rightly the gov takes an interest in whether you are
completely unable to work or just less able than maybe you once where.

Mike

[Robbie]

Post by Mike

Post by Robbie

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than those
on jobseekers’ allowance.

There yer go. It's all about money. Nothing to do with a person being
fit for work or not.

So are these people unable to do any job?
Or only claiming sickness benefit for being unable to do a particular
job?
Martin <><

It's still about the money Martin. The Government themselves have said
it's to get more people onto the lower JSA rate. The medical assessment
under ESA is a lot tougher to that under IB with the predictable result
that more people are failing the medical assessment. It doesn't mean the
health of a person changes nor the work capability of that person. What
does change is the extra amount of money in the coffers of the Treasury.

You speak as though the gov. trying to save money is a bad thing and the
treasury is a bottomless pit, getting it's money from the fairies at the
end of Hyde Park rather than the taxpayer.
Yes it's about money and anyone who beleives otherwise is a moron and
says otherwise is a liar.
If you choose not to work through illness, however slight, but do not
have to claim benefits the gov doesn't give a toss! If you have to
claim benefits then rightly the gov takes an interest in whether you are
completely unable to work or just less able than maybe you once where.
Mike

There's nothing wrong with saving money but the Government shouldn't
pretend this is all about something else. If they want to pay people
less then fine, do that. But the misinformation given out by Government
ministers is wrong. Just because someone passes a medical under one
benefit and fails it under another doesn't mean their needs are any less
or that somehow they have been caught out fiddling the system.

The problem is that many people will be removed from IB and given
absolutely no help with jobseeking when their medical problems wouldn't
have suddenly lessened overnight. There are already stories of people
being refused ESA after failing a medical and then not qualifying for
JSA as they are deemed to be unavailable for work due to their health.
What are they supposed to do?

[Robin T Cox]

Post by Robbie

Post by Mike

Post by Robbie

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than
those on jobseekers’ allowance.

There yer go. It's all about money. Nothing to do with a person being
fit for work or not.

So are these people unable to do any job?
Or only claiming sickness benefit for being unable to do a particular
job?
Martin <><

It's still about the money Martin. The Government themselves have said
it's to get more people onto the lower JSA rate. The medical assessment
under ESA is a lot tougher to that under IB with the predictable result
that more people are failing the medical assessment. It doesn't mean the
health of a person changes nor the work capability of that person. What
does change is the extra amount of money in the coffers of the Treasury.

You speak as though the gov. trying to save money is a bad thing and the
treasury is a bottomless pit, getting it's money from the fairies at the
end of Hyde Park rather than the taxpayer.
Yes it's about money and anyone who beleives otherwise is a moron and
says otherwise is a liar.
If you choose not to work through illness, however slight, but do not
have to claim benefits the gov doesn't give a toss! If you have to
claim benefits then rightly the gov takes an interest in whether you are
completely unable to work or just less able than maybe you once where.
Mike

There's nothing wrong with saving money but the Government shouldn't
pretend this is all about something else. If they want to pay people
less then fine, do that. But the misinformation given out by Government
ministers is wrong. Just because someone passes a medical under one
benefit and fails it under another doesn't mean their needs are any less
or that somehow they have been caught out fiddling the system.
The problem is that many people will be removed from IB and given
absolutely no help with jobseeking when their medical problems wouldn't
have suddenly lessened overnight. There are already stories of people
being refused ESA after failing a medical and then not qualifying for
JSA as they are deemed to be unavailable for work due to their health.
What are they supposed to do?

In a free global market, do jobs actually exist where employers would
actually prefer to choose such people as employees over those more able
bodied (or less fat, even).

Otherwise it's the same old story of blaming the sick for their sickness,
and the unemployed for their unemployment, which is fine - as long as it
doesn't happen to you.

Cain asked - Am I my brother's keeper? And was cursed.

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by Robin T Cox

Post by Robbie

Post by Mike

Post by Robbie

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than
those on jobseekers’ allowance.

There yer go. It's all about money. Nothing to do with a person being
fit for work or not.

So are these people unable to do any job?
Or only claiming sickness benefit for being unable to do a particular
job?
Martin <><

It's still about the money Martin. The Government themselves have said
it's to get more people onto the lower JSA rate. The medical assessment
under ESA is a lot tougher to that under IB with the predictable result
that more people are failing the medical assessment. It doesn't mean the
health of a person changes nor the work capability of that person. What
does change is the extra amount of money in the coffers of the Treasury.

You speak as though the gov. trying to save money is a bad thing and the
treasury is a bottomless pit, getting it's money from the fairies at the
end of Hyde Park rather than the taxpayer.
Yes it's about money and anyone who beleives otherwise is a moron and
says otherwise is a liar.
If you choose not to work through illness, however slight, but do not
have to claim benefits the gov doesn't give a toss!  If you have to
claim benefits then rightly the gov takes an interest in whether you are
completely unable to work or just less able than maybe you once where.
Mike

There's nothing wrong with saving money but the Government shouldn't
pretend this is all about something else. If they want to pay people
less then fine, do that. But the misinformation given out by Government
ministers is wrong. Just because someone passes a medical under one
benefit and fails it under another doesn't mean their needs are any less
or that somehow they have been caught out fiddling the system.
The problem is that many people will be removed from IB and given
absolutely no help with jobseeking when their medical problems wouldn't
have suddenly lessened overnight. There are already stories of people
being refused ESA after failing a medical and then not qualifying for
JSA as they are deemed to be unavailable for work due to their health.
What are they supposed to do?

