Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The DWP’s Fit For Work Service
Topic Started: Oct 26 2014, 08:05 AM (733 Views)
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
If after November you have a more than a month off of work from November onwards, be afraid be very afraid.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/files/fit_for_work_service_-_who_benefits_.pdf

The DWP’s Fit For Work Service (FFWS), being rolled out across the country
from November 2014, is designed to intervene when a person has been off
work, or is expected to be off work, for four weeks or more due to illness. GPs
will be expected to refer patients to FFWS, which will then perform an
assessment and draw up a plan to get them back to work as quickly as
possible.


The company which has been awarded the contract by the DWP is
http://www.healthmanltd.com/ Health Management Limited. Its Medical
Director is Professor Mike O’Donnell. To anyone familiar with the history of
welfare reform and the DWP, his involvement may be highly significant.
Professor O’Donnell was previously Chief Medical Officer at Atos Healthcare,
the company which has been responsible for the Work Capability Assessment
fiasco. Prior to being at Atos, he was Chief Medical Officer at Unum, an
American insurance company which has worked closely with the DWP on
welfare reform, and which has been accused of running ‘disability denial
factories’ in the USA, in order to avoid paying out on sickness or injury
claims.
In 2012 legal website LawyersandSettlements.com reported: "Unum continues
to suffer from a global reputation that it denies, delays or discontinues
benefits in an alleged attempt to wear down policyholders in their pursuit of
legitimate benefits."
Professor O’Donnell has boasted in the past about the extent of Unum’s
influence on the DWP, including the push for the bio-psychosocial (BPS)
model of disability to be used as the basis for assessment. In a document
published in 2005 he said:
"We know that our views and understanding are not yet in the mainstream of
doctors’ thinking, but Government Policy is moving in the same direction, to a large
extent being driven by our thinking and that of our close associates, both in the UK
and overseas.”


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
Do the govnt really rate the capabilities of our GP's so low as to not take any notice when they declare that someone is not fit for work? If so, it's about time they clamped down on the quality of our GP's so that in future the govnt will believe their judgement without employing a company to diss their diagnoses, and incur the massive extra costs in doing so. Just looking at it from the financial cost aspect of course.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Oct 26 2014, 08:47 AM
Do the govnt really rate the capabilities of our GP's so low as to not take any notice when they declare that someone is not fit for work? If so, it's about time they clamped down on the quality of our GP's so that in future the govnt will believe their judgement without employing a company to diss their diagnoses, and incur the massive extra costs in doing so. Just looking at it from the financial cost aspect of course.
The main worry is this:-

The company which has been awarded the contract by the DWP is
http://www.healthmanltd.com/ Health Management Limited. Its Medical
Director is Professor Mike O’Donnell. To anyone familiar with the history of
welfare reform and the DWP, his involvement may be highly significant.
Professor O’Donnell was previously Chief Medical Officer at Atos Healthcare,
the company which has been responsible for the Work Capability Assessment
fiasco. Prior to being at Atos, he was Chief Medical Officer at Unum, an
American insurance company which has worked closely with the DWP on
welfare reform, and which has been accused of running ‘disability denial
factories’ in the USA, in order to avoid paying out on sickness or injury
claims
.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Oct 26 2014, 08:47 AM
Do the govnt really rate the capabilities of our GP's so low as to not take any notice when they declare that someone is not fit for work? If so, it's about time they clamped down on the quality of our GP's so that in future the govnt will believe their judgement without employing a company to diss their diagnoses, and incur the massive extra costs in doing so. Just looking at it from the financial cost aspect of course.
Its not that.

GP's care about the health of the patient - so if time off work is required to achieve a full and sustainable recovery that is what they will give.

Government and the companies they have chosen to manage these issues care about 1) saving benefit costs and 2) productivity: the health of the patient is a tertiary consideration at best.

