If it wasn't for the BPS brigade pushing this ethos with 'so-called' scientific evidence then the politicians and the insurers would not have this particular loophole to add to their list of excuses to get out of paying.
I question this is true.
But not in a good way.
Recently in the UK, for new claims or changes of circumstance for universal credit or employment and support allowance, a key payment for those found to be incapable for work has been eliminated.
Historically, people found incapable for work (
but that did not fall into the most severe category) have been paid an additional amount - around half again on top of the base amount a person normally gets while seeking work.
This has been eliminated, on the grounds that it is a 'perverse incentive' to be ill, and removing this will encourage people back to work, because work is good for you.
The claim (a lie) has also been made that they will use this funding to fund these people getting back into work.
The evidence on this is comedically worse than PACE. It's a study of fit people that find they feel better when they get into work. And it's quite old.
They are entirely ignoring what the regulations and evidence say, beyond a one or two sentence summary of the regulations aims.
(The regulations are aimed at splitting people into two groups, one which is 'likely to be able to find work with help in the near future' and the other which is 'too ill to return to work'. In fact if you actually look at them, it is quite possible to be found to be too ill to work, and for that condition not to be expected to get better, without meeting the criteria for the most severe group)