In a free global market, do jobs actually exist where employers would
actually prefer to choose such people as employees over those more able
bodied (or less fat, even).
Otherwise it's the same old story of blaming the sick for their sickness,
and the unemployed for their unemployment, which is fine - as long as it
doesn't happen to you.
Cain asked - Am I my brother's keeper? And was cursed.
--
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Yes, there are quotas.
Large companies usually seem to show they have minorities among their
workers (among the directors is a different matter).
Including disabled.

Government always says they ignore colour, age, ethnic origin, and so
on. Then are forever having people count them.

Seriously, on a level playing field disabled and unemployed can find
work.
May not be their dream job. But its work.

Martin <><

[Clive Martin]

In message <i2ps3m$lvo$***@speranza.aioe.org>, Robin T Cox
<***@nomail.net> writes

<SNIP>

Post by Robin T Cox
In a free global market, do jobs actually exist where employers would
actually prefer to choose such people as employees over those more able
bodied (or less fat, even).

No, of course not.

Post by Robin T Cox
Otherwise it's the same old story of blaming the sick for their sickness,
and the unemployed for their unemployment, which is fine - as long as it
doesn't happen to you.

Indeed.

Politicians, the Daily Telegraph and the dimmer kind of newsgroup
contributor all subscribe to the bizarre view that unemployment is the
consequence of lack of moral fibre and has nothing to do with the state
of the economy.

Although this delusion can just about be sustained in periods of high
employment, it is stark staring mad to take this view now, when there
are over 1.5 million people "officially" unemployed, there are 2.5
million people actually unemployed and there are millions more who are
underemployed.

Adding several million lone parents and sick people to these figures is
all about further stigmatising the poor so as to further cut the
benefits bill, not some drivel about pathways into work.

Clive

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by Robbie

Post by Mike

Post by Robbie

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than those
on jobseekers’ allowance.

There yer go. It's all about money. Nothing to do with a person being
fit for work or not.

So are these people unable to do any job?
Or only claiming sickness benefit for being unable to do a particular
job?
Martin <><

It's still about the money Martin. The Government themselves have said
it's to get more people onto the lower JSA rate. The medical assessment
under ESA is a lot tougher to that under IB with the predictable result
that more people are failing the medical assessment. It doesn't mean the
health of a person changes nor the work capability of that person. What
does change is the extra amount of money in the coffers of the Treasury.

You speak as though the gov. trying to save money is a bad thing and the
treasury is a bottomless pit, getting it's money from the fairies at the
end of Hyde Park rather than the taxpayer.
Yes it's about money and anyone who beleives otherwise is a moron and
says otherwise is a liar.
If you choose not to work through illness, however slight, but do not
have to claim benefits the gov doesn't give a toss!  If you have to
claim benefits then rightly the gov takes an interest in whether you are
completely unable to work or just less able than maybe you once where.
Mike

There's nothing wrong with saving money but the Government shouldn't
pretend this is all about something else. If they want to pay people
less then fine, do that. But the misinformation given out by Government
ministers is wrong. Just because someone passes a medical under one
benefit and fails it under another doesn't mean their needs are any less
or that somehow they have been caught out fiddling the system.
The problem is that many people will be removed from IB and given
absolutely no help with jobseeking when their medical problems wouldn't
have suddenly lessened overnight. There are already stories of people
being refused ESA after failing a medical and then not qualifying for
JSA as they are deemed to be unavailable for work due to their health.
What are they supposed to do?
--
Robbie- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

No, their needs aren't any different. Just the benefit has changed.
Some help with jobseeking should be available, unless the jobcentre
has been spending the money on other things.
There are currently some contracts in place for support in getting
people back to work. New providers may be in place by sometime next
year but not seen a tender yet. Could have missed it, could be simply
not yet done.
Medical problems can be very limiting - but do they stop all work?
Some will, some won't. Bad back may limit any job, mental health may
allow some.
Down to the individual needs though - and individualism isn't great in
our society where people tend to get lumped together a lot.

The ones between ESA and JSA - what does the benefit system allow or
did the lawmakers not consider that people could get between?

Martin <><

[Robbie]

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Robbie

Post by Mike

Post by Robbie

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than those
on jobseekers’ allowance.

There yer go. It's all about money. Nothing to do with a person being
fit for work or not.

So are these people unable to do any job?
Or only claiming sickness benefit for being unable to do a particular
job?
Martin<><

It's still about the money Martin. The Government themselves have said
it's to get more people onto the lower JSA rate. The medical assessment
under ESA is a lot tougher to that under IB with the predictable result
that more people are failing the medical assessment. It doesn't mean the
health of a person changes nor the work capability of that person. What
does change is the extra amount of money in the coffers of the Treasury.