All The Best
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
Which suggests they are employing the man, rather than a specific company. Do you think they like the cut of his jib? Not really surprising is it given his pedigree? Another private company in line to pocket millions of the taxpayers money to provide a service which is probably not needed, and will certainly not be cost effective. We never hear Johnny Taxpayer squeal about these goings on do we? Only those in the media headlines at the bottom of the shitpile who taxpayers money is "wasted" on.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
To me it suggests that there is now a structured procedure to help get people back into work after an illness, failing health, or accident by referring when required workers to other suitable NHS medical staff who are more qualified than your GP

It also means that employers have to play their part in it by offering flexible hours and working conditions to ease people back into work when possible

GP's will make the first decision as to fitness to work or not, this scheme now gives them a quicker second opinion from other qualified medical staff who can offer better more rapid treatment and they too can say when and if a person is fit or not to return to work, or what other treatment a person requires before they can return to work or not, not forcing them back to work before they are able or totally unfit.

The fact that the former Head of ATOS is leading this is just the excuse that some need to rant and rave before it even starts, any sensible person should be welcoming anything that gets people fit and well and back on their feet again quicker.

I pay for private medical insurance because I can afford it for that very same reason which in the past got me back to full fitness and back to work in a few weeks not months or years of endless appointments and waiting for the NHS to get round to me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 26 2014, 09:47 AM
.

The fact that the former Head of ATOS is leading this is just the excuse that some need to rant and rave before it even starts, any sensible person should be welcoming anything that gets people fit and well and back on their feet again quicker.
It isn't an excuse, it is a serious worry based on fact. "Any sensible person" would realise the stated aim of the "Fit For Work Service" is NOT how the privatised version will operate.
That the contract has been give to a company with Professor Mike O’Donnell's involved in it is more than proof of what is going to happen.
People being forced back to work too early after an illness/accident.
(What seems to be missed out of all these kind of plans is the large number of people who commute long distances to work by car.)
Edited by papasmurf, Oct 26 2014, 10:07 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
You are so blinded by hate that all you ever see or wish to see is the negative side of anything the proof that you always demand and seldom provide will be will this system be beneficial to people and assist them or not, only time will tell not your predictions which have very little if any validity and not based on reality


But look on the positive side, if it does not work you will have many hours weeks and months to rant rave and be able to bay for his head on a platter endlessly,that should keep you happy and occupied you certainly have plenty of time on your hands, some of us in here obviously have more constructive things to do when not at work.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
Once again we have these "Qualified medical staff" overuling the opionion of a GP. If these "qualified medical staff" are so superior to our GP's and NHS doctors, consultants and the like, why are they not gainfully employed, doing what they have trained extensivley to do, and minister to the sick, rather than doing as their paymasters demand and do what the govnt have obviously instructed them to do?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 26 2014, 10:39 AM
You are so blinded by hate that all you ever see or wish to see is the negative side of anything the proof that you always demand and seldom provide will be will this system be beneficial to people and assist them or not, only time will tell not your predictions which have very little if any validity and not based on reality


But look on the positive side, if it does not work you will have many hours weeks and months to rant rave and be able to bay for his head on a platter endlessly,that should keep you happy and occupied you certainly have plenty of time on your hands, some of us in here obviously have more constructive things to do when not at work.
Stan, this isn't been done to HELP anyone. It's been done to provide a nice fat private tender for some fatcat company. It's been done so the govnt appeals to people like yourself, who appreciate watching life been made difficult for "type" of people you consider yourself above, and despise.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 26 2014, 10:39 AM
You are so blinded by hate
It isn't hate it is the long experience of anyone who has ever been connected with Unum being let anywhere near the UK benefits system or the NHS.
Professor Mike O’Donnell. is not the one with a very iffy background.
Mansel Aylward the man who designed the Unum "Work Capability Assessment" and its previous iterations is currently, http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/888/page/64606
the first-ever Chair of Public Health Wales – a unified NHS Trust responsible for the delivery of public health services at national, local and community level in Wales. He was Chair of the Wales Centre for Health, an Assembly Government Sponsored Body established to be the ‘hub of connected organisations’ and to communicate better health messages to the people of Wales.

