199 replies to this topic

[garjones]

So now we means test people going through chemotherapy for benefits. That'll help the economy, let's get more cancer sufferers off the dole. Growth here we come. Next step toilet cleaners pensions.

http://www.guardian....fare-work-tests

[Sanjay]

Utterly idiotic move.

[Mark Peyton]

Compassionate Conservatives.

[Mike]

The BMA have moved their official stance on the Government's Health Bill from 'let's look at ways we can work together' to 'we absolutely oppose this and will actively campaign for this Bill to be dropped.'

At the same time the BMA has asked its members to prepare for a ballot on industrial action; the BMA currently represents 78% of consultant grade hospital doctors and GPs in the UK.

[garjones]

As I've said many times, when 5 years ago your unemployment rate was 2% and now is 8% that isn't caused by laziness and fraud. People don't suddenly change their mindset like that. Create some jobs instead of laying people off. Find something for that 6% to do before worrying about single mums and people with cancer getting a job.

[Arjan Dirkse]

That's really crazy...

Still I doubt something like this will really effect those cancer sufferers. I assume the moment that it becomes apparent that they're undergoing chemotherapy the "work capability assessment" will be cancelled, and they'll continue to claim benefits. I mean, that's as it should be; I assume the people giving the assessment aren't stupid, or sadists, but people with common sense.

[Mark Peyton]

It's down to the legislation now. Those carrying it out may have no choice due to the things IDS is pushing.

[Ben the Obiwomble]

The BMA have moved their official stance on the Government's Health Bill from 'let's look at ways we can work together' to 'we absolutely oppose this and will actively campaign for this Bill to be dropped.'

At the same time the BMA has asked its members to prepare for a ballot on industrial action; the BMA currently represents 78% of consultant grade hospital doctors and GPs in the UK.

And, as far as I'm aware, this happens very rarely indeed? Only in those times where the govt is incredibly dumb?

Oh and doctors, the Tories have abolished all of those evil Labour targets that shackled you! Instead you will judged by 60 indicators! Yes, 60.

IF I had no conscience whatsoever I'd be setting up a company right now to make a killing on this, as they're not going to trust the performance monitoring of all these hospitals and GP commissioning trusts to the likes of the public sector are they?

That's really crazy...

Still I doubt something like this will really effect those cancer sufferers. I assume the moment that it becomes apparent that they're undergoing chemotherapy the "work capability assessment" will be cancelled, and they'll continue to claim benefits. I mean, that's as it should be; I assume the people giving the assessment aren't stupid, or sadists, but people with common sense.

Common sense in this area Arjan in this country is really fucking rare. This isn't intended as a blast at you though, 'common sense' is just one of the most abused concepts going and once politicians get involved with it.... It's quite infuriating.

[Nicholas Taggart]

Seems like these regulatory polices that the Tories and Lib Dems have been going on about lately will cost a hell of a lot of money to implement.

[steveuk]

Once people become part of a system it can be very hard to break out of it and apply common sense.

If the rules say one thing and your common sense says another you are risking your job to break or even bend the rules and most people, quite understandably, don;t want to be unemployed. Especially these days.

If this goes through it'll put a lot of people through a lot of trouble.

[Ben the Obiwomble]

You mean the anti-scrounger policies Nicholas? I mean, you weren't possibly referring to them possibly regulating.... bankers?

Once people become part of a system it can be very hard to break out of it and apply common sense.

If the rules say one thing and your common sense says another you are risking your job to break or even bend the rules and most people, quite understandably, don;t want to be unemployed. Especially these days.

If this goes through it'll put a lot of people through a lot of trouble.

Heard a story a few weeks back about a distressed DWP worker - now the DWP are not in my good books - but the distress was due to the fact she was being ordered to turn people down who were clearly qualifying! It was an interesting anecdotal portrait of the picture from the other side of the fence.

[Nicholas Taggart]

You mean the anti-scrounger policies Nicholas? I mean, you weren't possibly referring to them possibly regulating.... bankers?

God no. Making sure old people aren't getting fuel allowances they might not need, and the like.

[steveuk]

The BBC2 programme, 'Your Money and How They Spend it' had a section on fuel allowance, which the presenter held up as a major problem, partly becuase it was applied to everyone over a certain age, without any means testing. He used Peter Stringfellow (who is 71) as an example of a millionaire who received.

Stringfellow actually went through a big effort to try and get his fuel allowance stopped, on principle, and he finally got the department to with hold his payment.

But I couldn't help thinking, why not just give the money to a charity Peter? Why all the fuss? Surely there are other principles that could benefit from that much time and energy?

The programme also didn't address how much the forms and interviews and medical checks of means testing would cost, which was a serious flaw in the argument.

[garjones]

The programme also didn't address how much the forms and interviews and medical checks of means testing would cost, which was a serious flaw in the argument.

A very important part of it. There's a reason not all benefits are means tested as it is a very expensive process. As the Welsh found out with prescriptions, after removing means testing and giving everyone free drugs instead of working adults paying the 6 quid or so it only cost them 75p a person more. All that industry for so little saving.