You speak as though the gov. trying to save money is a bad thing and the
treasury is a bottomless pit, getting it's money from the fairies at the
end of Hyde Park rather than the taxpayer.
Yes it's about money and anyone who beleives otherwise is a moron and
says otherwise is a liar.
If you choose not to work through illness, however slight, but do not
have to claim benefits the gov doesn't give a toss! If you have to
claim benefits then rightly the gov takes an interest in whether you are
completely unable to work or just less able than maybe you once where.
Mike

There's nothing wrong with saving money but the Government shouldn't
pretend this is all about something else. If they want to pay people
less then fine, do that. But the misinformation given out by Government
ministers is wrong. Just because someone passes a medical under one
benefit and fails it under another doesn't mean their needs are any less
or that somehow they have been caught out fiddling the system.
The problem is that many people will be removed from IB and given
absolutely no help with jobseeking when their medical problems wouldn't
have suddenly lessened overnight. There are already stories of people
being refused ESA after failing a medical and then not qualifying for
JSA as they are deemed to be unavailable for work due to their health.
What are they supposed to do?
--
Robbie- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

No, their needs aren't any different. Just the benefit has changed.
Some help with jobseeking should be available, unless the jobcentre
has been spending the money on other things.
There are currently some contracts in place for support in getting
people back to work. New providers may be in place by sometime next
year but not seen a tender yet. Could have missed it, could be simply
not yet done.
Medical problems can be very limiting - but do they stop all work?
Some will, some won't. Bad back may limit any job, mental health may
allow some.
Down to the individual needs though - and individualism isn't great in
our society where people tend to get lumped together a lot.
The ones between ESA and JSA - what does the benefit system allow or
did the lawmakers not consider that people could get between?
Martin<><

There's nothing in between ESA and JSA. Either a person has limited
capability for work (and claims ESA) or doesn't (and claims JSA). The
problem arises when the boundaries between the two no longer overlap.

To qualify for JSA a person has to show that they are fit and able to
work for 40 hours a week. There is limited scope to restrict this to 16
hours in appropriate circumstances, for example a lone parent can
restrict hours in such a way. Someone with a disability can restrict
hours too if it is reasonable in all the circumstances but there is no
16 hours get out clause as with lone parents enshrined in law from what
I can see. The disabled person would have to show that not only is a
restriction appropriate but also provide evidence of the hours it is
reasonable to restrict to. One false move - no benefit.

The other course of action available to someone who deems themselves
unable to work is to make a new claim for ESA. So long as the new claim
is 6 months after the medical (or to be exact the date of decision to
end ESA) then a new claim can be made. The route here is - claim ESA, be
paid ESA, ESA ends, appeal and receive ESA until appeal is heard, lose
appeal, claim ESA, be paid ESA etc. Given the sheer volume of people
doing this it would seem likely that this route will be closed off -
there already have been a number of changes that have closed off some
aspects of this perpetual route to ESA at the assessment rate. The
ultimate piece of legislation - to ensure no payment of ESA can be made
pending an appeal - is surely not far off. The alternative is to award
ESA at a restricted rate as what happened under the previous IB regime
when Income Support could be paid at a restricted rate.

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by Robbie

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Robbie

Post by Mike

Post by Robbie

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than those
on jobseekers’ allowance.

There yer go. It's all about money. Nothing to do with a person being
fit for work or not.

So are these people unable to do any job?
Or only claiming sickness benefit for being unable to do a particular
job?
Martin<><

It's still about the money Martin. The Government themselves have said
it's to get more people onto the lower JSA rate. The medical assessment
under ESA is a lot tougher to that under IB with the predictable result
that more people are failing the medical assessment. It doesn't mean the
health of a person changes nor the work capability of that person. What
does change is the extra amount of money in the coffers of the Treasury.

You speak as though the gov. trying to save money is a bad thing and the
treasury is a bottomless pit, getting it's money from the fairies at the
end of Hyde Park rather than the taxpayer.
Yes it's about money and anyone who beleives otherwise is a moron and
says otherwise is a liar.
If you choose not to work through illness, however slight, but do not
have to claim benefits the gov doesn't give a toss!  If you have to
claim benefits then rightly the gov takes an interest in whether you are
completely unable to work or just less able than maybe you once where.
Mike

There's nothing wrong with saving money but the Government shouldn't
pretend this is all about something else. If they want to pay people
less then fine, do that. But the misinformation given out by Government
ministers is wrong. Just because someone passes a medical under one
benefit and fails it under another doesn't mean their needs are any less
or that somehow they have been caught out fiddling the system.
The problem is that many people will be removed from IB and given
absolutely no help with jobseeking when their medical problems wouldn't
have suddenly lessened overnight. There are already stories of people
being refused ESA after failing a medical and then not qualifying for
JSA as they are deemed to be unavailable for work due to their health.
What are they supposed to do?
--
Robbie- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

No, their needs aren't any different. Just the benefit has changed.
Some help with jobseeking should be available, unless the jobcentre
has been spending the money on other things.
There are currently some contracts in place for support in getting
people back to work. New providers may be in place by sometime next
year but not seen a tender yet. Could have missed it, could be simply
not yet done.
Medical problems can be very limiting - but do they stop all work?
Some will, some won't. Bad back may limit any job, mental health may
allow some.
Down to the individual needs though - and individualism isn't great in
our society where people tend to get lumped together a lot.
The ones between ESA and JSA - what does the benefit system allow or
did the lawmakers not consider that people could get between?
Martin<><

