Unfit For Work: The Startling Rise Of Disability In America

Boo Radley said:

You had no point, only a diversion. You're trying to walk back your comment. No party wants dependence. And the only way one can argue it is to link it to winning and losing. You're being dishonest not only in your false argument, but in pretending it isn't an excuse.

Click to expand...

rejected as being dishonest and contrary to known reality

another post where you engage in passive-aggressive attacks on your dreamed up motivations of another poster because you cannot actually refute the point made.

the fact is your party wants more and more and more people dependent on government hand outs

one party tries to win elections partially by telling those who make money that they can keep what they make

the other party tries to win by partially promising those who feel they should be given more the money of others

TurtleDude said:

rejected as being dishonest and contrary to known reality

another post where you engage in passive-aggressive attacks on your dreamed up motivations of another poster because you cannot actually refute the point made.

the fact is your party wants more and more and more people dependent on government hand outs

one party tries to win elections partially by telling those who make money that they can keep what they make

the other party tries to win by partially promising those who feel they should be given more the money of others

Click to expand...

Again, you put win elections. Is there winning without losing? If democrats win, don't republicans lose? Surely you know how the synthesize information and reason out the logic to its conclusions?

Boo Radley said:

Again, you put win elections. Is there winning without losing? If democrats win, don't republicans lose? Surely you know how the synthesize information and reason out the logic to its conclusions?

Click to expand...

more nonsense

TurtleDude said:

more nonsense

Click to expand...

The nonsense is in your false claim and silly denial.

Boo Radley said:

The nonsense is in your false claim and silly denial.

Click to expand...

opinion noted and not shared.

the fact is current society makes it far too easy for people to claim disability

Boo Radley said:

Yes, I read the article. And I would not suggest that they may not be a problem. I would, however, suggest that there is more generalization than warranted. There is nothing shocking that hard times have led to some taking advantage of whatever they can.

Click to expand...

Personally, that is why identify more as a libertarian. I see people leech the system and say that is unjustifiable to me. Its obvious that its not just one out of a thousand. When one in four people in a town are claiming disability benefits for "back pain," when kids are getting held back so their parents can live off of their checks, it is a fundamental breakdown of the system. And you know what is sad to me? The people who actually do have true disabilities are the ones who get used to cover for the people who really don't need to be on the system. Using the vulnerable to protect the parasites. Beyond disgusting in my opinion.

babilfish said:

If you honestly think your link stated loss of jobs was due to laziness, you didn't read it.

Click to expand...

What do you propose that people that don't show up or are habitually late are? In my world...a little place called reality...if you don't show up for work frequently and/or late, you are lazy.

Dezaad said:

Are you ****ing kidding me? A study from 1997 doesn't illuminate anything about our current situation. Furthermore it is dishonest of you not to mention that it was from 1997, since that is exceedingly relevant to this matter. No one should listen to anything further you have to say on this, unless they have the time to fact check you first.

Click to expand...

It absolutely does. It shows the pattern that has always existed among those that are life long recipients of welfare. That's why welfare reform had requirements for work (undone by the Obama admin in an executive order).

TurtleDude said:

opinion noted and not shared.

the fact is current society makes it far too easy for people to claim disability

Click to expand...

Perhaps. But don't use it as an electoral excuse. And realize both parties played a role.

ReformCollege said:

Personally, that is why identify more as a libertarian. I see people leech the system and say that is unjustifiable to me. Its obvious that its not just one out of a thousand. When one in four people in a town are claiming disability benefits for "back pain," when kids are getting held back so their parents can live off of their checks, it is a fundamental breakdown of the system. And you know what is sad to me? The people who actually do have true disabilities are the ones who get used to cover for the people who really don't need to be on the system. Using the vulnerable to protect the parasites. Beyond disgusting in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I've seen no such numbers. And would like to see numbers showing how many are actually gaming he system. And I'd love to see if it his higher than the wealthy who game the system.

Nor do I think anyone wants to protect parasites.

Boo Radley said:

I've seen no such numbers. And would like to see numbers showing how many are actually gaming he system. And I'd love to see if it his higher than the wealthy who game the system.

Nor do I think anyone wants to protect parasites.

Click to expand...

Who gives a **** if its higher? Both should be dealt with regardless of which one is "more." I'm in favor of minimal tax deductions and cutting off subsidies, in exchange for lower taxes across the board. But that is a separate issue and does not have any merit in this discussion.