What a "success" that is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 26 2014, 08:51 AM
disgruntled porker
Oct 26 2014, 08:47 AM
Do the govnt really rate the capabilities of our GP's so low as to not take any notice when they declare that someone is not fit for work? If so, it's about time they clamped down on the quality of our GP's so that in future the govnt will believe their judgement without employing a company to diss their diagnoses, and incur the massive extra costs in doing so. Just looking at it from the financial cost aspect of course.
The main worry is this:-

The company which has been awarded the contract by the DWP is
http://www.healthmanltd.com/ Health Management Limited. Its Medical
Director is Professor Mike O’Donnell. To anyone familiar with the history of
welfare reform and the DWP, his involvement may be highly significant.
Professor O’Donnell was previously Chief Medical Officer at Atos Healthcare,
the company which has been responsible for the Work Capability Assessment
fiasco. Prior to being at Atos, he was Chief Medical Officer at Unum, an
American insurance company which has worked closely with the DWP on
welfare reform, and which has been accused of running ‘disability denial
factories’ in the USA, in order to avoid paying out on sickness or injury
claims
.
Yes a concern, he hardly comes with a glowing CV.

But what to do? GPs have a reputation of too many being soft touches and many playing way too safe signing people off who actually wanted to return to work.

The Fit For Work scheme has been piloted since 2012, what issues have actually been seen?

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 26 2014, 10:56 AM


But what to do? GPs have a reputation of too many being soft touches and many playing way too safe signing people off who actually wanted to return to work.

The Fit For Work scheme has been piloted since 2012, what issues have actually been seen?

Reputation and reality are two very different issues.

As for the current fit for work scheme you won't bother to read any reference I post, or believe if you do, so what is the point of me bothering.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Oct 26 2014, 08:47 AM
Do the govnt really rate the capabilities of our GP's so low as to not take any notice when they declare that someone is not fit for work? If so, it's about time they clamped down on the quality of our GP's so that in future the govnt will believe their judgement without employing a company to diss their diagnoses, and incur the massive extra costs in doing so. Just looking at it from the financial cost aspect of course.
The problem we have is that the Medical Profession do not wished to be asked such a question. It is their job to cure people of sickness or malady and not to determine fitness for paid employment. As a consequence GPs will defer to patients opinions ion such matters. Fundamentally this is one of the major reasons why the State has had to separate out such judgements from the NHS. I have known a number of GPs personally over the years and they do identify the lead swingers, but claim it not to be their problem. Now we have a number of expert lead swingers who know how easy it is to pull the wool over less exacting eyes. It is not difficult, I know two youngish men, under 60, who have decided the State should provide them with an early permanent Pension and they both have easily achieved their objectives. Nobody knows exactly how many there are in this group as it is, by definition, impossible to count as they are officially "unfit for work".

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 26 2014, 11:01 AM
Steve K
Oct 26 2014, 10:56 AM


But what to do? GPs have a reputation of too many being soft touches and many playing way too safe signing people off who actually wanted to return to work.

The Fit For Work scheme has been piloted since 2012, what issues have actually been seen?

Reputation and reality are two very different issues.

As for the current fit for work scheme you won't bother to read any reference I post, or believe if you do, so what is the point of me bothering.
Not much point really as you have destroyed whatever reputation you ever had by crying wolf far too often and posting links that you cannot have scrutinised. The consequence is that your copying and pasting skills are wasted here, best provide a synopsis in your own words then one can judge whether or not you are shroud waving.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 26 2014, 11:04 AM
As a consequence GPs will defer to patients opinions ion such matters.
Another of your very rash generalisations, RJD. Given how low the majority of people's incomes drop during a period of illness, your mind-set is somewhat flawed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 26 2014, 11:01 AM
Steve K
Oct 26 2014, 10:56 AM


But what to do? GPs have a reputation of too many being soft touches and many playing way too safe signing people off who actually wanted to return to work.

