Carer Allowance Medical Report: Fill & Download for Free

Generally speaking, Yes Lisa.But…It really does depend on the individual’s case, since we are all different.But as a general rule of thumb you will only be put in the support group (non working) catagory if you satisfy their conditions.Get a doctors sick note to sign off work and you should be put into the support catagory after 6mths automatically.For example, its all about your ability TO work, how you function and how much of an impact socially mentally emotionally and physically your illnesses play a part in your LIFE, and how badly it affects you day by day.If you are turned down, and you definately disagree, struggling financially depressed and unable to work, dont despair ask your carer if you have one, or a responsible adult, preferably with a mental health background to appeal on your behalf.Take with you as much proof as you can including doctors reports, specialists, therapy visits dates of any hospitalisations etc. Maybe details of your medication. The more proof you can provide the better.Did you know you can apply for PIP and carers allowance too? If you have any problems attending places on your own, go with someone you trust. Always.For severe cases you shouldn't have any problem at all. For PIP interviews I suggest you request a home visit or someone who knows you very well and has good insights into all your symptoms diagnosis and Co morbid presentations.Good luck hun.Hope that helps.

In other words, you think that the retirement age is set too low since most of the UK’s social security payments are paid to pensioners (pensions and associated benefits) and they are the only benefits claimants who are not affected by benefits freezes. Well, the government is increasing that over time and has been accelerating that process because of concerns about a greying population.In the case of benefits that are paid to those in work, perhaps you should ask rather why the government allows poverty pay and wage systems such as zero-hours contracts which then have to be supplemented by government handouts. No doubt reasons given will include the hours worked, casualisation, flexibility and the necessity of a minimum wage level that does not bankrupt companies. Nevertheless, you should perhaps ask why the work system does not encourage people to work - this, it seems, is the real question.If you are talking about unemployment, there are various factors behind this. Most unemployed people are not lazy but the benefit levels are set at quite a low level, ostensibly to encourage people into work. Before condemning someone for surviving on £73pw or £3800pa (which has been frozen since the coalition government introduced a freeze as part of its austerity programme so has not been uprated in line with inflation since) I suggest you try living on that for a time before describing the benefit as generous - compare with the median household income of £26000pa. I have not touched on deductions through having savings or unearned income (means testing). The actual low level along with the media’s characterisation of you as a lazy scrounger and the lack of real help that the jobcentre can offer will turn you to despair. I still remember a TV interview on the news between a journalist and a jobseeker who was asked if he would do any job. The jobseeker, unsurprisingly, fell into the trap by saying yes. The correct answer is no: nobody can do any job. Other reasons for unemployment include automation (jobs done by machines), deindustrialisation (closure of heavy industries), no help in retraining, the concentration of jobs around London (leaving the rest of the country behind) and poor transport links (again affecting areas outside the metropolis). It also has to be asserted that most people who are unemployed have worked and are looking for work (i.e. unemployment is actually temporary). Also many employers prefer to poach people who are working elsewhere than take on the unemployed. Consider also how long it can take to receive money from Universal Credit (at least 5 weeks) - and you do not get money for the first week you are on the benefit.What is often ignored is that it is possible to work while receiving benefits on Jobseeker’s Allowance or Universal Credit completely legally. Jobseeker’s Allowance gives a 16-hour limit, above which you will receive nothing. Below that you are permitted to earn up to the £73 + £5 (£78) a week - anything above that will result in deductions to get you to that level. Universal Credit does not have this limit but works on a taper system which is usually characterised as a deduction of 63p in benefit for every pound earned. This can be characterised as a tax rate of 63% (when the top tax rate is 45% - so you can be taxed at a higher level when your income is low than when your income is high).Disability is an issue in itself. It makes getting and holding work more difficult and this is not just with visible disabilities. Many disabled people are willing and able to work but the system is loaded against them. Despite disability discrimination legislation employers still discriminate against the disabled - in general, they are 50% more likely to be unemployed than the able-bodied and some conditions are even higher. If you are medically unfit to drive, this will be used against you in recruitment and not only jobs that require driving are closed to you but shift work and business parks where the public transport links typically range from abysmal to non-existent. The employment rate amongst epileptics is around 30% (not only the stigma of the condition but