On 20/09/2010 22:49, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 19 Sep, 17:06, "Bob"<***@abccc.com> wrote:
>> A friend recently scared me with her descriptions of how ESA is affecting
>> disabled people. I've been on IB and DLA for many years and the stress of
>> the thought that I might be forced back to work next year is already having
>> a bad effect on the slow improvement of my mental health.
>>
>> Apparently she's gathered her impression from reading 'The Guardian'. She
>> also mentioned a Facebook page that seems to be gathering others concerned
>> about this. They're named after the black triangle badge used in Nazi
>> Concentration Camps to indicate 'Work-shy inmates, where that definition
>> covered a range of disabled groups.http://www.facebook.com/pages/Black-Triangle-Anti-Defamation-Campaign...
>> Can anyone tell me if this situation really is as bad as she thinks?
>>
>> And if so, what can be done about it?
>>
>> Here's what Wiki says about the Black Triangle Badge:
>> Individuals deemed "anti-social" had to wear the Black Triangle. Many of
>> Black Triangle prisoners were either mentally retarded or mentally ill. The
>> homeless were also included, as were alcoholics, the habitually "work-shy,"
>> prostitutes, and others (including draft dodgers, pacifists and even
>> aristocrats. Romani or Roma people, also known as Gypsies, were usually
>> classed with Black Triangle prisoners, but some concentration camps gave
>> them a separate badge - the Brown Triangle - instead.
>>
>> Bob
>> -------------
>
> They are rather taking things a bit far with the comparison to the
> black triangle.
>
> I suspect part of the problem is that incapacity benefit wasn't a
> benefit for those unable to work, it was for those unable to work in a
> particular job.
Actually, that's not true. Incapacity Benefit was a reform of the old
Invalidity Benefit which had been linked to the inability to do a
certain job. The medical test for Invalidity Benefit involved a decision
being made on whether someone could do their own job and if not then the
person could be found fit for other type of work. The decision had to
include a list of jobs that the person could (reasonably) do. If there
were none the person could reasonably do then they were deemed unfit for
work.
Incapacity Benefit was introduced in 1995. For the first 28 weeks of
claiming incapacity the person was subject to an "own occupation test"
if they had recently been in employment but once those 28 weeks had
elapsed (or if the person hadn't recently been in employment) the test
was widened to an "all work test" which was renamed in 1999 to a
"personal capability test". There was no test of capacity for certain
occupations from that point onwards. If the person failed to get enough
points they were deemed fit to work. Under the new Employment And
Support Allowance that part of the benefit scheme is exactly the same.
The test itself has been toughened up but the application of the test,
the 15 points threshold, has not altered. What has changed is that the
initial 28 week "own occupation test" period has been replaced by a 13
week assessment period to determine whether a person has "limited
capacity for work related activity".
> Doesn't mean all jobs are out of reach, a disabled roofer may not be
> able to work on a roof again but could he work in an office?
> Some who ended up on incapacity benefit did so simply because their
> employer sick pay ran out.
Which is what happens under ESA - were you not aware of that? Once 28
weeks SSP is exhausted the option is to claim ESA rather than IB. And
benefit amounts rise quicker too under the new system, with the highest
amounts being paid after 13 weeks on ESA rather than 26 or 52 weeks on IB.
> Plus for many years the jobcentre 'encouraged' people who were unable
> to do a job due to illness or disability to go onto incapacity
> benefit.
No. It was Invalidity Benefit, back in the 80s. Not Incapacity Benefit
from 1995 onwards. The push to get people on IVB was when unemployment
was at 3 million in the early to mid 80s. After Restart was introduced
in 1986 for the long term unemployed this "encouragement" stopped so
that even in 1992 when unemployment rose sharply again and briefly
touched 3m once more, that same encouragement wasn't as noticeable. This
is because people on Restart weren't included in official unemployment
figures.
>
> The result? Many on the benefit who could work, but had some jobs they
> couldn't do.
Still the same under ESA. The alleged change there is that ESA is
supposed to tailor help towards helping people back into the world of
work or at least back into working towards returning to work. Financial
constraints are already proving to be problematic. In addition, that
same help existed under IB but was again totally underfunded.
> So Labour brought in the idea of moving people off incapacity, while
> also keeping a sickness benefit for those who were classed as unable
> to work.
The general idea behind ESA isn't that bad to be honest. It is more
focussed than IB and it better structured. My problem is with the
medical part of the Work Capability Assessment, primarily for people
with mental health problems. The physical health part of the medical is
tougher but not that much different. For people with mental health
problems the WCA test is so radically different in approach to the old
PCA that people with mild to moderate mental health problems are more
likely than not to fail the WCA whereas they would most likely have
passed the PCA. Yet these people are often the ones who need the extra
assistance in finding work that remaining on ESA would have brought.
> The choice is :
>
> Leave people on benefit and never expect them to work again.
> Or.
> Get some of them onto other benefits, screw up the unemployment
> figures for a bit but ultimately help some (and it is some) back into
> work of some sort.
while leaving all the others who never will find a job to fester on JSA
but at a saving of £27 per week per claimant.
> Martin<><