There's nothing in between ESA and JSA. Either a person has limited
capability for work (and claims ESA) or doesn't (and claims JSA). The
problem arises when the boundaries between the two no longer overlap.
To qualify for JSA a person has to show that they are fit and able to
work for 40 hours a week. There is limited scope to restrict this to 16
hours in appropriate circumstances, for example a lone parent can
restrict hours in such a way. Someone with a disability can restrict
hours too if it is reasonable in all the circumstances but there is no
16 hours get out clause as with lone parents enshrined in law from what
I can see. The disabled person would have to show that not only is a
restriction appropriate but also provide evidence of the hours it is
reasonable to restrict to. One false move - no benefit.
The other course of action available to someone who deems themselves
unable to work is to make a new claim for ESA. So long as the new claim
is 6 months after the medical (or to be exact the date of decision to
end ESA) then a new claim can be made. The route here is - claim ESA, be
paid ESA, ESA ends, appeal and receive ESA until appeal is heard, lose
appeal, claim ESA, be paid ESA etc. Given the sheer volume of people
doing this it would seem likely that this route will be closed off -
there already have been a number of changes that have closed off some
aspects of this perpetual route to ESA at the assessment rate. The
ultimate piece of legislation - to ensure no payment of ESA can be made
pending an appeal - is surely not far off. The alternative is to award
ESA at a restricted rate as what happened under the previous IB regime
when Income Support could be paid at a restricted rate.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So basically they didn't think that people would slip through the
cracks.
As usual.

I'd swear that they learned that tactic from the military.

I'm suprised ESA hasn't been in the national press more over the last
year or so.

Martin <><

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by Mike

Post by Robbie

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than those
on jobseekers’ allowance.

There yer go. It's all about money. Nothing to do with a person being
fit for work or not.

So are these people unable to do any job?
Or only claiming sickness benefit for being unable to do a particular
job?
Martin <><

It's still about the money Martin. The Government themselves have said
it's to get more people onto the lower JSA rate. The medical assessment
under ESA is a lot tougher to that under IB with the predictable result
that more people are failing the medical assessment. It doesn't mean the
health of a person changes nor the work capability of that person. What
does change is the extra amount of money in the coffers of the Treasury.

You speak as though the gov. trying to save money is a bad thing and the
treasury is a bottomless pit, getting it's money from the fairies at the
end of Hyde Park rather than the taxpayer.
Yes it's about money and anyone who beleives otherwise is a moron and
says otherwise is a liar.
If you choose not to work through illness, however slight, but do not
have to claim benefits the gov doesn't give a toss!  If you have to
claim benefits then rightly the gov takes an interest in whether you are
completely unable to work or just less able than maybe you once where.
Mike- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

My wife has over 20 years experience in cleaning, caretaking and
retail work. She now has bad knees and can walk about 20 metres,
usually she uses a wheelchair.
She was in the jobcentre yesterday, found 5 jobs she can do easily.
She's applying to all 5, CV from scratch took her less than an hour
(and thats only because she needed to find her Uni transcript).
Covering letters to all 5 took only slightly longer all together. Not
bad for her spare time.
All of her experience in previous work is relevant to those 5 jobs,
though she can't do cleaning or caretaking again and retail only if
she can use the wheelchair or a seat.
She's back down there later this week for some more jobs.

Gotta love a girl who refuses to give up.
Far as I'm concerned she can sit at home all day and be a director,
instead she wants to do more. I don't mind, more money for us
together.
She's already got her eyes on a new car paid for by her wages.....

Martin <><

[Tony]

Post by Mike

Post by Robbie

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than those
on jobseekers’ allowance.

There yer go. It's all about money. Nothing to do with a person being
fit for work or not.

So are these people unable to do any job?
Or only claiming sickness benefit for being unable to do a particular
job?
Martin <><

It's still about the money Martin. The Government themselves have said
it's to get more people onto the lower JSA rate. The medical assessment
under ESA is a lot tougher to that under IB with the predictable result
that more people are failing the medical assessment. It doesn't mean the
health of a person changes nor the work capability of that person. What
does change is the extra amount of money in the coffers of the Treasury.

You speak as though the gov. trying to save money is a bad thing

IT is when the base reason for saving money is spite.

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by Mike

Post by Robbie

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than those
on jobseekers’ allowance.

There yer go. It's all about money. Nothing to do with a person being
fit for work or not.

So are these people unable to do any job?
Or only claiming sickness benefit for being unable to do a particular
job?
Martin <><

It's still about the money Martin. The Government themselves have said
it's to get more people onto the lower JSA rate. The medical assessment
under ESA is a lot tougher to that under IB with the predictable result
that more people are failing the medical assessment. It doesn't mean the
health of a person changes nor the work capability of that person. What
does change is the extra amount of money in the coffers of the Treasury.

You speak as though the gov. trying to save money is a bad thing

IT is when the base reason for saving money is spite.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Spite? Against what?

Martin <><

[Tony]

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Mike

Post by Robbie

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than those
on jobseekers’ allowance.

There yer go. It's all about money. Nothing to do with a person being
fit for work or not.

So are these people unable to do any job?
Or only claiming sickness benefit for being unable to do a particular
job?
Martin <><

It's still about the money Martin. The Government themselves have said
it's to get more people onto the lower JSA rate. The medical assessment
under ESA is a lot tougher to that under IB with the predictable result
that more people are failing the medical assessment. It doesn't mean the
health of a person changes nor the work capability of that person. What
does change is the extra amount of money in the coffers of the Treasury.

You speak as though the gov. trying to save money is a bad thing

IT is when the base reason for saving money is spite.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Spite? Against what?
Martin <><

Against the phlebs. Keep 'em skint and under control

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by Robbie

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than those
on jobseekers’ allowance.

There yer go. It's all about money. Nothing to do with a person being
fit for work or not.

