What some have been asking for, but others have feared.

[anotheoldgit]

http://tinyurl.com/3c7zxz8

Thousands of letters will go out this week to recipients of incapacity benefit.

Will this be what the country needs or will it prove to be a failure?

[jackthehat]

It'll adversely affect some deserving cases. I find it difficult to be uplifted by that thought.

[owdhamer]

Where are these 500,000 jobs? There are no jobs for able bodied people let alone the less fortunate.

[andy-hughes]

It sounds wonderful because - again driven by media perception - there is a general understanding that the majority of those claiming Incapactiy Benefit are perfectly fit to work, and are 'scrounging'.

Hopefully this test will be applied diligently and with scrupulous fairness - to do any other would be to betray the ideals of the NHS, and our caring society - such as it is.

[anotheoldgit]

No one would want it to hit deserving cases/less fortunate, nor will it.

/// “The changes we are making to the benefits system will ensure that those in genuine need get more support and those who could and should be working are given the opportunity to do so.///

/// “A life on benefits is no longer an option.” ///

Surely no one can argue against this?

[andy-hughes]

As it stands - no, it cannot be argued with.

My only worry would be that civil servents driven by 'targets' my be inclined to be a little more zealous than is necessary, and that some borderline cases may be denied benefit if 'targets' replace common sense and compassion.

[jackthehat]

Who would want to argue against that ?

It's the implementation of these 'new ideas' that leaves a lot to be desired...

[horseshoes]

What I don't quite understand is that, IF there are no jobs to give the ones no longer entitled to IB, do they then get some other form of benefit instead, and if so, does that pay them more or less in the way of benefits?

[anotheoldgit]

I suppose it is only natural for some Tory sceptics, to view these new measures with a little suspicion.

But surely it won't be left to some civil servant to say who is fit and who is not fit for work, so therefore if medically qualified persons are the one's making the decisions, what is the problem?

It can only be a good thing, if by weeding out the scroungers they are able to increase the allowances for the genuine cases.

[jackthehat]

The 'interviews' are short and subjective.
It is not as clear cut as you suggest.

[anotheoldgit]

horseshoes

They will be classed as any other 'out of work' person, they will be put on job-seekers allowance.

[alleath]

Well I'm just a little sceptical..
At the moment it's Atos Medical Healyh services that carry out the assessments, I had mine in January as was signed onto ESA for 12 months. I can understand an increase in the frequency of testing but how can you justify changing the rules?
Cynically I would suggest this is a cost cutting measure to move claimants from ESA to the lesser paid JSA.
The problem is what employer would take someone on that until a recent change in the rules (and not a change in the claimants circumstances) had been deemed unfit to work?
The very few jobs that are available will surely be taken by the most capable and very best candidates and not by those that would clearly struggle, condemning the genuine needy to a more impoverished life.

[andy-hughes]

A lot of major companies take on private medical screening firms to conduct their medical analysis for them.

On the basis that contracts are awarded and renewed for the companies who provide most of what the company wants to hear, this inevitably influences the results of the enquries that the screening firm makes in the parent company (in this case the government)'s favour.

That alone would make me wary of the scheme as it stands.

[anotheoldgit]

alleath

Don't you agree that most scroungers would soon get off their ar*es and look for a job, if the job seekers allowance doesn't match up to the more generous benefit they are presently illegally obtaining?

Regarding your paragraph,

/// The problem is what employer would take someone on that until a recent change in the rules (and not a change in the claimants circumstances) had been deemed unfit to work? ///

It would not be a change in the rules as you state, but a change in their circumstances.

Let me explain a person who perhaps many years ago was at that time deemed un-fit for work, fair enough, but since that time due to the advance in certain drugs and treatment etc, they are now perfectly fit and therefore able to work.

But they have now become used to living off benefits, so it has been advantageous for them not to report a change in their circumstances. There are thousands such as this, so is it fair that this state of affairs is allowed to continue?

[sandyRoe]

It's got me worried. If I lose my benefits I will have to live on capital.

[jackthehat]

There will be many people who have struggled to cope with their 'condition'; a quick 10 minute interview with an unfamiliar healthcare professional can result in them having their benefit withdrawn.
They will then have to jump through various hoops before ultimately ending up back where they were; unemployed and unemployable.

Of course, there will be 'scroungers' who are rightly deprived of this benefit, but I think you'll find that the papers are full of stories of deserving people who have undergone serious hardship on having their benefits wrongly withdrawn.

[andy-hughes]

I think jack highlights a valid issue - there is always the danger in using the 'prawn net' approach - you scoop up all sorts of people whom you may not intend to target, but who never the less end up in the 'system' - often to their detriment.

The checks will have to be rigoursly and fairly applied - and i do have reservations about the aims and intentions of those tasked with carrying out the tests and interviews - for reasons i have outlined.

[Oneeyedvic]

It very much depends on what is wrong with somebody. There are very few people who are totally unemployable - but there are a great deal of people who have got into the habit of not wanting to work and getting benefit for it.

I employ a photographer who has one arm. He does everything that a normal photographer does and is more than capable. If a person said that since they had only one arm, they couldn't work, then they are wrong.

With technology today, there are also plenty of jobs that can be done from home - again the question is whether someone wants to work or not.

Regarding the next obvious question - which is whether there are jobs or not) - this is irrelevant - as if they are capable of work, then they should not be discriminated against and receive the same money (job seekers allowance) as any one else.

[alleath]

"""Don't you agree that most scroungers would soon get off their ar*es and look for a job, if the job seekers allowance doesn't match up to the more generous benefit they are presently illegally obtaining? """
This is the type of generalisation I'm so sick of reading, to assume so many claimants are feckless work-shy scroungers is deplorable. I would love the opportunity to get back into work but it's impossible. Believe me AOG, it's tough living on £90 a week, it's not the road anyone would choose to be on.
To say that if their benefit was dropped to £60 a week on JSA (or whatever it is) it would inspire the sick to get a job is insulting to say the least. Your impression that all claimants of ESA are scroungers is well, frankly, pathetic.