The testing system has already led to allegations by many people with terminal illnesses and severe medical conditions that they were being declared fit for work and having benefits cut without proper tests.

Allegations.

Today, campaigners across the country are mobilising for the ‘National Day of Action Against Poverty Pimps Atos’.

Calling ATOS poverty pimps is a bit rich considering it is coming from a variety of groups that depend on the existence of poverty for their income.

Disabled people and supporters, claimants groups and anti-cuts groups will be gathering outside the offices of Atos once again demanding an end to the demeaning health testing which has seen thousands of people stripped of benefits.

Can anyone explain to me why either (a) it is wrong to test people who claim to be sick or (b) precisely how said tests would be carried out better?

To date around 40% of appeals against Atos Origin’s decisions have been successful.

Which is to say some 88% of ATOS decisions have been correct.

Atos have also used legal threats against critical websites.

Or to put it another way, some websites have been defaming ATOS.

@ SMFS

“Calling ATOS poverty pimps is a bit rich considering it is coming from a variety of groups that depend on the existence of poverty for their income.”

And you don’t think the difference between groups that exist to help poor people and a company that allegedly exploits poor people and makes their lives worse for reasons of profit is in any way relevant here?

2. Chaise Guevara

And you don’t think the difference between groups that exist to help poor people and a company that allegedly exploits poor people and makes their lives worse for reasons of profit is in any way relevant here?

Disability groups do not help the poor. God knows, looking at modern Britain, you must be able to see that those groups that claim to want to help poor people are merely perpetuating their misery – as their livelihoods depend on.

As for this company, it is not making their lives worse, or at least it is not making many people’s lives worse. Either it is making people who are genuinely sick submit to a few minor checks or it is discovering people who are cheating or at least gaming the system. Everyone is better off in work if they can work. ATOS is the best friend these people have. The exception being a few people who are wrongly assessed, but we don’t know how small that group is.

“Calling ATOS poverty pimps is a bit rich considering it is coming from a variety of groups that depend on the existence of poverty for their income.”

Yeah, I’m sure Oxfam are dreading the time when world poverty comes to an end…

1 ”Can anyone explain to me why either (a) it is wrong to test people who claim to be sick or (b) precisely how said tests would be carried out better”

Yes i can Tory boy. These are people with the very least in society, many with depression ( something that doesn’t exist in Tory world), terminal illnesses, chronic illnesses etc.

The tests are tick box with money given for each time someone is passed fit to work. Its a bloody disgrace. They should leave the poor, the vulnerable and weak alone and start picking on lion shooting bankers instead.

4. Claire

Yeah, I’m sure Oxfam are dreading the time when world poverty comes to an end…

Like a lot of such groups they seem to be transitioning into a world where poverty does not exist. Their recent campaigns tend to suggest to me that they are casting about for more grievances to attach themselves to.

5. pete lee

Yes i can Tory boy. These are people with the very least in society, many with depression ( something that doesn’t exist in Tory world), terminal illnesses, chronic illnesses etc.

We know the vast majority of them do not, in fact, have terminal or chronic diseases. Many may have depression, or at least a diagnosis of depression. But given we were vastly more successful in treating depression when we did nothing for them at all than we are now, I would suggest we need to re-think what we are doing now.

The tests are tick box with money given for each time someone is passed fit to work. Its a bloody disgrace. They should leave the poor, the vulnerable and weak alone and start picking on lion shooting bankers instead.

Benefits are bleeding Britain dry. We cannot afford it any more. The tests then don’t seem particularly invasive or humiliating. Anyone who did such tests would be rewarded for their productivity. Why is that a bad thing?

@ 3 SMFS

“God knows, looking at modern Britain, you must be able to see that those groups that claim to want to help poor people are merely perpetuating their misery – as their livelihoods depend on. ”

God may know that, but I don’t. Source please.

“As for this company, it is not making their lives worse, or at least it is not making many people’s lives worse. Either it is making people who are genuinely sick submit to a few minor checks or it is discovering people who are cheating or at least gaming the system. Everyone is better off in work if they can work. ATOS is the best friend these people have. The exception being a few people who are wrongly assessed, but we don’t know how small that group is.”

The allegation is that ATOS’s process is systematically biased in favour of falsely identifying people as fit to work. “Either it is making people who are genuinely sick submit to a few minor checks or it is discovering people who are cheating or at least gaming the system” is a false dichotomy that deliberately ignores the claims being made.

You may not believe the accusations being made against ATOS, but don’t act as if the accusers don’t either. If a group believes that it exists to help the vulnerable, and is protesting against a firm that it believes is exploiting the vulnerable, it is not at all hypocritical for it to accuse that firm of being a “poverty pimp”. To claim otherwise requires you to ignore ALL the relevant information beyond “both of these organisations have business models that are reliant on the existence of poverty”.

see there is a few atos employees on the comments,atos is a pimp,end of. only a employee or a tory would disagree.

7. Chaise Guevara

The allegation is that ATOS’s process is systematically biased in favour of falsely identifying people as fit to work. “Either it is making people who are genuinely sick submit to a few minor checks or it is discovering people who are cheating or at least gaming the system” is a false dichotomy that deliberately ignores the claims being made.