So are these people unable to do any job?
Or only claiming sickness benefit for being unable to do a particular
job?
Martin  <><

It's still about the money Martin. The Government themselves have said
it's to get more people onto the lower JSA rate. The medical assessment
under ESA is a lot tougher to that under IB with the predictable result
that more people are failing the medical assessment. It doesn't mean the
health of a person changes nor the work capability of that person. What
does change is the extra amount of money in the coffers of the Treasury.
--
Robbie

Though the old IB medical was perhaps too soft - 'so you have a bad
foot and can't do bricklaying again, OK get sickness benefit until you
retire', is the ESA one too hard?

People may be able to do different kinds of work. Can a van driver
learn to work in an office? Can a blind person learn audiotyping?
Or should people be on the scrap heap the rest of their working life?

That ultimately is what it all comes down to. Leave people to stay on
benefit or pay money to try and get them off the benefit and maybe,
maybe working.

Martin <><

[Robbie]

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Robbie

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than those
on jobseekers’ allowance.

There yer go. It's all about money. Nothing to do with a person being
fit for work or not.

So are these people unable to do any job?
Or only claiming sickness benefit for being unable to do a particular
job?
Martin <><

It's still about the money Martin. The Government themselves have said
it's to get more people onto the lower JSA rate. The medical assessment
under ESA is a lot tougher to that under IB with the predictable result
that more people are failing the medical assessment. It doesn't mean the
health of a person changes nor the work capability of that person. What
does change is the extra amount of money in the coffers of the Treasury.
--
Robbie

Though the old IB medical was perhaps too soft - 'so you have a bad
foot and can't do bricklaying again, OK get sickness benefit until you
retire', is the ESA one too hard?

Which IB, Invalidity or Incapacity? The Incapacity Benefit medical never
made any reference to the type of work someone could do or not do though
the Invalidity Benefit medical did have a feature where someone had to
be found fit for a specific type of job. But that medical went in 1995.
The ESA medical differs from the Incapacity Benefit medical mainly on
the mental health assessment, the physical health assessment part isn't
that much different.

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People may be able to do different kinds of work. Can a van driver
learn to work in an office? Can a blind person learn audiotyping?
Or should people be on the scrap heap the rest of their working life?

Again, that isn't what IB or ESA measures. It measures how many points
someone has based on a range of physical and mental health functions and
if you get 15 points you get the benefit.

A blind or near blind person gets 15 points and will therefore get
benefit. Someone with no legs gets 15 points. It hardly assesses their
capability to work. Rather it measures health conditions that are fixed
and quantifiable. People with fluctuating conditions or conditions that
aren't obvious or physical in nature can get 0 points. The IB medical
could award lots of 1 and 2 points for low to medium level problems for
mental health problems that could all add up to the magic total of 15.
These have all gone under the new system. Guess what type of problem
most people failing the medical have? It isn't found in the examples you
have used.

Post by m***@hotmail.com
That ultimately is what it all comes down to. Leave people to stay on
benefit or pay money to try and get them off the benefit and maybe,
maybe working.
Martin <><

See above.

[Tony]

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than those
on jobseekers’ allowance.

There yer go. It's all about money. Nothing to do with a person being
fit for work or not.

So are these people unable to do any job?

Would *you* give them a job?

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than those
on jobseekers’ allowance.

There yer go. It's all about money. Nothing to do with a person being
fit for work or not.

So are these people unable to do any job?

Would *you* give them a job?

If they applied and scored highest among the candidates, yes. Same as
most employers.
If they didn't score highly compared to others, then no. Same as most
employers.

Companies don't exist as socialist organisations that are required to
give people jobs because they have a sob story or are somehow
deserving.
Can cause problems when companies give preference, either for or
against, particular candidates.

A senior position at the charity RNID created uproar when it was
offered to a Deaf-impaired person, yet by all accounts he was the best
person for the job. Just some people thought that preference should
have gone to Deaf rather than hearing people.

Martin <><

[Colin]

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than those
on jobseekers’ allowance.

There yer go. It's all about money. Nothing to do with a person being
fit for work or not.

So are these people unable to do any job?

Would *you* give them a job?

If they applied and scored highest among the candidates, yes. Same as
most employers.
If they didn't score highly compared to others, then no. Same as most
employers.
Companies don't exist as socialist organisations that are required to
give people jobs because they have a sob story or are somehow
deserving.

So you *wouldn't* offer a job to someone who has been out of work for 3
years through no fault of their own?

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by Colin

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than those
on jobseekers’ allowance.

There yer go. It's all about money. Nothing to do with a person being
fit for work or not.

So are these people unable to do any job?

Would *you* give them a job?

If they applied and scored highest among the candidates, yes. Same as
most employers.
If they didn't score highly compared to others, then no. Same as most
employers.
Companies don't exist as socialist organisations that are required to
give people jobs because they have a sob story or are somehow
deserving.

So you *wouldn't* offer a job to someone who has been out of work for 3
years through no fault of their own?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

As I said, they have to score highest.
Same opportunity as everyone else to do so. Come to think of it, never
been in an interview yet from either side where someone who had been
out of work for 3 years was at a disadvantage because of it.
If they've done their research, if they know their subject, if they
can give details from their past about particular sitautions and their
actions, they have the same chance as others to shine.
If they turn up not knowing anything about the company, not looked up
job details, can't give decent answers to questions.......then likely
fail the interview. But not through being out of work.