the driving restrictions that may be in place are issues), amongst autists it is around 15% because job interviews are a nightmare for autism - the recruitment process is designed by and for neurotypicals, particularly with the modern emphasis on selling oneself. Then you can add the idea fostered in some quarters that the disabled are ‘putting it on’, not helped by the reports of fraud beloved of newspapers. Not all the disabled are eligible for the standard disability benefits - you have to fit specific criteria to get them and then you are assessed by an organisation which matches you against criteria which seem designed to exclude you. Most appeals against decisions made on disability benefits are successful. Atos, before it gave up the contract awarded by the government, became a byword amongst the disabled for poor treatment of the disabled. In addition, I would love to know if David Cameron expected his son, Ivan, who was severely disabled, to have been able to have held down a job if he had lived to adulthood, given how his government treated the disabled (e.g. closing Remploy, applying bedroom taxes and changing Disability Living Allowance into Personal Independence Payments). There are disabilities which make work impossible.Then you can consider the pitiful levels of Carers Allowance. The recipients of this are saving the government a fortune because they are keeping people out of social care but the thanks they receive is one of the lowest benefits in the system. It has to be noted that they are effectively working but this is not properly recognised - if they were acknowledged properly the benefit would be akin to the pay of a full-time nurse.The sanctions regime is also a disgrace. It has killed people (This man died 18 days after his benefits were stopped. Now his sister needs your help getting justice) and it is opaque in the extreme. In criminal cases the accused must be allowed to give a defence which must be considered before a verdict and sentence (habeas corpus). The sanctions regime takes Lewis Carroll’s Queen of Hearts as its model (Sentence first…) - you can find sanctions applied without warning or explanation. Contrary to the laws of the land there is a presumption of guilt. If faced with this it is always a good idea to find grounds to appeal. It is quite common for your local office to agree with you on something only for you to be sanctioned on the same matter later on.Contrary to what is often alleged by the right-wing tabloids, UK benefits actually rank at the lower end of benefits systems in Europe - thus I cannot accept the accusations of ‘benefits tourism’ that they allege or the accusations that they are so generous that work is poor in comparison. Consider that societies can be judged by how they treat the poorest and most vulnerable, and I feel we have a long way to go before we can claim to be truly civilised in this matter.I suggest you look at this (You're losing everything - but you don’t understand why) before thinking the system is too generous.

No, you cannot treat women exactly like men. Because women aren’t exactly like men. The playing field isn't level. Treating women exactly like men is a euphemism for treating women unfairly.We have learned from so many mistakes in the past that women are at a greater risk for sexual assault and violence if they don’t have separate bathrooms. But men don't consider this or think about this at all. When men make policies women aren't even considered. Yet, those men believe they are being fair - that they are treating women equally.Women are invariably more likely than men to walk and take public transport. In France, two-thirds of public transport passengers are women; in Philadelphia and Chicago in the US, the figure is 64% and 62% respectively. A UK Department for Transport study highlighted the stark difference between male and female perceptions of danger, finding that 62% of women are scared walking in multistorey car parks, 60% are scared waiting on train platforms, 49% are scared waiting at the bus stop, and 59% are scared walking home from a bus stop or station. Delhi was ranked the fourth most dangerous public transport system in the world for women in 2014.The biggest problem is that men are blind to problems women face. For most of the twentieth century there were no female musicians in the New York Philharmonic Orchestra. But then all of a sudden, something changed: from the 1970s on, the numbers of female players started to go up. And up. That something was blind auditions. Instituted in the early 1970s following a lawsuit, blind auditions are what they sound like: the hiring committee can’t see who is playing in the audition, because there is a screen between them and the player. The screens had an immediate impact. By the early 1980s, women began to make up 50% of the share of new hires. The hiring committees were not aware they were biased. They thought they were treating men and women alike.Studies have shown that a belief in your own personal objectivity, or a belief that you are not sexist, makes you less objective and more likely to behave in a sexist way.A 2016 study from the University of Sussex played a series of cries to parents (twenty-five fathers and twenty-seven mothers) of three-month-old babies. They found that although babies’ cries aren’t differentiated by sex (sex-based pitch differences don’t occur until puberty) lower cries were perceived as male and higher cries perceived as female. They also found that when male parents were told that a lower-pitched cry belonged to a boy, they rated the baby as in more discomfort