Imagine if I set up a health insurance service in England and promised free drugs for life for a premium of 75p a year? I'd be swamped.

If they do create the beaurocracy to means test Peter Stringfellow's fuel allowance and David Cameron's family allowance it would get a lot of people off the dole that have to administrate it. Which isn't shrinking government is it?

[Arjan Dirkse]

And, as far as I'm aware, this happens very rarely indeed? Only in those times where the govt is incredibly dumb?

Oh and doctors, the Tories have abolished all of those evil Labour targets that shackled you! Instead you will judged by 60 indicators! Yes, 60.

IF I had no conscience whatsoever I'd be setting up a company right now to make a killing on this, as they're not going to trust the performance monitoring of all these hospitals and GP commissioning trusts to the likes of the public sector are they?



Common sense in this area Arjan in this country is really fucking rare. This isn't intended as a blast at you though, 'common sense' is just one of the most abused concepts going and once politicians get involved with it.... It's quite infuriating.

Maybe it's personal experience which informs my perspective. That makes it very subjective of couse. Thankfully, I've found the people who did my assessment to be quite understanding and compassionate.

Still, I can't imagine the government, let alone any of the people who have to enfore their policies, really wants to force people suffering during chemotherapy to stand in a production line or something. It's just one of those things they say from time to time..."No more entitlement! We're going to be strict to people who are just being lazy!" etc etc. It's pandering to a certain paranoid, closeminded part of the population, in order to get the votes. However if they'd really take away the benefits of people who are on their deathbed, the backlash would be so enormous that they could be wiped out in elections.

Maybe if this goes through, it will be a simple formality, like a form that asks, "are you currently undergoing chemotherapy or other cancer treatment with debilitating side effects? If yes, then skip to the end of this questionnaire", and that will be it. You fill in "yes'", you keep your benefits.

[garjones]

Another example where the cost saving and the ideology don't quite add up.

'That can't be right," Nadine Dorries said, when I asked her about the overall benefits cap in the autumn. Specifically, I wanted to know why a government so besotted with marriage would make changes to social security that essentially incentivised couples to split up. "I know Iain well," she continued. "He wouldn't do anything to make the family less secure." Sadly, it's not enough, in the business of protecting the institution of marriage, to just be Iain Duncan Smith; you also need to avoid policies that will make it financially impossible for some couples to stay together.
In policy circles they would call this a perverse consequence, while in normal life we would call it the screamingly obvious consequence: if you cap benefits by household – as the government has pledged to do by 2013, at around £500 a week – then those who are worst affected will find it cheaper to live in two households. And that is putting the best possible gloss on it. There are charities warning that this won't just be a case of some larger families opting to split up to gain a marginal income boost; rather, this is families who simply won't be able to afford to live together.

http://www.guardian....people-benefits

[Nicholas Taggart]

If they do create the beaurocracy to means test Peter Stringfellow's fuel allowance and David Cameron's family allowance it would get a lot of people off the dole that have to administrate it. Which isn't shrinking government is it?

In a public policy class I had a few weeks ago we were talking about how when American experts look at the British welfare system to try and learn ways to make theirs work better they cannot get past the fact that the British system allows rich people to collect the same benefits as others. I don't think it is fair that rich people who don't need it can collect benefits either but it would cost millions to do anything about it. And there is no way that the savings would come even close to that. There aren't enough rich people and certainly aren't enough rich people collecting benefits. Unless Peter Stringfellow is the world's biggest miser why would he even bother going to the trouble of collecting his fuel allowance? It is worth being inefficient to make sure people who really need help get it, but it isn't worth being inefficient to make sure people who don't need it don't get it.

[steveuk]

Maybe it's personal experience which informs my perspective. That makes it very subjective of couse. Thankfully, I've found the people who did my assessment to be quite understanding and compassionate.

Still, I can't imagine the government, let alone any of the people who have to enfore their policies, really wants to force people suffering during chemotherapy to stand in a production line or something. It's just one of those things they say from time to time..."No more entitlement! We're going to be strict to people who are just being lazy!" etc etc. It's pandering to a certain paranoid, closeminded part of the population, in order to get the votes. However if they'd really take away the benefits of people who are on their deathbed, the backlash would be so enormous that they could be wiped out in elections.

Maybe if this goes through, it will be a simple formality, like a form that asks, "are you currently undergoing chemotherapy or other cancer treatment with debilitating side effects? If yes, then skip to the end of this questionnaire", and that will be it. You fill in "yes'", you keep your benefits.

That's very optimistic of you.

Personally, from my own experience too (and that of many others I know) I don't believe there's a snowball's chance in hell that it'll turn out that way.

It's not about the people, it's about the rules that rule the people.

EDIT:
As for a backlash? Yes of course there will be one, but until it happens, until it knocks the government on it's ass, they wont actually believe that it'll be that bad. Not the consequences to patients, or to themselves.

They're in their own system too.

[Mike]

From the BBC Scotland website:



It's a bit windy out...

[Christian U]

Yikes!