The Fit For Work scheme has been piloted since 2012, what issues have actually been seen?

Reputation and reality are two very different issues.

As for the current fit for work scheme you won't bother to read any reference I post, or believe if you do, so what is the point of me bothering.
I always read your references if I intent to post about them.

So I asked a genuine question and I'll ask it again. What issues have been seen with the pilots of this scheme?


As for GPs, I have too much practical experience of the idiots signing off employees for weeks for a minor issue that got better quickly to just blanket trust them.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 26 2014, 11:19 AM


So I asked a genuine question and I'll ask it again. What issues have been seen with the pilots of this scheme?


You will need to read this:-
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/362443/rr883-fit-for-work.pdf

I assume from your other comments you are an employer, but you also do not have any medical qualifications.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 26 2014, 11:26 AM
Steve K
Oct 26 2014, 11:19 AM


So I asked a genuine question and I'll ask it again. What issues have been seen with the pilots of this scheme?


You will need to read this:-
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/362443/rr883-fit-for-work.pdf

I assume from your other comments you are an employer, but you also do not have any medical qualifications.
Mr Smurf, why do you never answer a question. You were asked, "What issues have been seen with the pilots of this scheme?"
You then post a link that would take me all day to read, so to save me wasting all day, could you point me to the relevant question, "What issues have been seen with the pilots of this scheme?"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]


Mr Smurf, why do you never answer a question. You were asked, "What issues have been seen with the pilots of this scheme?"
You then post a link that would take me all day to read, so to save me wasting all day, could you point me to the relevant question, "What issues have been seen with the pilots of this scheme?"[/quote]I have posted a link to the information asked for. To answer the question asked requires reading all of it.
You either wish to be informed or you don't. If I did anything else I would be accused of cherry picking part of it.
Edited by papasmurf, Oct 26 2014, 11:39 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 26 2014, 11:26 AM
Steve K
Oct 26 2014, 11:19 AM


So I asked a genuine question and I'll ask it again. What issues have been seen with the pilots of this scheme?


You will need to read this:-
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/362443/rr883-fit-for-work.pdf

I assume from your other comments you are an employer, but you also do not have any medical qualifications.
As Jaguar has pointed out that is not an answer to the question. Worse for you it says you are wrong. There are 29 uses of the word "problem" or "problems" in that report and none are about the new scheme.

However it does say this "despite being briefed on the eligibility criteria for the new service, GPs appeared to have interpreted the criteria in different ways"

Which suggests there is a real need for some sort of action

And as you ask no I am not an employer, I am retired but have managed up to 200 people and you learn a lot. You know the ones desperate to return to work but the doc signed them off for weeks and that means they must not return. You know the ones that always take weeks of sick leave each year with a heavy preponderance of Mondays and Fridays. And you know the ones signed off with sick notes that you see trying to avoid you in Tescos.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Oct 26 2014, 10:48 AM
Stan Still
Oct 26 2014, 10:39 AM
You are so blinded by hate that all you ever see or wish to see is the negative side of anything the proof that you always demand and seldom provide will be will this system be beneficial to people and assist them or not, only time will tell not your predictions which have very little if any validity and not based on reality


But look on the positive side, if it does not work you will have many hours weeks and months to rant rave and be able to bay for his head on a platter endlessly,that should keep you happy and occupied you certainly have plenty of time on your hands, some of us in here obviously have more constructive things to do when not at work.
Stan, this isn't been done to HELP anyone. It's been done to provide a nice fat private tender for some fatcat company. It's been done so the govnt appeals to people like yourself, who appreciate watching life been made difficult for "type" of people you consider yourself above, and despise.
I do not despise or hate anyone a totally wrong assumption on your part, this system is designed to get people back into work as soon as they are fit and able when possible and give people easier access to more specialised medical professionals to treat them, each case will be judged on its merit as always.