than when the cry was labelled female.Men’s upper body strength is on average between 40-60% higher than women’s (compared to lower-body strength which is on average only 25% higher in men. Overall, 90% of the women (this time including untrained women) in the study had a weaker grip than 95% of their male counterparts. And yet every tool in the world is designed for men's hands. Car seats are designed for men and because they don't fit women, women are more likely to be injured in accidents than men. Men see those designs as treating women equally. But treating women "equally" usually means treating women like they don't exist or don't matter.On average female business owners receive less than half the level of investment their male counterparts get, they produce more than twice the revenue. For every dollar of funding, female-owned start-ups generate seventy-eight cents, compared to male-owned start-ups which generate thirty-one cents. They also perform better over time, ‘generating 10% more in cumulative revenue over a five-year period’. And yet, virtually every man would tell you that men and women are treated equally in business ventures.Research has found that nurses are subjected to more acts of violence than police officers or prison guards. In Ontario in 2014, the number of workplace injuries that required time off work from the healthcare sector greatly outnumbered those in other sectors surveyed. A recent US study similarly found that healthcare workers required time off work due to violence four times more often than other types of injury. And yet if you look up the 'most dangerous jobs' healthcare is usually not even on the list. Because it's invisible to men - because it doesn't involve very many men. Virtually every man will tell you that men do all the dangerous jobs.Men are more likely than women to be involved in a car crash, which means they dominate the numbers of those seriously injured in car accidents. But when a woman is involved in a car crash, she is 47% more likely to be seriously injured than a man, and 71% more likely to be moderately injured, even when researchers control for factors such as height, weight, seat-belt usage, and crash intensity. She is also 17% more likely to die. And it’s all to do with how the car is designed – and for whom. Women are not scaled-down men. We have different muscle-mass distribution. We have lower bone density. There are sex differences in vertebrae spacing. But the crash test dummies are always male. Male is the default setting of the world. And men will tell you that that is fair, that women are given equality.The evidence that women are being let down by the medical establishment is overwhelming. The bodies, symptoms and diseases that affect half the world’s population are being dismissed, disbelieved and ignored because women don't have the same exact symptoms that men have. The problem may be the gender data gaps in their knowledge. Almost all medical trials and drug trials feature predominantly men. And in the few cases where women are taking part in the trials, the data resulting is not sorted by gender. Say for example, that an adverse drug reaction occurs in 3% of the people using the drug. Because they didn't sort the data by gender, they never realize that the 3% is entirely female. Women report of work-related musculoskeletal pain still being treated with skepticism despite accumulating reports that pain systems function differently among women and men.Only one in eight women who have a heart attack report the classic male symptom of chest pain. Autoimmune diseases affect about 8% of the population, but women are three times more likely to develop one, making up about 80% of those affected. Women develop higher antibody responses and have more frequent and severe adverse reactions to vaccines.Sex differences appear even in our cells: in blood-serum biomarkers for autism; in proteins; in immune cells used to convey pain signals; in how cells die following a stroke.According to the FDA, the second most common adverse drug reaction in women is that the drug simply doesn’t work, even though it clearly works in men.As women get older, their blood pressure gets higher compared to men of the same age, and elevated blood pressure is more directly linked to cardiovascular mortality in women than in men. In fact, the risk of death from coronary artery disease for women is twice that for men for every 20 mm Hg increase in blood pressure above normal levels.Other male-biased advice includes the recommendation for diabetics to do high-intensity interval training; it doesn’t really help female diabetics (we don’t really know why, but this is possibly because women burn fat more than carbs during exercise.Women who ingest pharmaceuticals in the US are dying because the people who test them test men, not women. Some drugs used to break up blood clots immediately after a heart attack can cause significant bleeding problems in women. Other drugs that are commonly prescribed to treat high blood pressure have been found to lower men’s mortality from heart attack – but to increase cardiac-related deaths among women.Common preventative methods may also not work as well in women. Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) has been found to be effective in preventing a first heart attack in men, but a 2005 paper found that it had a ‘nonsignificant’ effect in women aged between forty-five and sixty-five. A more recent study from 2011 found that not only was aspirin ineffective for women, it was potentially harmful ‘in the majority of patients’.Research from the UK has found that women are 50% more likely to be misdiagnosed following a heart attack (rising to almost 60% for some types of heart attack. The reason is that doctors are using diagnostic tools for men. Women (particularly young women) may in fact present without any chest pain at all, but rather with stomach pain, breathlessness, nausea and fatigue. The tests doctors use to determine what’s wrong with a patient are also contributing to women’s higher death rates following a heart attack. Standard tests like the electrocardiogram or the physical stress test have been found to be less conclusive in women. For example, a heart attack is traditionally diagnosed with an angiogram, which will show where there are obstructed arteries. But women often don’t have obstructed arteries, meaning that the scan won’t show up any abnormalities. The point here is that if women are treated exactly like men, women die.Studies from the 1980s and 90s which found that while men who reported pain tended to receive pain medication, women were more likely to receive sedatives or antidepressants. A 2014 study which required healthcare providers to make treatment recommendations for hypothetical patients with lower back pain similarly found that female patients were significantly more likely to be prescribed antidepressants than men. Several studies over the past decades have shown that women are more sensitive to pain than men (which sheds a particularly cruel light on the finding that women are less likely to receive painkillers). Even if they are treated for their pain, women routinely have to wait longer than men to receive that treatment. A US analysis of 92,000 emergency-room visits between 1997 and 2004 found women had longer waiting times than men, and a study of adults who presented to a US urban emergency department between April 2004 and January 2005 found that while men and women presented with similar levels of pain, women were less likely to receive analgesia and women who did receive analgesia waited longer to receive it. US Institute of Medicine publication on chronic pain released in 2011 suggested that not much has changed, reporting that women in pain face ‘delays in correct diagnosis, improper and unproven treatments’, and ‘neglect, dismissal and discrimination’ from the healthcare system. In Sweden a woman suffering from a heart attack will wait one hour longer than a man from the onset of pain to arrival at a hospital, will get lower priority when waiting for an ambulance, and will wait twenty minutes longer to be seen at the hospital.A 2013 paper that examined trends in US mortality rates from 1992-2006 in 3,140 counties reported that even as mortality decreased in most counties, female mortality increased in 42.8% of them.Following the 2008 financial crash, the UK has seen a mass cutting exercise in public services. Between 2011 and 2014 children’s center budgets were cut by £82 million and between 2010 and 2014, 285 children’s centers either merged or closed. Between 2010 and 2015 local-authority social-care budgets fell by £5 billion, social security has been frozen below inflation and restricted to a household maximum, and eligibility for a carers’ allowance depends on an earnings threshold that has not kept up with increases in the national minimum wage. The problem is, these cuts are not so much savings as a shifting of costs from the public sector onto women, because the work still needs to be done. It just becomes more unpaid labor for women.Money continues not to be shared equally between couples, and money controlled by women continues to be more likely to be spent on children than money controlled by men. In studies conducted in Rwanda and Malawi, children from female-headed households were healthier than children from male-headed households – even when the male-headed households had higher incomes. Cutting public services hurts women more than it hurts men. Yet men consider those policies to be equal.In the US, nearly all married couples file a joint tax return. Men would say that that is fair. It isn't. It unfairly taxes the lower income earner, which is nearly always women. When a couple gets money, the male almost always controls it and most of it gets spent on the male. The women and children lose out.Women are disproportionately affected by armed conflict. In modern warfare it is civilians, rather than combatants, who are most likely to be killed. Domestic violence against women increases when conflict breaks out. In fact, it is more prevalent than conflict-related sexual violence. Women are also more likely than men to die from the indirect effects of war. More than half of the world’s maternal deaths occur in conflict-affected and fragile states, and the ten worst-performing countries on maternal mortality are all either conflict or post-conflict countries. Here, female mortality is on average 2.5 times higher, and this is partly because post conflict and disaster relief efforts too often forget to account for women’s specific healthcare needs.The Washington Post reported that two of the three largest outbreaks of Ebola ‘involved transmission of the virus in maternity settings’. The fact that Ebola decimated healthcare workers (themselves mainly women) made the risk even higher for women.Again, the point of all this is that the playing field isn't level.What feminists want is a level playing field, inclusion in the world, to be seen and heard and to participate equally in policy.(this information was taken from Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men by Caroline Criado Perez. She gives references for all of it.)