(no subject)
Nov. 19th, 2011 12:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sabremeisterYet again, a government drive to save money trumps reality.
Para 2: It is estimated the moves would mean 20% of the people currently on sickness absence would return to work. Yeah, because they'd have no choice. The assessment service will say "X is okay to work because [reason based on tick-boxes not medical knowledge]", and X will have to find the next available or or find his benefits stopped.
Para 4: The review also calls for a new government backed job-brokering service, to find work for people cannot stay in their current job because of their condition. And how exactly will that be implemented? The current job centre staff levels are not sufficient to cope with current demand for the pitiful services they do provide, how are they going to have the time to match people with long-term conditions to jobs? You can bet your boots they're not going to hire more staff, and how can they justify the expense of setting up a new agency in such financially-strapped times? They're going to switch the job centre to active mode, basically, and the results will be predictably chaotic and useless.
Para 5: A survey suggested 77% of GPs had admitted they signed people off sick for reasons other than their physical health, the report authors told the BBC. I have Asperger's Syndrome. I was not signed off because of my physical health, I was signed off because of a learning disability. That's the sort of distinction a GP would make, but not a tick-box survey. Someone's been massaging figures.
Para 7: If the recommendations are accepted people who are signed off sick would also be put on to job seekers allowance, instead of employment support allowance for a period of three months. Oh goody, extra sets of paperwork to fill in and process, and no seamless transition from one to the other, and endless face-to-face meetings with job centre staff for each one. That's going to go down well with people who have trouble with forms (like me), people who don't like meetings (me again), and people who have physical difficulty travelling. And people are on ESA because it does actually provide some of the support they need to get into work, rather than the shark-tank that is JSA.
Para 9: BBC political correspondent Robin Brant said the new service was likely to asses people "more quickly and more stringently". Oh, brilliant. What that means is more people will be arbitrarily denied the correct benefit at a faster rate than ever before, but when they go to appeal the decision, there's no regulated time scale for that. I've been in the appeals process against my ESA being stopped for over two years now, and I only got a result in July - and I'm still waiting for the actual money they owe me to be paid.
Para 10: The report authors estimate the changes could save taxpayers at least £350m each year. So it's definitely a money-saving exercise, then, not a change to the system to get people more appropriate help in finding work and letting them keep their benefits? Well, I think we all know how that's going to turn out, don't we? What was the last government project that was billed along those lines? Wasn't it the NHS computer system? How many billions is it over budget, and how many years is it behind deployment schedule? And has it actually done what it was supposed to do? No, didn't think so.
Para 2: It is estimated the moves would mean 20% of the people currently on sickness absence would return to work. Yeah, because they'd have no choice. The assessment service will say "X is okay to work because [reason based on tick-boxes not medical knowledge]", and X will have to find the next available or or find his benefits stopped.
Para 4: The review also calls for a new government backed job-brokering service, to find work for people cannot stay in their current job because of their condition. And how exactly will that be implemented? The current job centre staff levels are not sufficient to cope with current demand for the pitiful services they do provide, how are they going to have the time to match people with long-term conditions to jobs? You can bet your boots they're not going to hire more staff, and how can they justify the expense of setting up a new agency in such financially-strapped times? They're going to switch the job centre to active mode, basically, and the results will be predictably chaotic and useless.
Para 5: A survey suggested 77% of GPs had admitted they signed people off sick for reasons other than their physical health, the report authors told the BBC. I have Asperger's Syndrome. I was not signed off because of my physical health, I was signed off because of a learning disability. That's the sort of distinction a GP would make, but not a tick-box survey. Someone's been massaging figures.
Para 7: If the recommendations are accepted people who are signed off sick would also be put on to job seekers allowance, instead of employment support allowance for a period of three months. Oh goody, extra sets of paperwork to fill in and process, and no seamless transition from one to the other, and endless face-to-face meetings with job centre staff for each one. That's going to go down well with people who have trouble with forms (like me), people who don't like meetings (me again), and people who have physical difficulty travelling. And people are on ESA because it does actually provide some of the support they need to get into work, rather than the shark-tank that is JSA.
Para 9: BBC political correspondent Robin Brant said the new service was likely to asses people "more quickly and more stringently". Oh, brilliant. What that means is more people will be arbitrarily denied the correct benefit at a faster rate than ever before, but when they go to appeal the decision, there's no regulated time scale for that. I've been in the appeals process against my ESA being stopped for over two years now, and I only got a result in July - and I'm still waiting for the actual money they owe me to be paid.
Para 10: The report authors estimate the changes could save taxpayers at least £350m each year. So it's definitely a money-saving exercise, then, not a change to the system to get people more appropriate help in finding work and letting them keep their benefits? Well, I think we all know how that's going to turn out, don't we? What was the last government project that was billed along those lines? Wasn't it the NHS computer system? How many billions is it over budget, and how many years is it behind deployment schedule? And has it actually done what it was supposed to do? No, didn't think so.
