• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Disability Scam: A Great Government Freebie

I guess you did not read. As pointed out in te article:

As he points out, its still has nearly doubled when adjusted for the facts he adjusts for, and it still has nearly doubled when looking strictly at acceptances per insured worker. So your source does absolutely nothing except for prove the OP.
 
If you think it's bad now, just wait until the CDC's decision to list obesity as a disease takes effect and the 30% of the population that's obese see a shot at free money in their future.

You are the victim of misinformation and/or sensationalism.

The AMA has just declared obesity a disease. That does not mean however that obesity is in and of itself a disability nor does it mean that people will obtain benefits for simply being obese.
 
Fundamental question.

I honestly don't know the answer to this but would like to hear what others think. The theme of pretty much my entire lifetime has been "the rich keep getting richer". Statistics bear this out. The other half of that cliche' is "the poor keep getting poorer". This part I disagree with wholeheartedly because the definition of "poor" keeps changing. Having said that, the question I have is this: If the "wealth gap" in America were to decrease because of governmental policy changes, would the demand for programs like this also decrease?

Thoughts?
 
I posted this today because I learned about someone that I knew was on disability because his company changed their policies and he was short of retirement age. I saw him working today, come to find out, he is allowed to make an additional 12k per year on top of the disability. Everything he owns is paid for so we are paying this guy a decent early retirement as it does not take much when everything is paid for. I called to see if that was true and it is. I was very frustrated with the whole deal but it explains to me the strategy of today's progressives.

The strategy of today's Progressives... let's see who was President when the rules were loosened? It was 1984 and the President was Reagan and the Republicans controlled the Senate. When did the skyrocket take off? 2000 the same year BushII took office and it has climbed at a pretty consistent rate ever since.

I agree with Maggie it is cheaper to keep them on a small stipend and open the remaining jobs we have here in this country to folks who want them, and are eager to work.

Oh a few questions... this man you say took disability as an early retirement... what do you call a decent early retirement? What state is this? how many other disability recipients have everything paid for?
 
As he points out, its still has nearly doubled when adjusted for the facts he adjusts for, and it still has nearly doubled when looking strictly at acceptances per insured worker. So your source does absolutely nothing except for prove the OP.

Accenptance per application is down:

aaaaa.jpg
 
He didn't lie. He clearly shows that even after adjusting for age and sex, the % of the workforce and # of awards per issurer have doubled since 1990. If anything, he made your argument for you and for that he deserves a huge :clap:

He spewed left wing propaganda and you lapped it up like a hog on slop........suey!:lamo
 
He spewed left wing propaganda and you lapped it up like a hog on slop........suey!:laemo

You've been rebutted by the facts. Time to get to the escape pod, quick!
 
The strategy of today's Progressives... let's see who was President when the rules were loosened? It was 1984 and the President was Reagan and the Republicans controlled the Senate. When did the skyrocket take off? 2000 the same year BushII took office and it has climbed at a pretty consistent rate ever since.

I agree with Maggie it is cheaper to keep them on a small stipend and open the remaining jobs we have here in this country to folks who want them, and are eager to work.

Oh a few questions... this man you say took disability as an early retirement... what do you call a decent early retirement? What state is this? how many other disability recipients have everything paid for?

Your questions need to have validity in order for me to address them fairly.
 
You are the victim of misinformation and/or sensationalism.

The AMA has just declared obesity a disease. That does not mean however that obesity is in and of itself a disability nor does it mean that people will obtain benefits for simply being obese.

I stand corrected, as to the CDC versus the AMA - I retain my view that it's the first step towards making obesity a disability and the American bar will do it's best to see that it happens sooner rather than later.
 
I have mixed feelings about this one.

Not everyone scams the system. I can qualify for disability from SS, but have never applied for it.

SS disability is not a glamorous life style. I know people who should get it, but don't. In the end, because it is no where near enough, some take advantage of "under the table" work when possible. Many I know are unable to keep or sustain employment because employers simply cannot tolerate having inconsistent employee's and cannot accommodate "bad days". And yes, I know some who are just scamming the system for "free" money.