The majority of GP's provide a good service and the first port of call for most people, however as their title says they have a general grounding in medicine and may not possess the degree of skills that others who have specialized in their chosen field of medicine, that is why as per normal practice a GP refers patients to such specialists the GP is asking for a second opinion and what treatment is available possible and who is best placed to do it.

As John posted in another thread on the Welsh NHS system a person he knows has not been treated properly or quickly enough that he has lost his job is now broke and living on benefits, this system is designed to stop that happening for people to be assessed and treated much quicker as and when possible

Yes it is about money workers money,getting them fit and well again quicker so then do not lose their job and can keep earning money what is wrong with that? just because ones heath is not as good as it was does not mean they can no longer work and should be dumped on the scrap heap.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marconi
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
I want one of those 'Qualified medical staff' to diagnose me every time I'm ill, as they are obviously more qualified than my GP.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 26 2014, 11:08 AM
RJD
Oct 26 2014, 11:04 AM
As a consequence GPs will defer to patients opinions ion such matters.
Another of your very rash generalisations, RJD. Given how low the majority of people's incomes drop during a period of illness, your mind-set is somewhat flawed.
I did not use the word "most". I provided no quanta., hence there was no generalisation. You decided to insert the word for reasons of dogma. I only stated the facts wrt to GPs and it is true that they do not wish to be pressed on the matter as to whether or not an individual is fit to work and yes they have admitted to me that if a patient says he/she is unfit then that is for them an acceptable decision. Why should they claim otherwise or even attempt to prove such?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 26 2014, 11:42 AM
papasmurf
Oct 26 2014, 11:26 AM
Steve K
Oct 26 2014, 11:19 AM


So I asked a genuine question and I'll ask it again. What issues have been seen with the pilots of this scheme?


You will need to read this:-
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/362443/rr883-fit-for-work.pdf

I assume from your other comments you are an employer, but you also do not have any medical qualifications.
As Jaguar has pointed out that is not an answer to the question. Worse for you it says you are wrong. There are 29 uses of the word "problem" or "problems" in that report and none are about the new scheme.

However it does say this "despite being briefed on the eligibility criteria for the new service, GPs appeared to have interpreted the criteria in different ways"

Which suggests there is a real need for some sort of action

And as you ask no I am not an employer, I am retired but have managed up to 200 people and you learn a lot. You know the ones desperate to return to work but the doc signed them off for weeks and that means they must not return. You know the ones that always take weeks of sick leave each year with a heavy preponderance of Mondays and Fridays. And you know the ones signed off with sick notes that you see trying to avoid you in Tescos.
Thank you Steve, you have saved me wasting my time reading that link. As suspected, no reference to your question.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 26 2014, 11:26 AM
Steve K
Oct 26 2014, 11:19 AM


So I asked a genuine question and I'll ask it again. What issues have been seen with the pilots of this scheme?


You will need to read this:-
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/362443/rr883-fit-for-work.pdf

I assume from your other comments you are an employer, but you also do not have any medical qualifications.
And just what medical qualifications do you have ? and just how many people have you employed, or supervised when you were last in work or referred to Occupational Heath to help a worker within the work place?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 26 2014, 11:42 AM


However it does say this "despite being briefed on the eligibility criteria for the new service, GPs appeared to have interpreted the criteria in different ways"

Which suggests there is a real need for some sort of action

The some sort of action needed is NOT another privatised cock-up assessment like the Work Capability Assessment and Personal Independence Payment has turned into.

My wife recently had a month off work, (she is back now, ) BUT she could not have returned to work until her GP had the results of a large batch of medical tests and appointments back. Her employer could not legally have taken her back until the results of those tests either.
As it is, she has only been able to go back to work on the strict condition she does not work two night shifts in a row, or her employers would be legally liable because of inspectorate regulations.
Now that anything terminal has been discounted she still has another lot of specialists appointment to go to.
The privatised system coming in, in November can only "expletive deleted" that up.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Oct 26 2014, 11:51 AM
Thank you Steve, you have saved me wasting my time reading that link. As suspected, no reference to your question.