Whether they get through to interview stage is more problematic, many
companies use some scoring system to weed the applicants down to a
manageable interview number.

Martin <><

[Colin]

Post by m***@hotmail.com
fail the interview. But not through being out of work.
Whether they get through to interview stage is more problematic, many
companies use some scoring system to weed the applicants down to a
manageable interview number.

I assure you that it is watered down to anyone under 35 who fits a
certain image. Nothing to do with qualifications or suitability.
Tell me any company who will take on a trainee car mechanic aged 63
who is unemployed and wants to learn.

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by Colin

Post by m***@hotmail.com
fail the interview. But not through being out of work.
Whether they get through to interview stage is more problematic, many
companies use some scoring system to weed the applicants down to a
manageable interview number.

I assure you that it is watered down to anyone under 35 who fits a
certain image. Nothing to do with qualifications or suitability.
Tell me any company who will take on a trainee car mechanic aged 63
who is unemployed and wants to learn.

Not in my experience. And I'm over 35. Had the occaional interview
since reaching 35, some by phone on a conference call, some in
person.
Never sat on a panel where there was a certain image, even age was
unknown to us. Some places will remove personal details from the
paperwork before the panel see it as its not relevant to the questions
being asked.

As for a company taking on a trainee car mechanic, aged 63, who scored
highest at interview, why not?
Perhaps a little less likely than a 16 year old apprentice for going
out and getting roaring drunk every night then coming into work
hungover. :)
If that person was the highest scoring of those interviewed, a company
would have to be idiots to turn him away in favour of someone who
scored lower.
Would you want a company to offer you employment because you were the
best? Or offer you employment because you looked like what they wanted
but were pretty average in the interview?

Know many football teams who will sign up someone else other than the
best they can find? Do they turn down a Beckham in favour of say a
North Korean player?
If they did I'd call them idiots.

You may if you ever run a company choose to have a policy of not
employing the best. Instead employ who you want, maybe because they
meet your ideal image, or they have a sob story you like.
If you lose money over it then its your money gone. Don't try it with
other people's money. Don't try it when you have to work with the
hired person.

Martin <><

[Colin]

Post by m***@hotmail.com
You may if you ever run a company choose to have a policy of not
employing the best. Instead employ who you want, maybe because they
meet your ideal image, or they have a sob story you like.
If you lose money over it then its your money gone. Don't try it with
other people's money. Don't try it when you have to work with the
hired person.
Martin <><

Who of these two people you can train at great cost is most likely to
drop dead at work. A 16 year old or a 63 year old?

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by Colin

Post by m***@hotmail.com
You may if you ever run a company choose to have a policy of not
employing the best. Instead employ who you want, maybe because they
meet your ideal image, or they have a sob story you like.
If you lose money over it then its your money gone. Don't try it with
other people's money. Don't try it when you have to work with the
hired person.
Martin  <><

Who of these two people you can train at great cost is most likely to
drop dead at work. A 16 year old or a 63 year old?

Which of them scores better at the interview? Thats the sole relevant
information.


Still if you want to take someone solely due to chances of dropping
dead before retiring from the company, go right ahead.
You'll be letting your own bias affect your decision making. And maybe
getting a less suitable employee.
Still, if its your company you can set the policies. If its someone
else's company you could be costing them money by your bias.

Martin <><

[Colin]

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Colin

Post by m***@hotmail.com
You may if you ever run a company choose to have a policy of not
employing the best. Instead employ who you want, maybe because they
meet your ideal image, or they have a sob story you like.
If you lose money over it then its your money gone. Don't try it with
other people's money. Don't try it when you have to work with the
hired person.
Martin <><

Who of these two people you can train at great cost is most likely to
drop dead at work. A 16 year old or a 63 year old?

Which of them scores better at the interview? Thats the sole relevant
information.
Still if you want to take someone solely due to chances of dropping
dead before retiring from the company, go right ahead.

The cost of training can be condireable. It's not unreasonable to expect
a chance of some return on the expense.

Post by m***@hotmail.com
You'll be letting your own bias affect your decision making. And maybe
getting a less suitable employee.
Still, if its your company you can set the policies. If its someone
else's company you could be costing them money by your bias.
Martin <><

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by Colin

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Colin

Post by m***@hotmail.com
You may if you ever run a company choose to have a policy of not
employing the best. Instead employ who you want, maybe because they
meet your ideal image, or they have a sob story you like.
If you lose money over it then its your money gone. Don't try it with
other people's money. Don't try it when you have to work with the
hired person.
Martin  <><

Who of these two people you can train at great cost is most likely to
drop dead at work. A 16 year old or a 63 year old?

Which of them scores better at the interview? Thats the sole relevant
information.
Still if you want to take someone solely due to chances of dropping
dead before retiring from the company, go right ahead.

The cost of training can be condireable. It's not unreasonable to expect
a chance of some return on the expense.

Post by m***@hotmail.com
You'll be letting your own bias affect your decision making. And maybe
getting a less suitable employee.
Still, if its your company you can set the policies. If its someone
else's company you could be costing them money by your bias.
Martin  <><- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

True, the cost of recruiting and training can be considerable. So what
can you do to make sure the person recruited stays with your company?
Is a 63 year old now less likely to stay with the company than a 16
year old? Or are they more? Nothing to say either person would leave
the company in the next 10 years.


No guarantee that anyone taken on will stay.