And truth be told, any such statistics are nearly impossible to construct because often times such diagnosis are from patient given inputs. Its sort of like how college kids fake answers to get access to ADHD/ADD medicine. Its hard to prove in any one case that someone is lying or overexaggerating, but it's quite obvious that it is going on at a broader level.

What needs to happen is tightening the qualifications and making disability benefits match the needs of each specific disease to prevent these things from happening in the first place. If having lower back pain only qualifies you for a back brace to allow you to continue functioning as normal, there simply isn't going to be an incentive for exaggerating or making up lower back pain. Furthermore, if children with disabilities are getting medical reimbursements rather then monthly checks for their parents, you aren't going to see parents holding their children back in school. These sort of changes can prevent fraud while actually making SSDI serve its function better, which was to help meet the needs of the disabled. Note, I say needs, which means what they need to be a productive citizen. Being able to collect a check without working is not a need.

ReformCollege said:

Who gives a **** if its higher? Both should be dealt with regardless of which one is "more." I'm in favor of minimal tax deductions and cutting off subsidies, in exchange for lower taxes across the board. But that is a separate issue and does not have any merit in this discussion.

And truth be told, any such statistics are nearly impossible to construct because often times such diagnosis are from patient given inputs. Its sort of like how college kids fake answers to get access to ADHD/ADD medicine. Its hard to prove in any one case that someone is lying or overexaggerating, but it's quite obvious that it is going on at a broader level.

What needs to happen is tightening the qualifications and making disability benefits match the needs of each specific disease to prevent these things from happening in the first place. If having lower back pain only qualifies you for a back brace to allow you to continue functioning as normal, there simply isn't going to be an incentive for exaggerating or making up lower back pain. Furthermore, if children with disabilities are getting medical reimbursements rather then monthly checks for their parents, you aren't going to see parents holding their children back in school. These sort of changes can prevent fraud while actually making SSDI serve its function better, which was to help meet the needs of the disabled. Note, I say needs, which means what they need to be a productive citizen. Being able to collect a check without working is not a need.

Click to expand...

What matters is that we spend our time complaining about one end, but not the other. I think for consistency's sake, being honest about both, recognizing that humans tend to take advantage where they can, would go along way toward planning better.

And yes, it is difficult to get a clear picture, but since was difficult mean abandon the effort and just assume things? No matter how difficult, we need to have a better fix on what is really the problem.

Boo Radley said:

That's bs. Just making excuses for losing. It's always someone's fault other than the candidate and party losing.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that in strategy circles that it was not a precept of the demo party to increase welfare roles, and actively increase voter roles through on the street registration, motor voter, and alike? If so Joe, that is incredibly dishonest to say...We have on the record proof that this was the aim of famous liberals like Cloward and Piven, and further, as recently as the Carter, and Clinton administrations I believe it was a stated goal....Groups like ACORN worked toward this dishonest end, and still do today under a million different names, but still the same group, with the same goals.

Boo Radley said:

What matters is that we spend our time complaining about one end, but not the other. I think for consistency's sake, being honest about both, recognizing that humans tend to take advantage where they can, would go along way toward planning better.

Click to expand...

Oh please spare us the deflection tactics. You may think this approach clever, however, it is merely another application of silencing dissent by using a twist on the old playground tactic of 2nd graders, which goes something like..."Well, Johnny did it, so it's ok for me to do it too.".....

And yes, it is difficult to get a clear picture, but since was difficult mean abandon the effort and just assume things? No matter how difficult, we need to have a better fix on what is really the problem.

Click to expand...

The problem is clear, no matter how the cause of the problem would like to mask it in a thousand shades of grey.

j-mac said:

Are you saying that in strategy circles that it was not a precept of the demo party to increase welfare roles, and actively increase voter roles through on the street registration, motor voter, and alike? If so Joe, that is incredibly dishonest to say...We have on the record proof that this was the aim of famous liberals like Cloward and Piven, and further, as recently as the Carter, and Clinton administrations I believe it was a stated goal....Groups like ACORN worked toward this dishonest end, and still do today under a million different names, but still the same group, with the same goals.

Click to expand...

I'm saying dependence is not something they desire any more than republicans.

Those groups you mention are largely in response to real problems, and many of those people are hard workers who seek to help, and not hinder.

j-mac said:

Oh please spare us the deflection tactics. You may think this approach clever, however, it is merely another application of silencing dissent by using a twist on the old playground tactic of 2nd graders, which goes something like..."Well, Johnny did it, so it's ok for me to do it too.".....

