Depression Page 116

  • Page

    of 142 First / Last

  • LeoliansBro 8 Mar 2013 10:21:10 43,636 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Look at it from the other side. ATOS are there to oust benefit cheats, if they get it wrong you have the right to object. But the fact you seem so worried about it suggests that you are a margin call anyway.

    Bet you won't brand them as incompetent, corrupt, self-serving and cruel if they agree with your self-diagnosis.

    This sounds more like stress than depression. That's no fun tobe sure. I'm pretty stressed myself, what with my job and all.
    Not sure what you mean by the words "margin call".

    And it's not a self-diagnosis LB. Read back about 6 or 7 pages and you can see where I already discussed this stuff back at the start of Feb.
    Sorry, edited it to 'original diagnosis'.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Load_2.0 8 Mar 2013 10:24:54 19,101 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    How dare they have a process to determine whether people are claiming benefits fraudulently!
  • RedSparrows 8 Mar 2013 10:26:12 22,214 posts
    Seen 30 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    How dare they have such a terribly broken and cruel record, and still have a contract.
  • spamdangled 8 Mar 2013 10:27:02 27,276 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    How much do you know about ATOS?

    They're not there to cut benefit cheats, they're there to take people off of benefits regardless (fwiw, benefit fraud is estimates as 0.1% of claimants, and disability and/or sickness benefit is actually considered to be under claimed). And they're not, in many cases, medically trained. Their assessment is a tick-box exercise based on such narrow criteria as "can you raise your arms?", a process which is by default prejudiced against people with mental, learning or developmental disabilities or illnesses.

    They get paid per-person. The more disabled that person is, the more they get paid for taking them off benefit. They game the system by taking people off benefit - get money - that person appeals - goes back on benefit - ATOS immediately put them back in the assessment process - ATOS take them off benefit - get money, etc.

    It's the very definition of profiteering on the back of vulnerable people, and there's a wealth of investigative journalism (including many cases of hidden cameras, whistle blowers etc) exposing the system and how it treats people.

    Edited by darkmorgado at 10:28:41 08-03-2013

    Edited by darkmorgado at 10:29:39 08-03-2013

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • Deleted user 8 March 2013 10:29:56
    I'm sorry but 'the more disabled the person is, the more they get paid for taking them off benefits' is bollocks.
  • LeoliansBro 8 Mar 2013 10:30:01 43,636 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    They are there to cut benefit cheats. Whether they are competent and fair is another thing, but that is absolutely why they are there - to remove people who are claiming benefits when they shouldn't be.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • mcmonkeyplc 8 Mar 2013 10:30:22 39,406 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    They get paid more for taking benefit off a more disabled person?!

    Where the fuck did you get that from?!

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • LeoliansBro 8 Mar 2013 10:32:30 43,636 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It's a very skewed way of putting it. What he means is they are paid according to the severity of the fraud. So if they find someone fraudulently claiming £100 for a nervous disorder they get a tenner, whereas if they find someone fraudulently claiming £10,000 for pretending to be in an iron lung they get more.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • spamdangled 8 Mar 2013 10:33:36 27,276 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    They get paid more for taking benefit off a more disabled person?!

    Where the fuck did you get that from?!
    It was all explained in a recent panorama thing.

    They get paid a commission (for want of a better word) by the Government on a per-person basis. It's a tiered system, and they get more money the more disabled a person is.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • Deleted user 8 March 2013 10:33:48
    Skewed as in completely wrong.
  • LeoliansBro 8 Mar 2013 10:34:49 43,636 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    They get paid more for taking benefit off a more disabled person?!

    Where the fuck did you get that from?!
    It was all explained in a recent panorama thing.

    They get paid a commission (for want of a better word) by the Government on a per-person basis. It's a tiered system, and they get more money the more disabled a person is.
    Like I said, this is deliberately misleading.

    They get paid based on the SIZE OF THE FRAUD. If the person is really disabled they won't be removed from the system.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • spamdangled 8 Mar 2013 10:34:50 27,276 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    It's a very skewed way of putting it. What he means is they are paid according to the severity of the fraud. So if they find someone fraudulently claiming £100 for a nervous disorder they get a tenner, whereas if they find someone fraudulently claiming £10,000 for pretending to be in an iron lung they get more.
    It's not fraud ffs.

    Their remit is to get disabled people back into work (well, jobseekers) and off of incapacity benefit (or ESA, or whatever they decide to call it next week). They're not there to detect fraud.

    Edited by darkmorgado at 10:35:24 08-03-2013

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • Load_2.0 8 Mar 2013 10:34:52 19,101 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    They get paid per-person. The more disabled that person is, the more they get paid for taking them off benefit.
    You will be fine, just show them your swollen exaggeration gland.
  • Deleted user 8 March 2013 10:35:04
    darkmorgado wrote:
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    They get paid more for taking benefit off a more disabled person?!

    Where the fuck did you get that from?!
    It was all explained in a recent panorama thing.