You're welcome.

Sadly it is a serial PS tactic to post a long irrelevant document in a nasty attempt to waste the time of someone who is challenging him. Some of can speed read and use a search function.

PS has become a recruiting sergeant for those who want to hurt the genuinely sick and disabled who deserve far better than to have him harming their prospects and security.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Marconi
Oct 26 2014, 11:47 AM
I want one of those 'Qualified medical staff' to diagnose me every time I'm ill, as they are obviously more qualified than my GP.
You are confusing the issue. The question is not "is the individual sick", but is he/she fit for work.

A few years ago I had a course of chemo, many here thought that should qualify one as not being fit for work, however, I was I had no side effects whatsoever. I understand that around 30% are lucky, should they be asked to stay at home?
I have a friend who has been certified as unfit for work and as a consequence receives a State Pension which he hopes is for life. He does not need to look for a job so has used his time building a very large workshop in his garden. Concrete base, high grade materials, well insulated, wired for electricity and around 20' long. The neighbours have complained to the local Council wrt to Planning Permission or lack of such and I understand the DWP have been alerted with pictures of him, tanned in his t-shirt, driving in clout nails on the new felt roof.

So please do not confuse medical diagnosis with a question of whether an individual is fit or otherwise to undertake work paid or otherwise.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 26 2014, 11:54 AM
And just what medical qualifications do you have ? and just how many people have you employed, or supervised when you were last in work or referred to Occupational Heath to help a worker within the work place?
I don't need any medical qualifications, it isn't me coming out with all the scrounger rhetoric.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Marconi
Oct 26 2014, 11:47 AM
I want one of those 'Qualified medical staff' to diagnose me every time I'm ill, as they are obviously more qualified than my GP.
Me to first port of call is the GP for referral to a specialist with skills that a GP does not have, if the ailment or injury warrants it
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 26 2014, 11:55 AM
Steve K
Oct 26 2014, 11:42 AM


However it does say this "despite being briefed on the eligibility criteria for the new service, GPs appeared to have interpreted the criteria in different ways"

Which suggests there is a real need for some sort of action

The some sort of action needed is NOT another privatised cock-up assessment like the Work Capability Assessment and Personal Independence Payment has turned into.

My wife recently had a month off work, (she is back now, ) BUT she could not have returned to work until her GP had the results of a large batch of medical tests and appointments back. Her employer could not legally have taken her back until the results of those tests either.
As it is, she has only been able to go back to work on the strict condition she does not work two night shifts in a row, or her employers would be legally liable because of inspectorate regulations.
Now that anything terminal has been discounted she still has another lot of specialists appointment to go to.
The privatised system coming in, in November can only "expletive deleted" that up.
Well I'm glad that your wife is better

But your post hints at the real issue. The GP could hurry up those tests IF the GP had any interest in getting her back to (part time) work. But GPs so often do not, it's just more work for them.

And you have not offered any evidence that the scheme that has been piloted has shown up any issues. In fact the GPs themselves seem to be in favour
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 26 2014, 11:57 AM
Stan Still
Oct 26 2014, 11:54 AM
And just what medical qualifications do you have ? and just how many people have you employed, or supervised when you were last in work or referred to Occupational Heath to help a worker within the work place?
I don't need any medical qualifications, it isn't me coming out with all the scrounger rhetoric.
What Scroungers rhetoric? Surely you are not disputing the judgements of Magistrates Courts? Or are you? By now Mr Smurf even you will have realised that such exists and that we have no real idea to what extent they permeate the system. For one single reason "they are already classified as being unfit for work". So the only course left open, if the State wishes to address this matter, is to test them again, the later again,but not to determine if they are sick with some medical complaint, but whether or not they are fit for work, nothing more and nothing less. We all know that in the past Governments found it convenient to place many who were capable of work on lists that proclaimed otherwise in order to massage unemployment numbers. This is what the electorate wish to have stopped.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 26 2014, 12:03 PM
Well I'm glad that your wife is better