Martin <><

[Colin]

Post by m***@hotmail.com
True, the cost of recruiting and training can be considerable. So what
can you do to make sure the person recruited stays with your company?
Is a 63 year old now less likely to stay with the company than a 16
year old? Or are they more? Nothing to say either person would leave
the company in the next 10 years.
No guarantee that anyone taken on will stay.
Martin <><

Who will cost the most to train? Who learns quickest? A 16 or 63 year old?

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by Colin

Post by m***@hotmail.com
True, the cost of recruiting and training can be considerable. So what
can you do to make sure the person recruited stays with your company?
Is a 63 year old now less likely to stay with the company than a 16
year old? Or are they more? Nothing to say either person would leave
the company in the next 10 years.
No guarantee that anyone taken on will stay.
Martin  <><

Who will cost the most to train? Who learns quickest? A 16 or 63 year old?

They will both cost the exact same to train. You are paying the
trainer the wage the trainer gets whether you have a 16 year old or 63
year old being taught.
You never worked anywhere with other staff? Never had staff train
someone? Never had a member of staff train you?

As for who learns quickest - rather an open question. We don't know
more details about either of those two people. May as well go on and
ask more questions like:
who will produce the best work
who will produce work with flaws
who will turn up for work each day

Like I've said, score them at interview. Take on the best scorer if
its someone elses company, take on who you want if its your company
and therefore your money involved.


Martin <><

[Fredxx]

Post by Colin

Post by m***@hotmail.com
True, the cost of recruiting and training can be considerable. So what
can you do to make sure the person recruited stays with your company?
Is a 63 year old now less likely to stay with the company than a 16
year old? Or are they more? Nothing to say either person would leave
the company in the next 10 years.
No guarantee that anyone taken on will stay.
Martin <><

Who will cost the most to train? Who learns quickest? A 16 or 63 year old?

I think you are entirely missing the point. I know 16 year olds who will
remember jack-shit the day after he's trained, but a 60 year old who is as
keen as ever and may be able to relate training to previous experiences. At
the end of the day, the value of an employee is how much money he makes the
company. Anything less is pure prejudice.

[G Daeb]

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Colin

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Colin

Post by m***@hotmail.com
You may if you ever run a company choose to have a policy of not
employing the best. Instead employ who you want, maybe because they
meet your ideal image, or they have a sob story you like.
If you lose money over it then its your money gone. Don't try it with
other people's money. Don't try it when you have to work with the
hired person.
Martin  <><

Who of these two people you can train at great cost is most likely to
drop dead at work. A 16 year old or a 63 year old?

Which of them scores better at the interview? Thats the sole relevant
information.
Still if you want to take someone solely due to chances of dropping
dead before retiring from the company, go right ahead.

The cost of training can be condireable. It's not unreasonable to expect
a chance of some return on the expense.

Post by m***@hotmail.com
You'll be letting your own bias affect your decision making. And maybe
getting a less suitable employee.
Still, if its your company you can set the policies. If its someone
else's company you could be costing them money by your bias.
Martin  <><- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

True, the cost of recruiting and training can be considerable. So what
can you do to make sure the person recruited stays with your company?
Is a 63 year old now less likely to stay with the company than a 16
year old? Or are they more? Nothing to say either person would leave
the company in the next 10 years.
No guarantee that anyone taken on will stay.
Martin  <><- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

No, they may prefer to head over to Majorca
and do flyering for clubs.

Still wouldn't be able to prove they'd not been
in prison when they got back though...

G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2010 SIPSTON
--

[G Daeb]

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Colin

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than those
on jobseekers’ allowance.

There yer go. It's all about money. Nothing to do with a person being
fit for work or not.

So are these people unable to do any job?

Would *you* give them a job?

If they applied and scored highest among the candidates, yes. Same as
most employers.
If they didn't score highly compared to others, then no. Same as most
employers.
Companies don't exist as socialist organisations that are required to
give people jobs because they have a sob story or are somehow
deserving.

So you *wouldn't* offer a job to someone who has been out of work for 3
years through no fault of their own?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

As I said, they have to score highest.
Same opportunity as everyone else to do so. Come to think of it, never
been in an interview yet from either side where someone who had been
out of work for 3 years was at a disadvantage because of it.
If they've done their research, if they know their subject, if they
can give details from their past about particular sitautions and their
actions, they have the same chance as others to shine.
If they turn up not knowing anything about the company, not looked up
job details, can't give decent answers to questions.......then likely
fail the interview. But not through being out of work.
Whether they get through to interview stage is more problematic, many
companies use some scoring system to weed the applicants down to a
manageable interview number.
Martin  <><- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Okay. here's one from the annals of
the real world.

And is partly in response to the assertion
that if you're out of work and don't claim
benefits the gov doesn't care, so it's all
OK.

You work and save. For whatever reason
you end up out of work. Maybe you left
one job for another which just didn't live
up to expectations, and when your old
employers contacted your new one to
see what you were up to were told "oh,
no, we keep people busy here, no chance
they'd be coming back to you..."

...the week before you have a bit of a
bust up with them that's been brewing for
a while and they say "well fuck you then"

But for whatever reason, you're out of
work and either don't or can't claim.

Then three quarters of the jobs you next
go for it's made quite clear that if you
can't prove the gaps in your employment
(on your CV) aren't times you weren't in
prison, you won't get the job.

Maybe that's just a downside of applying
around the Wakefiled side of the West Riding
as there are High Security prisons for both
men and women there or nearby. But then
Armley's no Butlins either.

