The startling rise of disability in America

Government should define disability like insurance companies.

In some cases, where insurance premiums are higher, disability is defined by your inability to perform your "own occupation". This is the kind surgeons might have. Should they become unable to perform surgery, they could collect benefits. They might continue in the medical profession, but could still collect benefits because they can't do surgery... and they paid a higher insurance premium than normal to secure this level of claim.

In other cases, where premiums are lower, disability is defined as being unable to perform ANY occupation... with some limitations on the definition of "any".

The guy who can no longer unload the meat truck but could still work as a dispatcher should not be considered disabled for the purpose of receiving disability benefits at the expense of tax payers.

 

obama wants nearly everyone to collect government benefits, thereby being beholden to the democrats. being a fabian socialist he wants to strangle the economy SLOWLY through regulation so that clueless americans don't realize that america is no longer the land of free. nationalization is not necessary when you can force private banks to be credit allocators in response to government orders.
with regulations there is no need to nationalize. instead with the veneer of capitalism, private companies with marching orders from the fed or regulatory agencies, you succeed with your socialist agenda.

 

The British government recently asked everyone receiving an “incapacity benefit” — a disability program slowly being phased out under new reforms — to submit to a medical test to confirm they were too disabled to work. A third of recipients (878,000 people) dropped out of the program rather than be examined. Of those tested, more than half (55 percent) were found fit for work, and a quarter were found fit for some work.

But that’s Britain, where there’s a long tradition of gaming the dole. Americans would never think of taking advantage of the taxpayers or misleading the government. Well, except for the couple dozen people who have pleaded guilty to scamming the LIRR’s federal disability system in a $1 billion fraud scheme. A billion bucks would pay for a lot of White House tours.



Though hardly isolated, the LIRR scandal is an obvious black-and-white case of criminality. The real problem resides in a grayer area.

In 1960, when vastly more Americans were involved in physical labor of some kind, 0.65 percent of workforce participants between the ages of 18 and 64 were receiving Social Security disability insurance payments. Fifty years later, in a much healthier America, that number has grown nearly nine-fold to 5.6 percent.

In 1960, 134 Americans were working for every officially recognized disabled worker. Five decades later that ratio fell to roughly 16 to 1.

Some say these numbers can be explained by the entry of women into the workforce, the aging of baby boomers and the short-term spike in need that came with the recession.

No doubt those are significant factors. But not nearly so significant as to explain why the number of people on disability has been doubling every 15 years (while the average age of recipients has gone down) or why such a huge proportion of claim injuries can’t be corroborated by a doctor.

Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute and the Harvard School of Public Health notes in his recent book “A Nation of Takers: America’s Entitlement Epidemic” that 29 percent of the 8.6 million Americans who received Social Security disability benefits at the end of 2011 cited injuries involving the “musculoskeletal system and the connective tissue.” Fifteen percent claimed “mood disorders.”

It’s almost impossible, Eberstadt writes, “for a medical professional to disprove a patient’s claim that he or she is suffering from sad feelings or back pain.” And that’s if a doctor wants to disprove the claim.

In an illuminating and predictably controversial exposé for “This American Life,” NPR’s “Planet Money” team tried to figure out why, since 2009, nearly 250,000 people have been applying for disability every month (while we’ve averaged only 150,000 new jobs every month).

The answers fall on both sides of the gray middle. One factor has to do with what correspondent Chana Joffe-Walt calls the “Vast Disability Industrial Complex.” These are the lawyers who fight to fatten the rolls of disability recipients. These lawyers get a cut of every winning claimant’s “back pay.” The more clients, the bigger the take. That’s why they run ads on TV shouting, “Disabled? Get the money you deserve!”

Then there are the doctors. Joffe-Walt profiles one rural Alabama doctor who signs off on disabilities for pretty much anyone lacking a good education on the assumption their employment prospects are grim.

That points to the even bigger parts of the story. As the nature of the economy changes, disability programs are sometimes taking the place of welfare for those who feel locked out of the workforce — and state governments are loving it. States pay for welfare, the feds pay for disabilities.

There are those who are quick to argue that this is all bogus, there’s nothing amiss with the disability system that greater funding and a better economy won’t fix. Maybe they’re right. One way to find out would be to ask every recipient to get a thorough examination, just as they did in Britain. Maybe the results here in the United States would be interesting too.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...ity_is_the_new_welfare_eIopPX2jsOGxU3kYcqcq8J

 

Look guys, you have to check out this chart on work credits to understand what is happening.

http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/page10-13.html

If you collect unemployment or can't find a job you will not have enough work credits to qualify for SSDI.

If you are out of work for 2 years, return to work, get disabled you are sol.

The older you are the greater the number of years worked to qualify.

 

Could have a scheme whereby a rich man has to " employ" at least 1 unemployed person per million $s owned.

 

more pussy for the rich. sounds like a plan..

how long have been a communist?

 

Not much compassion eh dregs ?

Prolly in the KKK and Nazi party too ?

 

GM is worth 40B So under that scheme they have to employee 40,000 people. Currently they employ 213,000 people, so would the poor bitch if GM laid off 173,000 people or would they say "oh that's fair because as long as they employ 1 per per million, its ok"?

 

I did say MAN not company. Probably better schemes around tho.

 

Humpy my friend, all these "schemes" are nothing more than wealth redistribution. They take money from you and give it to me, in hopes that will increase economic activity. (or more accurately, they don't have a clue how to create wealth and if you have it they think they should get it.)

That is why I am never concerned about poor people scamming the system.

But at some point, humankind needs to start creating wealth again, and you can't do that if everytime you get a little ahead they take it away from you.

There is absoulutely no reason why anybody on the face of the earth should be poor or hungry. But just taking it from me and giving it to them until we are are equal is not really a sound economic system.

If these communists would focus more on the poor, and be less vindictive toward me and how much I am making we would all be better off.

Over here in USA you hear over and over, "They need to pay their fair share". If I hear it one more time I will throw up. No, the poor and the hungry (whether they are USA or otherwise) need to be taken care of. The rich can take care of themselves, and the less you mess with them the better. They are the ones who pay for the poor, and putting a cramp on their style will only put a more severe cramp on the poor.