Incapacity benefits should be cut
The Tories are doing just as would be expected, targeting benefits as a big area for cuts. The cuts are probably needed but are incapacity benefits the way to do it? Osborne has stated he wants to protect those in genuine need, but every government has a go at cutting out those who don’t need it so there is a long record of failure that the conservatives are following.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
The incapacitated have become too reliant on high benefit levels
Currently, those deemed to be eligible for the incapacity benefit receive benefits at a high level. However, some of those deemed ‘incapable’ can actually do some work. These people have just become lazy and reliant upon the high level of benefits.
So deep cuts must be made in that department to push these lazy people eating at undeserved government funds back in line.
The Conservatives are merely proposing a sensible plan under which if a person is capable of doing some work, then their benefits are reduced.They wish to introduce a sort of need-based meritorious selection process, if you will. This will encourage people to do what they are capable of doing instead of merely receiving a high level of benefit from the public purse.
Counter-argument: They're suggesting just that evaluating the needs of special persons on an individual basis and taking away funds from where they are not needed.
How can it possibly be determined how much work some one, suffering from a medically recognised condition, can do? All people are different. What needs to be assessed is not just the physical, but also the mental and emotional aspect of being considered ‘incapacitated’. Especially in the case of the mentally incapacitated, the stress of being made to look for work, or the threat of their benefit being reduced could make their condition much worse. This could result in the full incapacity benefit being owed to these individuals – so where is the saving made?
We need to curtail the nanny state.
Britain is a strange collection of countries! On the one hand we complain that the state is nanny-ing us, that we are being told what to do and being subsidised/subsidized in order to influence our choices to do what the Government wishes us to do . Yes this is one side of the nanny state, but the other side is that the welfare afforded is set at very high levels. We need to get rid of the nanny state. We need to take responsibility for our own predicaments; we need to make our own choices.
We believe people who are receiving incapacity benefits but are actually capable of working should be weeded out. A more selective stringent process can be used to filter out those unfairly benefiting from incapacity funds; that is people who are capable but lazy and have gotten away with it because they suffer from a disease that is associated with incapacity but is not so intense in their individual cases as to render them incapable/bereaved.
One can be borderline retarded(I don't even think this word is acceptable in medical/psychiatric circles any longer; my apologies) and one could be almost completely brain dead.
Is it fair that perfectly usable/capable borderline sufferers be boxed in with those who are truly legitimately incapacitated?
No, it is not. Which is why an individualized screening process needs to be put in place so that funds are not inefficiently wasted on undeserving freeloaders.
Taking people off of the incapacity benefit if they are indeed capable is one step in the overthrow of the nanny state; it is a step that should be applauded.
So the first step to overthrowing the nanny state is to place the incapacitated under pressure? Of course, because a nanny upon deciding which of her children should fly the nest first decides to throw out the weakest members of the nest! Ridiculous. Incapacity benefit should be the last of the benefits to be assessed, not one of the first.
This is the Conservatives preying on the weak.
This is the Conservatives playing a safe political game. They claim they want to increase spending on the NHS and to maintain the current levels of fuel allowances for the elderly. Why would this be? The NHS is always something people want money spent on, it will win the Conservatives favour. Then why attempt to please the elderly? Because the Conservative party has always had an older membership, the elderly are their safe votes. They will want to keep them happy- and alive!
In addition, the elderly and those who benefit from the NHS are greater in number to those who are deemed incapable. Therefore, there are more votes o be won by spending money in these areas.
The Conservative should stop thinking about their political stability and make cuts where it makes social and moral sense to make cuts – not political sense.
The elderly have faced poor standards of treatment for a long time. They have publicly complained about being demoralised/demoralized by health service workers, being treated like goners, not being given quality treatment and on the whole being largely disregarded. [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7850881.stm]]
My question to you is, how would you like to be treated when you're senile (and I expect you will be old given the relatively high quality treatment young people receive)?
How is it not moral to take care of our old?
So there is also the added political incentive/benefit. All I can say now, is that your time will come.
false claims are deterred by the testing stage
When Labour introduced the scheme to test people for incapacity and determine whether these people should claim the incapacity benefit or job seekers allowance, 37% of claims were dropped before the testing stage. This shows that re-implementing the testing scheme stomps out fake claims. People who know they will not pass, will not go for the testing. This is a valuable exercise in justice and money saving.
How do you know that the percentage of claims dropped before testing stage were all fake? They could have been people who had a genuine reason to claim the incapacity benefit but were too tired or stressed to go through the testing process. There could also have been people who thought that the whole ‘testing’ process was demeaning in the first place. This is extremely worrying that people who are in genuine need due to incapacity are thwarted from claiming due to the high level of beaurocracy, this is nothing to be celebrated.
this is Ttpical of Margaret Thatcher’s misconception of incapacity.
Cutting the incapacity benefit displays the Conservatives traditional mind set despite their claiming to be a reformed and modern party. It shows the belief that everyone can work, and that people who claim incapacity could actually earn if they got off their backside and worked. This is clearly not the case! Margaret Thatcher believed in the free market, failing business should not be helped but should be allowed to fall. It seems their mantra is the same when it comes to those claiming incapacity benefit – ‘don’t give them a crutch to lean on– let them fall’.
Regardless of people’s dislike for Margaret Thatcher, she did well in promoting a good work ethic. We should encourage people to go to work, doing whatever they can. Just because Margaret Thatcher has a negative connotation surrounding her name, does not mean that we should disregard any idea that sounds remotely like one of her ideologies. What is so wrong with the idea that people should do what they can to fund themselves?
This scheme has been tried and tested, and it failed.
Labour attempted to overhaul the incapacity benefit. They tried to filter out those who were indeed capable of working. The Citizens’ Advice Bureau complained about this as it led to many people who should be able to claim the incapacity benefit being cut out. These people included people with advanced stage Parkinson’s disease, Multiple Sclerosis and even those who were awaiting open heart surgery. These people were not fit to work, according to the Citizen’s Advice Bureau but the Government stated they were. With an already failed measure as president, why would the Conservatives wish to repeat it?
It will hit people with disabilities that are harder to classify worst.
Those classified as being in genuine need won't necessarily be those who actually require the most maintenance, they will be those who are easier to fill in forms about. Those with more recently classified and less well known conditions will have a harder time proving their genuine need, just as they found it hardest to claim benefits at all.
It won't bring more people into work.
Cutting incapacity benefits will mean that people who are unable to work will have less money and still won't be able to work. They will probably then generate more strain on the NHS budget by becoming more ill due to stress and being unable to afford decent living conditions and enough medication.
It can never be properly implemented
The only way to rationally implement cuts in incapacity benefits is to isolate certain conditions or situations and simply remove the cover that the benefits provide. So for example particular mental or physical conditions that are currently covered under incapacity benefit will no longer be covered, which will result in a cut in costs.
To really acheive the theoretical objective of this policy, i.e. to make sure the system is not being taken advantage of is to go and analyse every individual case of claiming incapacity benefit. This would surely, not only take a very long time but would require a massive amount of man/woman power and would end up costing more in the long run.
What do you think?