Click to expand...

No, I thin it is honest and not deflection. In fact, to call it deflections is actually more real deflection that anything I do. Why is the poor taking advantage of the system worse than the wealthy? This is a fair question.

The problem is clear, no matter how the cause of the problem would like to mask it in a thousand shades of grey.

Click to expand...

The trouble is often those who don't question what they think is clear often are wrong. It is often much better to actually be able to support your conclusions. Saying it is difficult to do, so it's clear is kind of weak, don't ya think?

Boo Radley said:

What matters is that we spend our time complaining about one end, but not the other. I think for consistency's sake, being honest about both, recognizing that humans tend to take advantage where they can, would go along way toward planning better.

And yes, it is difficult to get a clear picture, but since was difficult mean abandon the effort and just assume things? No matter how difficult, we need to have a better fix on what is really the problem.

Click to expand...

1. wtf? I just said we need to fix both. This article is talking about disability specifically. That is the topic here. There are plenty of articles that talk about tax breaks. I mean ffs, I didn't realize we have to talk about literally every issue ever all at once.

2. I think you're repeating what I just said. Rather then trying to crack down harder on those who "abuse" disability checks, our first steps should be tightening any loose bolts in the system. Preventing the easy pathways for fraud is the low hanging fruit on this issue.

Boo Radley said:

No, I thin it is honest and not deflection. In fact, to call it deflections is actually more real deflection that anything I do. Why is the poor taking advantage of the system worse than the wealthy? This is a fair question.



The trouble is often those who don't question what they think is clear often are wrong. It is often much better to actually be able to support your conclusions. Saying it is difficult to do, so it's clear is kind of weak, don't ya think?

Click to expand...

His original points still stand. You're making serious abuses of the false dichotomy, psychogenetic, irrelevant conclusions, loaded question fallacies as well as circular reasoning and begging the question. If you really think that your arguments are justifications for disability abuse, then I would challenge you to have a serious look in the mirror and decide whether you would rather live your life pragmatically appealing to logic or living it sheepishly appealing to rhetoric.

Unless of course, you actually do take what was in the article seriously and think that this is something we should deal with. In which case, why do you see the need to make it necessary to talk about corporate theft or fraud in a topic about disability abuse? That is a subject which deserves its own attention, not just as some shoe in on a completely seperate topic. And who exactly are you saying only talks about one and not the other? I say we need to review the rules of both, and think of how we can eliminate the driving force of each. But to be honest, dragging that topic into this one gives me the impression that you are attempting to derail the debate without actually addressing any of the points being raised.

ReformCollege said:

His original points still stand. You're making serious abuses of the false dichotomy, psychogenetic, irrelevant conclusions, loaded question fallacies as well as circular reasoning and begging the question. If you really think that your arguments are justifications for disability abuse, then I would challenge you to have a serious look in the mirror and decide whether you would rather live your life pragmatically appealing to logic or living it sheepishly appealing to rhetoric.

Unless of course, you actually do take what was in the article seriously and think that this is something we should deal with. In which case, why do you see the need to make it necessary to talk about corporate theft or fraud in a topic about disability abuse? That is a subject which deserves its own attention, not just as some shoe in on a completely seperate topic. And who exactly are you saying only talks about one and not the other? I say we need to review the rules of both, and think of how we can eliminate the driving force of each. But to be honest, dragging that topic into this one gives me the impression that you are attempting to derail the debate without actually addressing any of the points being raised.

Click to expand...

Outstanding post! Couldn't have said it better my self....

Juggernaut said:

http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/






I found this quite an eye opening article. Quite a failure of our social security/welfare/disability system where private companies are cooking-the-books at the welfare office and children are being held back in order to receive disability benefits.

Perhaps, it's time for an overhaul of SS/disability?

Click to expand...

Forrest Gump was just a movie. People don't just overcome disabilities like that in real life. Exactly what disabilities are you talking about that kids can learn to overcome, but instead choose to remain disabled?

ReformCollege said:

His original points still stand. You're making serious abuses of the false dichotomy, psychogenetic, irrelevant conclusions, loaded question fallacies as well as circular reasoning and begging the question. If you really think that your arguments are justifications for disability abuse, then I would challenge you to have a serious look in the mirror and decide whether you would rather live your life pragmatically appealing to logic or living it sheepishly appealing to rhetoric.