The gov doesn't give a monkey's, but you
can really not be given the chances to shine.

Or are these just not "same as any employer"?

I mean never mind about the people who
simply prefer not to interview candidates
from certain postal regions. Same as any
employer?

Still, I suppose neither underwear nor
jam rags are truly luxuries for most who
suffer haemorrhoids.

G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2010 SIPSTON
--

[G Daeb]

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than those
on jobseekers’ allowance.

There yer go. It's all about money. Nothing to do with a person being
fit for work or not.

So are these people unable to do any job?
Or only claiming sickness benefit for being unable to do a particular
job?
Martin  <><

No, generally, if you fall ill from a particular
job you'd be entitled to ever decreasing SSP
provided you'd completed your 2 years in the
post.

As a regular poster to uk.media.tv.misc I'm
going to cite an example pulled from the
drawers of the Trisha show archives in which
a particularly - hyperactive or ADHD (IIRC) -
sick puppy made his various female associates'
lives hell by hacking, cracking, phreaking their
every on-line move and playing an array of
genuinely tasteless "practical jokes" on them.

He could have come straight out of the old
TV ad for Persil, in the era before Robbie
Coltrane reprised a variation on the supergran
theme for their newly-launched washing-up
liquid, army-surplus shirt, big broad grin,
nice middle-class boy, signed off on a ticket
for life, as he put it, where benefits were
concerned.

I did wonder at times if he wasn't behind at
least one of the Most Haunted webcam
reports - where on the live editions the
audience participate in a kind of mediated
neighbourhood watch scheme (little realising
just how tedious the real-life job of watching
a bank of CCTV cameras for 8 hours at a
time is) - by faking incoming signals.

I just got the impression it's precisely the
kind of infantile trick he'd get off on.

Sadly, the trught remains that where a
person has experienced genuine acute
conditions - depression or mania, or has
developed, say, an oppositional disorder
or is genuinely dissociative, or even in
cases of chronic addictive substance or
behaviour dependency - it can be hard
to tell whether yanking them back on their
feet so their brain stops churning the
same old die-cast thoughts (albeit perhaps
with their hands being held along the way)
the "get a life!" approach is good or if
it may just trigger a relapse or make their
problems worse..

I understand though that religious orders
of various denominations exist in a variety
faiths - I knew some otherwise remakrably
intelligent, down-to-earht and pragmatic
people who very genuinely weren't sure if
the 2nd coming was going to go down in
2000 or not - and as such it's unlikely there'll
ever be no safety net at all.

But on the other hand, for the right kind
of enterprising mind, it's entirely possible
the UK's overcrowded prison system may
be a preferable alternative to claiming the
dole.

But remember it was The Daily Mail which
broke, in all seriousness, the revelation
the full name of Ronald Winston Reagan
contained three names, each of 6 letters.

6. 6. 6.

!

G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2010 SIPSTON
--

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by G Daeb

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Tony

Post by m***@hotmail.com
People on incapacity benefit can claim £89 a week, £25 more than those
on jobseekers’ allowance.

There yer go. It's all about money. Nothing to do with a person being
fit for work or not.

So are these people unable to do any job?
Or only claiming sickness benefit for being unable to do a particular
job?
Martin  <><

No, generally, if you fall ill from a particular
job you'd be entitled to ever decreasing SSP
provided you'd completed your 2 years in the
post.

<snipped>

Wow, ever decreasing SSP. Things sure have changed in the few years
since I claimed it. And to think even the government don't seem to
know about it.....
So how far does this SSP decrease to? £0? Or to the SSP rate?

I've had SSP with less than 2 years in the post, was paid it several
times in my first 2 years on the job I'm at now.

Martin <><

[Bill]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3f71c4bc-d624-4c88-beb7-***@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Something different from the recent spam on the group.

Enjoy.

Martin <><

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7913331/Three-in-four-sickness-benefit-applicants-fit-to-work-or-stop-claiming-due-to-medicals.html

The new “work capability assessment” was introduced along with the new
employment and support allowance, which replaced the old incapacity
benefit scheme in October 2008.

Applicants now have to go through a 13 week assessment period, during
which a doctor or medical professional questions them to see whether
they are fit enough to carry out paid work.

(snipped)

So what happens financially during these 13 weeks. Does the claimant
receive any benefits?

Bill

[Robbie]

Post by m***@hotmail.com
Something different from the recent spam on the group.
Enjoy.
Martin <><
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7913331/Three-in-four-sickness-benefit-applicants-fit-to-work-or-stop-claiming-due-to-medicals.html
The new “work capability assessment” was introduced along with the new
employment and support allowance, which replaced the old incapacity
benefit scheme in October 2008.
Applicants now have to go through a 13 week assessment period, during
which a doctor or medical professional questions them to see whether
they are fit enough to carry out paid work.
(snipped)
So what happens financially during these 13 weeks. Does the claimant
receive any benefits?
Bill

A basic rate payment is made during those 13 weeks which is the same as
that for JSA (£65.45 if aged 25+). Once the work capability assessment
is completed (usually following a medical) and assuming the person stays
on ESA then one of two additional components is paid, a support
component of £31.40 for people who are deemed too ill to work and a work
related activity component of £25.95 for people who are deemed to have
limited capability for work but they are expected to begin to take steps
to return to work.

Less than 10% of claimants are placed in the support group.