Sorry but that is not the allegation, or if it is, it is a spectacularly stupid one. Meat producers has a system that is systematically biased in favour of identifying meat as edible. We don’t get food poisoning because there is a system of checks in place to make sure they cannot pass rotting flesh. In the same way there is nothing wrong with giving ATOS an incentive (as doctors do to pass people off as sick when they are not) given the massive system of checks that are in place. At some cost. So it is perfectly reasonable. It is perfectly reasonable anyway because we care about outcomes, not incentives.

You may not believe the accusations being made against ATOS, but don’t act as if the accusers don’t either. If a group believes that it exists to help the vulnerable, and is protesting against a firm that it believes is exploiting the vulnerable, it is not at all hypocritical for it to accuse that firm of being a “poverty pimp”.

If they are unaware of massive fraud it is because they are willfully blind. So to speak. No one involved in the industry can be unaware. Thus they knowingly make claims that are false. If you think that makes them poverty pimps, well, that is up to you. It is not a claim I made. ATOS, on the other hand, is clearly acting in good faith. For the long term benefit of the sick and everyone else.

@ SMFS

“Sorry but that is not the allegation, or if it is, it is a spectacularly stupid one.”

Possibly saying it’s accused of “falsely” finding people fit for work is too strong, because “fit for work” is not a non-negotiable term. I agree that I haven’t heard anyone saying that ATOS is actually breaking rules.

Better to say that it’s accused of using standards that are far more stringent because they prioritise maximising the “fit for work” category. With the result that the public are presented with shocking figures about all these people who have been reassessed and found to be fit for work – but the public will be using their old understanding of the category, so if they find out about some of these individuals they might well concede that they do not seem to be all that fit to work after all.

” Meat producers has a system that is systematically biased in favour of identifying meat as edible. We don’t get food poisoning because there is a system of checks in place to make sure they cannot pass rotting flesh.”

What checks are in place to make sure that ATOS doesn’t make decisions that would generally be considered unfair (or that would be considered wrong by a neutral doctor)?

“If they are unaware of massive fraud it is because they are willfully blind. So to speak. No one involved in the industry can be unaware. Thus they knowingly make claims that are false. If you think that makes them poverty pimps, well, that is up to you. It is not a claim I made. ATOS, on the other hand, is clearly acting in good faith. For the long term benefit of the sick and everyone else.”

You claiming that “massive fraud” exists and that “ATOS … is clearly acting in good faith … for the long term benefit of the sick” does not make either of those facts true. What are your reasons for believing this?

10. Chaise Guevara

Better to say that it’s accused of using standards that are far more stringent because they prioritise maximising the “fit for work” category.

Which is an entirely good thing.

With the result that the public are presented with shocking figures about all these people who have been reassessed and found to be fit for work – but the public will be using their old understanding of the category, so if they find out about some of these individuals they might well concede that they do not seem to be all that fit to work after all.

Except they are finding massive numbers of people fit for work that has nothing to do with any change of category. They are finding huge numbers of people don’t continue with their claims once asked to present and even more that do not challenge their decisions. A small number of people appeal and win.

What checks are in place to make sure that ATOS doesn’t make decisions that would generally be considered unfair (or that would be considered wrong by a neutral doctor)?

An appeals process. Which upholds the vast majority of decisions.

You claiming that “massive fraud” exists and that “ATOS … is clearly acting in good faith … for the long term benefit of the sick” does not make either of those facts true. What are your reasons for believing this?

I agree. They are true in and of themselves. They are true if I claim them or even if I don’t. They are true even if I deny them. ATOS has no reason to act in bad faith. They make money by processing people. Their income depends on doing a good job – and not creating a ground swell of opposition. There is no sane reason to think they would gain more by harshness. Go and live in my old neighbourhood. It is only middle class radicals who can claim ignorance of fraud.

making money from impoverishing peeps, don’t they understand that benefits to disabled is good for business (landlords to tesco!)
so landlords and corporations like tesco should sue them for loss of their trade & income…

@ 11 SMFS

“Which is an entirely good thing.”

No it isn’t. You may believe it’s a good thing on balance, but it’s silly to claim that ANY position here is entirely a good thing. Go too far one way and you refuse benefits to those who need them. Too far the other and people are able to exploit the system and slack off on public funding. There’s always a downside; if there was a way of deciding this stuff perfectly we wouldn’t need to have this conversation.

“Except they are finding massive numbers of people fit for work that has nothing to do with any change of category. They are finding huge numbers of people don’t continue with their claims once asked to present and even more that do not challenge their decisions. A small number of people appeal and win. ”

You seem to be assuming that a failure to appeal means that the original decision must be right. It doesn’t. It shifts the balance of probability in that direction, but it’s not proof.

“An appeals process. Which upholds the vast majority of decisions.”

This would only be comforting if we knew that a) the appeals system is fair and b) that people who ought to win on appeal almost always do appeal.

“I agree. They are true in and of themselves. They are true if I claim them or even if I don’t. They are true even if I deny them.”

I suspect you’re being deliberately obtuse, but let me rephrase: you claiming that these things are true does not convince me or anyone else that they are true.

“ATOS has no reason to act in bad faith. They make money by processing people. Their income depends on doing a good job – and not creating a ground swell of opposition. There is no sane reason to think they would gain more by harshness.”

ATOS presumably has no reason to act in bad faith RE its brief. That’s not the same thing as acting in good faith RE the long-term wellbeing of the unemployed/

“Go and live in my old neighbourhood. It is only middle class radicals who can claim ignorance of fraud.”

So to find out that you’re right, I need to move house? It wouldn’t be easier and less suspect for you to just show me the evidence?