    They get paid a commission (for want of a better word) by the Government on a per-person basis. It's a tiered system, and they get more money the more disabled a person is.
    So if someone has no arms and legs, they get paid more for taking them off benefits than someone with a limp?
  • LeoliansBro 8 Mar 2013 10:35:23 43,636 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    But don't worry, you're really disabled so you'll be fine.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • spamdangled 8 Mar 2013 10:36:25 27,276 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    darkmorgado wrote:
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    They get paid more for taking benefit off a more disabled person?!

    Where the fuck did you get that from?!
    It was all explained in a recent panorama thing.

    They get paid a commission (for want of a better word) by the Government on a per-person basis. It's a tiered system, and they get more money the more disabled a person is.
    Like I said, this is deliberately misleading.

    They get paid based on the SIZE OF THE FRAUD. If the person is really disabled they won't be removed from the system.
    sajasanman wrote:
    Good start.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • Deckard1 8 Mar 2013 10:36:49 27,571 posts
    Seen 2 seconds ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    They got 14 grand for getting rid of that guy that was just a head. Poor bloke has to work part time as a football now, just so he can afford a bit of fucking hair gel.

    Hush you ponce

  • LeoliansBro 8 Mar 2013 10:37:27 43,636 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Ooooh!

    However, if that is their job, as you say, why does it need an undercover expose?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Deleted user 8 March 2013 10:38:31
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    But don't worry, you're really disabled so you'll be fine.
    Not when they think of their commission. Then they'll be in a wheelbarrow by the trash outside.
  • nickthegun 8 Mar 2013 10:40:21 59,320 posts
    Seen 36 seconds ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Because, to be fair, it was a system that even an idiot could see was designed to encourage abuse of it.

    Its like when they started to put targets and bonuses on parking tickets, leading to something like 8/10 overturned on appeal.

    Edited by nickthegun at 10:40:53 08-03-2013

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • LeoliansBro 8 Mar 2013 10:44:49 43,636 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    Because, to be fair, it was a system that even an idiot could see was designed to encourage abuse of it.

    Its like when they started to put targets and bonuses on parking tickets, leading to something like 8/10 overturned on appeal.
    Yes and no, it's more than that. The Government want to do this to reduce the cost of benefits by removing those who claim unnecessarily. The most economic way to do this is to focus on the highest claimants first. This has an added merit in that the highest claimants are also the ones most likely to be genuinely (as opposed to arguably) in need of support, and so anyone claiming incorrectly at this level is more likely to be outright lying.

    I take your point though, it creates the risk of victimisation and perhaps the government shouldn't be looking for ways to cut benefit support in the first place.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • nickthegun 8 Mar 2013 10:48:28 59,320 posts
    Seen 36 seconds ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I dont dispute there is a need to do it but to make it incentivised is so obviously asking for trouble it makes my head hurt.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • spamdangled 8 Mar 2013 10:50:27 27,276 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Something is wrong when they declare terminally ill cancer patients, or severely learning disabled people, as fit for work.

    The entire WCA (work capability assessment) is not fit for practice. It was declared as such by a government-commissioned report, but that was completely ignored by government simply because it didn't fit with their agenda.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • TheSaint 8 Mar 2013 11:08:41 14,261 posts
    Seen 51 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I can't believe they bother with a checkbox for 'Can you lift your arms up?' They'd be better just to walk into the waiting room and ask 'Who wants to keep getting benefits?' Then put a black mark next to everyone who is able to raise their hand.
  • RedSparrows 8 Mar 2013 11:10:54 22,214 posts
    Seen 30 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Apropos of no point in particular, more my general disgust.

    Anecdotes all, but nonetheless...

    http://mikesivier.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/mps-tell-their-own-atos-horror-stories/
  • Mr_Sleep 8 Mar 2013 11:12:16 16,920 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    The entire WCA (work capability assessment) is not fit for practice. It was declared as such by a government-commissioned report, but that was completely ignored by government simply because it didn't fit with their agenda.
    Doesn't that apply to nearly every critical government report?

    I'm interested to know what the result would be if you compared the cost to the tax payer of these "benefit cheats" with the cost of bad PFI (although I guess that's a tautology), tax dodges and other abuses of loopholes.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • RedSparrows 8 Mar 2013 11:15:35 22,214 posts
    Seen 30 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Benefit fraud is by no means the largest loss of money to this country through illegal means.

    The actual disturbing thing is how the narrative seems to be about any benefit, not just fraud.
  • spamdangled 8 Mar 2013 11:19:16 27,276 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    RedSparrows wrote:
    Apropos of no point in particular, more my general disgust.

    Anecdotes all, but nonetheless...

    http://mikesivier.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/mps-tell-their-own-atos-horror-stories/
    The system is itself based on one that was devised by the insurance company Unum, notably to cut down on payouts of insurance claims. Unumís system was based on a theory known as the biopsychosocial model, devised by a Professor Engel.
    The sad thing is that even Engel himself has said that the system is deeply flawed, and he's the one that came up with it in the first place.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • Page

    of 142 First / Last

Log in or register to reply