But your post hints at the real issue. The GP could hurry up those tests IF the GP had any interest in getting her back to (part time) work.
My wife is not better, she has also only been working two night shifts a week since she started at her current place of work. It is the ONLY way she can carry on until the new retirement age of 66 was imposed on her.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 26 2014, 12:06 PM
Steve K
Oct 26 2014, 12:03 PM
Well I'm glad that your wife is better

But your post hints at the real issue. The GP could hurry up those tests IF the GP had any interest in getting her back to (part time) work.
My wife is not better, she has also only been working two night shifts a week since she started at her current place of work. It is the ONLY way she can carry on until the new retirement age of 66 was imposed on her.
Not imposed on her, she can retire today and enjoy life on your pension. Did you not taken early retirement?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 26 2014, 12:08 PM
Not imposed on her, she can retire today and enjoy life on your pension. Did you not taken early retirement?
RJD, two people can't live on my pension. She has taken the precaution of taking a couple of her private pensions schemes as annuities when they matured, at the planned dates. (Both a year in arrears and both at 9% impaired life.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 26 2014, 11:57 AM
Stan Still
Oct 26 2014, 11:54 AM
And just what medical qualifications do you have ? and just how many people have you employed, or supervised when you were last in work or referred to Occupational Heath to help a worker within the work place?
I don't need any medical qualifications, it isn't me coming out with all the scrounger rhetoric.
Then you are not able or qualified to challenge or judge those who do hold medical qualifications and are fully licenced by the BMA to practise, as you failed to answer the other questions I can safely assumed that you have never employed anyone or have ever held any position of responsibility for the welfare of employees.

And no I am not surprised by that at all, just another barrack room lawyer that is only good at whinging and belittling those that have safe in the knowledge that you will not have to shoulder any responsibility at all for any decision made in the work place.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 26 2014, 12:11 PM
RJD
Oct 26 2014, 12:08 PM
Not imposed on her, she can retire today and enjoy life on your pension. Did you not taken early retirement?
RJD, two people can't live on my pension. She has taken the precaution of taking a couple of her private pensions schemes as annuities when they matured, at the planned dates. (Both a year in arrears and both at 9% impaired life.)
I am not sure converting her pension pot into an annuity was a good idea. She is a relatively young woman and has a prospect of living on such for more than 20 years and will suffer from the corrosive effect of inflation. She might have been better leaving her pot in a managed fund.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 26 2014, 12:14 PM
I am not sure converting her pension pot into an annuity was a good idea.
If you can suggest somewhere else she can get 9% guaranteed the best of luck. She is also not a young woman, and the likelihood of George Osborne's testicles remaining attached to his body if she ever get close to him are a somewhat remote since he raised her retirement age to 66.
Instead of being able to retire in April 2015 it will now be April 2021, there just is no way she will physically be able to work until then.
Edited by papasmurf, Oct 26 2014, 12:23 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 26 2014, 12:06 PM
Steve K
Oct 26 2014, 12:03 PM
Well I'm glad that your wife is better

But your post hints at the real issue. The GP could hurry up those tests IF the GP had any interest in getting her back to (part time) work.
My wife is not better, she has also only been working two night shifts a week since she started at her current place of work. It is the ONLY way she can carry on until the new retirement age of 66 was imposed on her.
Your wife has not been singed out to work until 66 my wife has to do the same the same as millions of others and she has been in work since the age of 15 the same as I have and millions of others.

My wife is not in the best of health either but she keeps going to work full time and long hours she feels that she will seize up if she stops work and be bored silly, I will lay odds she keeps working after she reaches pensionable age she enjoys working she will choose when the time is right for her to stop not any Doctor or Nanny.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply