Showing posts with label WRB. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WRB. Show all posts
Thursday, 1 March 2012
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Is the Personal Insurance Policy The Personal Pensions Mis-selling Scandal - The Return
The Welfare Reform Bill is all about fairness. Fairness to whom? The Tories (IDS, Grayling and Freud) say "to the taxpayer". This would be true if you defined the taxpayer as those people that are really rich and natural Tory voters. Why do I say this? Think about it. One of the proposals is to restrict the availability of a benefit targeted at disabled people with the intention of changing the behaviour and spending patterns of ordinary people, so that they buy PIP Insurance from a company that may or may not be donor to the Tory Party. Er, um! Where was I? (in-joke, sorry!). Bear in mind, that if you reduce Public Expenditure the taxpayers that benefit are generally those on the higher rate tax. The way our tax system is constructed is that a reduction in public expenditure gives a 20% benefit to lower rate taxpayers and a 40% benefit to higher rate payers.
So, we are going to put people in control? Has this happened before? In the 1980's Keith Joseph and his buddies came up with a jolly wheeze. They wanted to encourage Labour market flexibility and remove the incentive for inertia in the job market. As it was, people tended to want to stay in their job, especially those with years invested in their pensions!
So, the Conservative Government changed the law so that it was no longer compulsory for a company to provide occupational pension schemes for its employees. The buzz word became Labour Market Flexibility. However, before you could convince people that it was OK to job hop around every 2 years and give you the freedom to shut down many of the countries biggest employers (British Coal, British Steel, British Leyland, Britain!) some of the structural obstructions to employee mobility had to be removed.
Does anybody remember the introduction of Personal Pensions? Workers (well, a lot of them!) used to belong to Company Pension Schemes, where they and their employer contributed to a pension based upon receiving a percentage of your final salary every year as a pension. This percentage was often defined as 1/60th of your final salary for every year you were in work. In many cases this was index linked so it was protected against inflation. Personal Pensions gave you your own pot of savings. Yours! You could move job and take it with you. It never stopped being relevant until you retired. If the Stock Market soared you got all of the benefit into your pot. You didn't have to share any capital gains with your company.
Sounds great.
But did anybody think about:-
a) Under final salary schemes you got a defined benefit. You knew what you were getting for your money.
b) Companies contributed towards final salary schemes.
b) Final salary schemes were portable. I moved mine from BT to BG when I changed job.
c) The new schemes cleverly transferred all of the "Investment Risk" to the employee.
d) Annuities are not free. You have to pay commission for one. The costs of setting up your pension used to be born by your employer.
e) Index linking disappeared or became an optional extra. Many people ended up with non-index-linked pensions getting poorer and poorer.
f) The systemic opportunities to encourage a Personal Pension Mis-selling Scandal!
Who did this change benefit?
1) Companies no longer had to pay for pension administration or bear the investment risk.
2) Companies found it easier to "move on" unfashionable workers.
3) Financial Service Companies found a new market and made lots of money.
What are the long term effects?
1) With an ageing population and an imbalanced World economy companies (or should I say Shareholders) have less financial liability towards their employees.
2) The State can say that people with personal pensions don't need to receive a state pension (what exactly does "National Insurance" mean?). If you think this won't happen, my ill-health pension is subjected to "means testing" and I get no additional state benefits (save for a monthly compensation payment because I had an accident at work!). This allows the state to reduce the state pension as it will claim everybody had the time, means and incentive to provide for themselves.
3) Pensioners are bearing more financial risk than they have in the past.
Why is all of this relevant?
DLA is the responsibility of the State.
PIP is the responsibility of the individual.
Remember, there were transitional arrangement for this move to Personal Pensions. The State Pension continued alongside personal pensions for a long time up to the present day.
What are the Transitional Arrangements for the move to PIP? Who is going to sell a disabled person insurance against becoming disabled?
So, we are going to put people in control? Has this happened before? In the 1980's Keith Joseph and his buddies came up with a jolly wheeze. They wanted to encourage Labour market flexibility and remove the incentive for inertia in the job market. As it was, people tended to want to stay in their job, especially those with years invested in their pensions!
So, the Conservative Government changed the law so that it was no longer compulsory for a company to provide occupational pension schemes for its employees. The buzz word became Labour Market Flexibility. However, before you could convince people that it was OK to job hop around every 2 years and give you the freedom to shut down many of the countries biggest employers (British Coal, British Steel, British Leyland, Britain!) some of the structural obstructions to employee mobility had to be removed.
Does anybody remember the introduction of Personal Pensions? Workers (well, a lot of them!) used to belong to Company Pension Schemes, where they and their employer contributed to a pension based upon receiving a percentage of your final salary every year as a pension. This percentage was often defined as 1/60th of your final salary for every year you were in work. In many cases this was index linked so it was protected against inflation. Personal Pensions gave you your own pot of savings. Yours! You could move job and take it with you. It never stopped being relevant until you retired. If the Stock Market soared you got all of the benefit into your pot. You didn't have to share any capital gains with your company.
Sounds great.
But did anybody think about:-
a) Under final salary schemes you got a defined benefit. You knew what you were getting for your money.
b) Companies contributed towards final salary schemes.
b) Final salary schemes were portable. I moved mine from BT to BG when I changed job.
c) The new schemes cleverly transferred all of the "Investment Risk" to the employee.
d) Annuities are not free. You have to pay commission for one. The costs of setting up your pension used to be born by your employer.
e) Index linking disappeared or became an optional extra. Many people ended up with non-index-linked pensions getting poorer and poorer.
f) The systemic opportunities to encourage a Personal Pension Mis-selling Scandal!
Who did this change benefit?
1) Companies no longer had to pay for pension administration or bear the investment risk.
2) Companies found it easier to "move on" unfashionable workers.
3) Financial Service Companies found a new market and made lots of money.
What are the long term effects?
1) With an ageing population and an imbalanced World economy companies (or should I say Shareholders) have less financial liability towards their employees.
2) The State can say that people with personal pensions don't need to receive a state pension (what exactly does "National Insurance" mean?). If you think this won't happen, my ill-health pension is subjected to "means testing" and I get no additional state benefits (save for a monthly compensation payment because I had an accident at work!). This allows the state to reduce the state pension as it will claim everybody had the time, means and incentive to provide for themselves.
3) Pensioners are bearing more financial risk than they have in the past.
Why is all of this relevant?
DLA is the responsibility of the State.
PIP is the responsibility of the individual.
Remember, there were transitional arrangement for this move to Personal Pensions. The State Pension continued alongside personal pensions for a long time up to the present day.
What are the Transitional Arrangements for the move to PIP? Who is going to sell a disabled person insurance against becoming disabled?
Tuesday, 14 February 2012
Just What is DSM5?
Oh no! I've got DSM5. Is it as bad as the herpes-simplex virus (with apologies to Eddie Murphy!)? Just what is it?
Recently, my time line has been infiltrated by Tweets telling me to be worried about this.These Tweets tell me it is a bad thing. But I find myself asking, why is it a bad thing?
After a little bit of investigation I now know why it is a bad thing and I shall try to explain why now.
But first...back to me!! (as my wife would say, my favourite subject!!)
ATOS. They have assessed me for a myriad of benefits. I have a plethora of clinical psychologists telling me I am unfit to work. There is only one person I know who thinks I can work - Me (not quite true, but it makes the point - read on!!)! When I go to an ATOS interview I try to back up the Doctors evidence with my testimony!! However, the mistake I make is that I must come across as very optimistic because ATOS manage to disagree with the specialist opinions and judge me fit to work, walk, run, join the Royal Marines, go into Space and save the human race from the oncoming apocalypse of an asteroid collision (OK, I am being a little bit silly here, but you get the point!!). I have evidence that ATOS are incompetent because my award from them of c 20% Industrial Injury Disability Benefit was increased at Tribunal(s) to c.80%.
But I am lucky with IIDB.
Not so lucky with DLA. (Disability Living Allowance)
As my MP tells me when I discuss it with her, these two different benefits are judged by different criteria. The rules are different. DLA, in my view, fails to recognise that not every handicap has a physical manifestation. Lose a leg and you get 100%. Because you can't walk. You can, of course, walk with an artificial leg but that is rightly judged to be of not sufficiently good quality so the award stays the same. With remarkable joined up thinking the Government has recognised this, but I suspect that rather than extend DLA to cover people like me they will instead disqualify people who can walk with artificial legs!
However, my cognitive damage means that whilst I have an arm & leg my brain does not quite recognise them as belonging to me. Imagine that you have slept on your arm and it has "gone to sleep". When you come to use it, it feels "tingly" and uncomfortable and doesn't quite do what you want it to! Take away the "tingly" sensation and you then have an idea of what my right hand side feels like.
This basically means that I don't have full control of all of my movements (but don't worry, I have been given the all clear to drive!) and it takes a silly amount of mental concentration to do anything. Again, imagine being drunk and trying to act like you're sober. It takes a lot of effort & concentration and is never really successful!
The situation is that I can compare my slightly spastic right hand side to my normal left hand side and analyse the differences. However, when I tell ATOS about them the only question they have is can you walk? "Yes" I say, "but it is like I have the most advanced artificial leg ever". They don't hear that - tick the box, disallow DLA Mobility Component.
But, it is not their fault. Those are the rules they work to. I do not believe that Cognitive Impairment/ Mental Handicap is treated equally alongside physical handicaps. I have a leg so I am pigeon holed into the able to walk category without any thought.
You can see a missing limb -That person is handicapped.
You can't see Brain Injury - I can't see anything wrong with him! That person must be a benefit scrounger.
Until the rules, law makers, politicians and Doctors in General, recognise how Traumatic Brain Injury and other invisible illnesses impact upon peoples lives, I will always be a second class disabled person.
So, how does this relate to DSM5?
In my case the Doctors recognised my impairments and I used that to fight for a better award where the system allowed me to. Bits of my brain do not work properly and the impact of that can be quantified by doctors. Importantly, medication does not help. There is not a memory pill they can prescribe. There is not some anti-spasticity drug they can give me. Prozac makes me happier but I have a condition. Bits of my brain do not work.
DSM5 is the bible of psychiatry: how disorders are numbered, classed etc. which all reflects on assistance needed. It is the progression from DSM4 etc
DSM5 is reported to simplify the diagnosis of some conditions to such an extent that conditions are not specific to the patient and become generic. How can you fight for what you believe you deserve if medical reports are not specific enough to identify your problems. If you have no evidence ATOS win and DSM5 could be a step towards restricting information given to patients.
"You don't need to know what's wrong with you. I don't need to know exactly. Just take 2 of these pills twice a day and you're cured."
As an accountant, comparing DSM4 to DSM5 is like comparing UK Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP) to US GAAP.
UK GAAP is Principle based -The Accounts give a True and fair view of the condition of the enterprise.
US GAAP is Rules based - if this do this, if this do this, etc.
This difference is why Enron happened under US GAAP and would in all probability not have happened if they had to report under UK GAAP. Clever Americans structured transactions in such a way that liabilities Enron took on did not have to be shown as liabilities of Enron under the US accounting rules. We all now that if you over-borrow eventually people call in their debts and if you can't pay you destroy the Global Economy!
DSM5 is more prescriptive than DSM4. Psychologists fear this US manual (the US seem to like rules!) would lead to over diagnosis in legal cases, widen the diagnosis of mental illness generally and for cost reasons pigeon-hole patients into fewer discrete diagnosis and treat more conditions with drugs rather than counselling.
Why does this matter? In my journey through ATOS assessment to Lower Tribunal to Upper Tribunal back to Lower Tribunal it was me and my medical evidence vs ATOS and their evidence. My medical evidence was compelling, theirs was not. Their doctor was not a trained psychologist!! So my medical evidence mattered. No two head injuries are the same. Every one is unique. There is no infallible link between cause and effect. You can wake from a deep coma (GCS4) and be normal (you know what I mean!!). You may wake and be bed bound. Diagnosis of the cause does not correlate to patient outcomes. It is much much much more complicated than that.
What DSM5 does, I believe is to simplify invisible conditions and cognitive impairments into compartments that can be treated with medication X/ Y/ Z/ etc. I have heard it suggested that shyness could be treated with medication. We need to be worried about this!
EVERY PATIENT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND THEIR OWN UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES IDENTIFIED AND TREATED HOLISTICALLY.
The diagnosis should give a True and Fair View of the overall state of the patient. That is all that we are saying.
With Thanks to @sparklijellibean & @britishroses1
Recently, my time line has been infiltrated by Tweets telling me to be worried about this.These Tweets tell me it is a bad thing. But I find myself asking, why is it a bad thing?
After a little bit of investigation I now know why it is a bad thing and I shall try to explain why now.
But first...back to me!! (as my wife would say, my favourite subject!!)
ATOS. They have assessed me for a myriad of benefits. I have a plethora of clinical psychologists telling me I am unfit to work. There is only one person I know who thinks I can work - Me (not quite true, but it makes the point - read on!!)! When I go to an ATOS interview I try to back up the Doctors evidence with my testimony!! However, the mistake I make is that I must come across as very optimistic because ATOS manage to disagree with the specialist opinions and judge me fit to work, walk, run, join the Royal Marines, go into Space and save the human race from the oncoming apocalypse of an asteroid collision (OK, I am being a little bit silly here, but you get the point!!). I have evidence that ATOS are incompetent because my award from them of c 20% Industrial Injury Disability Benefit was increased at Tribunal(s) to c.80%.
But I am lucky with IIDB.
Not so lucky with DLA. (Disability Living Allowance)
As my MP tells me when I discuss it with her, these two different benefits are judged by different criteria. The rules are different. DLA, in my view, fails to recognise that not every handicap has a physical manifestation. Lose a leg and you get 100%. Because you can't walk. You can, of course, walk with an artificial leg but that is rightly judged to be of not sufficiently good quality so the award stays the same. With remarkable joined up thinking the Government has recognised this, but I suspect that rather than extend DLA to cover people like me they will instead disqualify people who can walk with artificial legs!
However, my cognitive damage means that whilst I have an arm & leg my brain does not quite recognise them as belonging to me. Imagine that you have slept on your arm and it has "gone to sleep". When you come to use it, it feels "tingly" and uncomfortable and doesn't quite do what you want it to! Take away the "tingly" sensation and you then have an idea of what my right hand side feels like.
This basically means that I don't have full control of all of my movements (but don't worry, I have been given the all clear to drive!) and it takes a silly amount of mental concentration to do anything. Again, imagine being drunk and trying to act like you're sober. It takes a lot of effort & concentration and is never really successful!
The situation is that I can compare my slightly spastic right hand side to my normal left hand side and analyse the differences. However, when I tell ATOS about them the only question they have is can you walk? "Yes" I say, "but it is like I have the most advanced artificial leg ever". They don't hear that - tick the box, disallow DLA Mobility Component.
But, it is not their fault. Those are the rules they work to. I do not believe that Cognitive Impairment/ Mental Handicap is treated equally alongside physical handicaps. I have a leg so I am pigeon holed into the able to walk category without any thought.
You can see a missing limb -That person is handicapped.
You can't see Brain Injury - I can't see anything wrong with him! That person must be a benefit scrounger.
Until the rules, law makers, politicians and Doctors in General, recognise how Traumatic Brain Injury and other invisible illnesses impact upon peoples lives, I will always be a second class disabled person.
So, how does this relate to DSM5?
In my case the Doctors recognised my impairments and I used that to fight for a better award where the system allowed me to. Bits of my brain do not work properly and the impact of that can be quantified by doctors. Importantly, medication does not help. There is not a memory pill they can prescribe. There is not some anti-spasticity drug they can give me. Prozac makes me happier but I have a condition. Bits of my brain do not work.
DSM5 is the bible of psychiatry: how disorders are numbered, classed etc. which all reflects on assistance needed. It is the progression from DSM4 etc
DSM5 is reported to simplify the diagnosis of some conditions to such an extent that conditions are not specific to the patient and become generic. How can you fight for what you believe you deserve if medical reports are not specific enough to identify your problems. If you have no evidence ATOS win and DSM5 could be a step towards restricting information given to patients.
"You don't need to know what's wrong with you. I don't need to know exactly. Just take 2 of these pills twice a day and you're cured."
As an accountant, comparing DSM4 to DSM5 is like comparing UK Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP) to US GAAP.
UK GAAP is Principle based -The Accounts give a True and fair view of the condition of the enterprise.
US GAAP is Rules based - if this do this, if this do this, etc.
This difference is why Enron happened under US GAAP and would in all probability not have happened if they had to report under UK GAAP. Clever Americans structured transactions in such a way that liabilities Enron took on did not have to be shown as liabilities of Enron under the US accounting rules. We all now that if you over-borrow eventually people call in their debts and if you can't pay you destroy the Global Economy!
DSM5 is more prescriptive than DSM4. Psychologists fear this US manual (the US seem to like rules!) would lead to over diagnosis in legal cases, widen the diagnosis of mental illness generally and for cost reasons pigeon-hole patients into fewer discrete diagnosis and treat more conditions with drugs rather than counselling.
Why does this matter? In my journey through ATOS assessment to Lower Tribunal to Upper Tribunal back to Lower Tribunal it was me and my medical evidence vs ATOS and their evidence. My medical evidence was compelling, theirs was not. Their doctor was not a trained psychologist!! So my medical evidence mattered. No two head injuries are the same. Every one is unique. There is no infallible link between cause and effect. You can wake from a deep coma (GCS4) and be normal (you know what I mean!!). You may wake and be bed bound. Diagnosis of the cause does not correlate to patient outcomes. It is much much much more complicated than that.
What DSM5 does, I believe is to simplify invisible conditions and cognitive impairments into compartments that can be treated with medication X/ Y/ Z/ etc. I have heard it suggested that shyness could be treated with medication. We need to be worried about this!
EVERY PATIENT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND THEIR OWN UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES IDENTIFIED AND TREATED HOLISTICALLY.
The diagnosis should give a True and Fair View of the overall state of the patient. That is all that we are saying.
With Thanks to @sparklijellibean & @britishroses1
Sunday, 5 February 2012
E-mail to The Right Honourable Theresa May MP following her Surgery on the 3rd February 2012
Dear The Right Honourable Theresa,
Thank you for meeting with me on Friday and I felt we had a useful discussion.
I would just like to confirm that you were planning to approach Lord Coe to identify why he hadn't mentioned in his correspondence to you why LOCOG had appointed an American into a Management Position both prior to the closing date for applications for that position and in preference to qualified UK applicants whose applications were not considered. I also would like to amplify my request to you that the reason why LOCOG were granted a work permit for this position by your department be disclosed to me.
I was aware that you seemed genuinely upset when I related to you that I felt the Government was demonising me and the many millions of other disabled people in the UK. My interpretation was that you explained to me that this was neither Government Policy nor the intention of the Government. I also believe that you did not accept that the actions of your Government could be reasonably interpreted in such a way. I believed this to be a very sincere expression of your views on this subject, for which I thank you.
With this in mind, I would like to point you towards an article in tomorrows Guardian, titled: -
which reinforces my point that the disabled community is starting to feel demonised, scapegoated and threatened by attacks from Government Ministers which in my opinion bear a slight, but very worrying, resemblance to the way that the Nazi's targeted elements of the German population in the 1930s.
I would therefore be very grateful if you could consider this article alongside our discussion on Friday and consider whether the actions of your Government are in any way encouraging this.
I have, and will continue to, include copies of our correspondences and my thoughts on our meetings on my Blog, which is at address: - edwinmandella.blogspot.com. If you have any concerns or worries about the content of this Blog, either in respect of its accuracy or my interpretation of the facts, please contact me and I will be happy to resolve these with you.
Thank you once again for seeing me at your Surgery last Friday evening and I once again very much enjoyed the opportunity to discuss the issues affecting me, with you.
With kind regards,
Ian M Jones
Thank you for meeting with me on Friday and I felt we had a useful discussion.
I would just like to confirm that you were planning to approach Lord Coe to identify why he hadn't mentioned in his correspondence to you why LOCOG had appointed an American into a Management Position both prior to the closing date for applications for that position and in preference to qualified UK applicants whose applications were not considered. I also would like to amplify my request to you that the reason why LOCOG were granted a work permit for this position by your department be disclosed to me.
I was aware that you seemed genuinely upset when I related to you that I felt the Government was demonising me and the many millions of other disabled people in the UK. My interpretation was that you explained to me that this was neither Government Policy nor the intention of the Government. I also believe that you did not accept that the actions of your Government could be reasonably interpreted in such a way. I believed this to be a very sincere expression of your views on this subject, for which I thank you.
With this in mind, I would like to point you towards an article in tomorrows Guardian, titled: -
"Benefit cuts are fuelling abuse of disabled people, say charities"
http://gu.com/p/359a9/twwhich reinforces my point that the disabled community is starting to feel demonised, scapegoated and threatened by attacks from Government Ministers which in my opinion bear a slight, but very worrying, resemblance to the way that the Nazi's targeted elements of the German population in the 1930s.
I would therefore be very grateful if you could consider this article alongside our discussion on Friday and consider whether the actions of your Government are in any way encouraging this.
I have, and will continue to, include copies of our correspondences and my thoughts on our meetings on my Blog, which is at address: - edwinmandella.blogspot.com. If you have any concerns or worries about the content of this Blog, either in respect of its accuracy or my interpretation of the facts, please contact me and I will be happy to resolve these with you.
Thank you once again for seeing me at your Surgery last Friday evening and I once again very much enjoyed the opportunity to discuss the issues affecting me, with you.
With kind regards,
Ian M Jones
Friday, 3 February 2012
Headway Opposes WRB
Headway reiterates opposition to Welfare Reform Bill
15 September 2011Headway - the brain injury association has reiterated its opposition to the Welfare Reform Bill in its current form. The charity is concerned that the Bill will make it harder for disabled people to access the appropriate levels of help from the state they need in order to live lives that are as full and independent as possible.
The charity believes the Bill disguises cuts to benefits across the board. Of particular concern is the proposal to limit claims of contributory Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) to one year, placing unacceptable pressure on disabled people to find a job.
The vast majority of people with long-term conditions such as brain injury want to find work in order to boost their self-esteem and integration back into society, while allowing them to regain a level of independence. However, for some this is simply not possible and placing arbitrary limits on claims will push many families and individuals into poverty and add to the difficulties and anxieties they face.
Many Headway service users have already approached the charity for support and advice following ESA assessments in which they have been inaccurately judged as being fit for work. It is Headway's considered opinion that the current ESA assessment process is flawed and as such, people who are unable to work and therefore rely on this benefit are being denied appropriate financial support.
Headway also has concerns regarding replacing Disability Living Allowance (DLA) with Personal Independence Payment (PIP), with the Government targeting a 20% reduction in expenditure with the switch to PIPs. It is vital that lessons are learned from the ESA assessment process and that the PIP assessment process enables complex conditions to be identified and adequately catered for.
Objectivity and independence in assessing people for disability payments is understandable and laudable. However, such assessments can only be deemed appropriate if they are sound and accurate; to this end, Headway believes the qualified opinions of doctors and specialists should continue to be acceptable in many cases. By not utilising expert opinions, many people with hidden disabilities are at risk of having their valid claims rejected.
Headway has outlined its concerns to the Government through participation in various consultations since the inception of the Bill. In addition, the charity's Chief Executive Peter McCabe has written to Maria Miller MP, Minister for Disabled People at the Department for Work and Pensions, to urge the Government to give further consideration to the impact the Bill will have on some of the most vulnerable members of society.
The charity is encouraging its service users and supporters to contact their MPs to register their concerns and highlight the personal impact the Bill will have on their lives.
"The message is clear," said Peter McCabe. "The Bill poses significant risk to the quality of life of disabled people who are already at a disadvantage in society. Such cuts can have no moral justification."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)