Unless of course, you actually do take what was in the article seriously and think that this is something we should deal with. In which case, why do you see the need to make it necessary to talk about corporate theft or fraud in a topic about disability abuse? That is a subject which deserves its own attention, not just as some shoe in on a completely seperate topic. And who exactly are you saying only talks about one and not the other? I say we need to review the rules of both, and think of how we can eliminate the driving force of each. But to be honest, dragging that topic into this one gives me the impression that you are attempting to derail the debate without actually addressing any of the points being raised.

Click to expand...

You may want to read what I responded to closer. TD makes the statement that in effect says democrats allow abuses for political gain, winning elections. That part f his post I challenged and called it bs. I called it that because it is bs.

As fr the issue, I have stated some review of standards seem appropriate, but I believe many are leaping over the edge without really knowing how many are slipping through unjustly. I suggest, which I think is reasonable, that instead of demonizing large groups, we see specifically how large the problem really is.

J throws around a lot if terms he gets wrong. I think you are just focusing on the wrong part of TDs post.

ReformCollege said:

1. wtf? I just said we need to fix both. This article is talking about disability specifically. That is the topic here. There are plenty of articles that talk about tax breaks. I mean ffs, I didn't realize we have to talk about literally every issue ever all at once.

2. I think you're repeating what I just said. Rather then trying to crack down harder on those who "abuse" disability checks, our first steps should be tightening any loose bolts in the system. Preventing the easy pathways for fraud is the low hanging fruit on this issue.

Click to expand...

I'm saying you don't really understand the problem. From the article:

Part of the rise in the number of people on disability is simply driven by the fact that the workforce is getting older, and older people tend to have more health problems.

(Snip)

When you are an adult applying for disability you have to prove you cannot function in a "work-like setting." When you are a kid, a disability can be anything that prevents you from progressing in school. Two-thirds of all kids on the program today have been diagnosed with mental or intellectual problems.

(Snip)

Somewhere around 30 years ago, the economy started changing in some fundamental ways. There are now millions of Americans who do not have the skills or education to make it in this country.

Politicians pay lip service to this problem during election cycles, but American leaders have not sat down and come up with a comprehensive plan.

In the meantime, federal disability programs became our extremely expensive default plan. The two big disability programs, including health care for disabled workers, cost some $260 billion a year.


Now instead of saying its terrible, the people are evil leeches, wouldn't it be better to be more comprehensive address the causes of the problems.

Boo Radley said:

I'm saying you don't really understand the problem. From the article:

Part of the rise in the number of people on disability is simply driven by the fact that the workforce is getting older, and older people tend to have more health problems.

(Snip)

When you are an adult applying for disability you have to prove you cannot function in a "work-like setting." When you are a kid, a disability can be anything that prevents you from progressing in school. Two-thirds of all kids on the program today have been diagnosed with mental or intellectual problems.

(Snip)

Somewhere around 30 years ago, the economy started changing in some fundamental ways. There are now millions of Americans who do not have the skills or education to make it in this country.

Politicians pay lip service to this problem during election cycles, but American leaders have not sat down and come up with a comprehensive plan.

In the meantime, federal disability programs became our extremely expensive default plan. The two big disability programs, including health care for disabled workers, cost some $260 billion a year.


Now instead of saying its terrible, the people are evil leeches, wouldn't it be better to be more comprehensive address the causes of the problems.

Click to expand...

See point #2.

ReformCollege said:

See point #2.

Click to expand...

If you believe that supports his point, you've misread it. Fixing the problems are costly, difficult, and often requiring more then elected leaders. So it has little to do with his claim. Having people dependent for votes s not what that is saying.

Boo Radley said:

You may want to read what I responded to closer. TD makes the statement that in effect says democrats allow abuses for political gain, winning elections. That part f his post I challenged and called it bs. I called it that because it is bs.

As fr the issue, I have stated some review of standards seem appropriate, but I believe many are leaping over the edge without really knowing how many are slipping through unjustly. I suggest, which I think is reasonable, that instead of demonizing large groups, we see specifically how large the problem really is.

J throws around a lot if terms he gets wrong. I think you are just focusing on the wrong part of TDs post.

Click to expand...

I don't think J is wrong, but I would agree in with a softer tone to his statements. Democrats are sympathetic to disability insurance, and it is a knee jerk reaction for them to be opposed to anything that may be framed as "anti-disability." Any significant altercation to the structure of the disability system is seen as an "attack on disabled Americans." Heck, sometimes even bringing up the issue is seen as an "attack on disabled Americans." Whether or not they mean malicious intent by their stance on the issue is up for personal interpretation, (although I usually am suspicious at such hypersensitivity to an issue).


People are leaping over the edge because they feel duped on the issue. It's sort of like studying for two weeks to ace a big exam, only to find out that the person sitting next to you copied all your answers. Maybe that person isn't a "bad" person. Maybe they had something going on that put them on the edge of desperation. Maybe they just don't have what it takes to succeed in the class no matter how hard they try. Or maybe they are just ****ing lazy. No matter how you slice and dice it, it isn't fair to you who got the A, and more importantly it isn't fair to the rest of the class. Disability insurance is meant to be for people who are physically unable to work, and treatment that would allow them to work isn't possible. That's it. It isn't meant to be a cop out for those who have been "left behind" in the labor force. Also, being "unable to keep up" with a changing job market isn't a justification for pretending to be "disabled." That isn't the purpose of the program. Period.

Lastly, it would be a flawed (by design) study to see how many people are "abusing" disability benefits when the qualifications for disability benefits are not well defined. That is my point, maybe you only find half of 1% of blatant fraud within the system, but that would be completely ignoring the number of people who "legitimately" qualified due to either ambiguous standards or exaggerated hardships. The rule changes need to come first as a proactive measure rather then a reactive one to some "study" that was flawed before it was even conducted.

Overall, it seems you think this is an issue, you are just skeptical of it being a "big" issue.
(BTW, no its not that they are just "getting older" considering all the statistics in the article are strictly about the working aged on disability.)

ReformCollege said:

I don't think J is wrong, but I would agree in with a softer tone to his statements. Democrats are sympathetic to disability insurance, and it is a knee jerk reaction for them to be opposed to anything that may be framed as "anti-disability." Any significant altercation to the structure of the disability system is seen as an "attack on disabled Americans." Heck, sometimes even bringing up the issue is seen as an "attack on disabled Americans." Whether or not they mean malicious intent by their stance on the issue is up for personal interpretation, (although I usually am suspicious at such hypersensitivity to an issue).

Click to expand...

The original comment was TDs. J just jumped in to complain.

Knee jerk reactions go both ways. I won't argue otherwise. But there is. Belief concerning fairness as strong as what conservatives hold. No one is really in favor of abuse. Often what we argue about is what side we err on. I don't mind a call to review standards and address issues. What I mind is the claim that a group is universally moochers, or that a party wants such leeches to gain votes.

People are leaping over the edge because they feel duped on the issue. It's sort of like studying for two weeks to ace a big exam, only to find out that the person sitting next to you copied all your answers. Maybe that person isn't a "bad" person. Maybe they had something going on that put them on the edge of desperation. Maybe they just don't have what it takes to succeed in the class no matter how hard they try. Or maybe they are just ****ing lazy. No matter how you slice and dice it, it isn't fair to you who got the A, and more importantly it isn't fair to the rest of the class. Disability insurance is meant to be for people who are physically unable to work, and treatment that would allow them to work isn't possible. That's it. It isn't meant to be a cop out for those who have been "left behind" in the labor force. Also, being "unable to keep up" with a changing job market isn't a justification for pretending to be "disabled." That isn't the purpose of the program. Period.

Lastly, it would be a flawed (by design) study to see how many people are "abusing" disability benefits when the qualifications for disability benefits are not well defined. That is my point, maybe you only find half of 1% of blatant fraud within the system, but that would be completely ignoring the number of people who "legitimately" qualified due to either ambiguous standards or exaggerated hardships. The rule changes need to come first as a proactive measure rather then a reactive one to some "study" that was flawed before it was even conducted.

Overall, it seems you think this is an issue, you are just skeptical of it being a "big" issue.
(BTW, no its not that they are just "getting older" considering all the statistics in the article are strictly about the working aged on disability.)

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has been duped. I think there are major changes in circumstances forcing some to us disability as a fall back, as the article in op briefly touches on. Sure there are some people abusing the system (how many is unknown), just as there is at all levels.

And I think it is an issue, but one that needs to be dealt more by addressing the system and not demonizing people.

I didn't mean to ignore your study question. Regardless of how well defined it is or isn't, we can't make any claims with certainty without know that information.