The whole system is screwed up royally. Doesn't work for those who truly need it and waste money on those who don't. To make matters worse, in order to get on it in many cases, the process has become a scam for feeding money to lawyers. The whole thing needs to be scraped and redone.
 
Maybe they changed the disability requirements.
I know that they use to have certain requirements for certain back issues etc.
Such as how high each leg could be lifted from standing position, lying position and sitting position etc. etc.

In other words back pain did not qualify on its own.
The person had to meet other actual measuable physical limitations to qualify.
 
Accenptance per application is down:

View attachment 67149208

And that says what exactly? The number of awards has still largely outpaced the workforce when taking age and sex into consideration, but just because there are a large number of people applying who are too stupid to work around the system does not mean the system is free of fraud.

And for the sake of honesty, this has absolutely nothing to do with Obama, or even Clinton. The relaxed standards for qualifying for disability insurance came from none other then the great "small government hero" Ronald Reagan. Its fair to ask whether Obama is willing to act on this issue before the SSDI goes bankrupt in 2016, and it would be fair to criticize any reforms/lack of reforms he pushes through.

And you should learn to use spell check.
 
Maybe they changed the disability requirements.
I know that they use to have certain requirements for certain back issues etc.
Such as how high each leg could be lifted from standing position, lying position and sitting position etc. etc.

In other words back pain did not qualify on its own.
The person had to meet other actual measuable physical limitations to qualify.

They did, Ronald Reagan signed the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act in 1984, which largely relaxed eligibility for SSDI. So yes, he deserves the blame for this one because that is around the time that SSDI rolls started trending upward.

And how high someone can lift their leg tells us what exactly about their ability to sit in a chair and complete paperwork? Either way, often back pain is preventable and those "physical limitations" (read: obesity) are also preventable. My thinking is, SSDI shouldn't just automatically give someone Medicaid and 10k+ for having "back pain" and "physical limitations." Rather, SSDI should pay for them to go to physical therapy and a nutritionist. That is it. SSDI should be flexible in the sense that benefits match the so called disability with the main priority being that we curb/reverse their physical limitations as much as possible so they can get back into the workforce.
 
I have mixed feelings about this one.

Not everyone scams the system. I can qualify for disability from SS, but have never applied for it.

SS disability is not a glamorous life style. I know people who should get it, but don't. In the end, because it is no where near enough, some take advantage of "under the table" work when possible. Many I know are unable to keep or sustain employment because employers simply cannot tolerate having inconsistent employee's and cannot accommodate "bad days". And yes, I know some who are just scamming the system for "free" money.

The whole system is screwed up royally. Doesn't work for those who truly need it and waste money on those who don't. To make matters worse, in order to get on it in many cases, the process has become a scam for feeding money to lawyers. The whole thing needs to be scraped and redone.

It never had to be the glamorous lifestyle, but 10k+ and free Medicare is absolutely nothing to scoff at.
 
You've been rebutted by the facts. Time to get to the escape pod, quick!

What are these facts you speak of? You mean the ones that actually ended up supporting the OP?
 
They did, Ronald Reagan signed the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act in 1984, which largely relaxed eligibility for SSDI. So yes, he deserves the blame for this one because that is around the time that SSDI rolls started trending upward.

And how high someone can lift their leg tells us what exactly about their ability to sit in a chair and complete paperwork? Either way, often back pain is preventable and those "physical limitations" (read: obesity) are also preventable. My thinking is, SSDI shouldn't just automatically give someone Medicaid and 10k+ for having "back pain" and "physical limitations." Rather, SSDI should pay for them to go to physical therapy and a nutritionist. That is it. SSDI should be flexible in the sense that benefits match the so called disability with the main priority being that we curb/reverse their physical limitations as much as possible so they can get back into the workforce.


You are aware the Act passed by unanimous vote of both Houses of Congress?
 
When asked why he robbed banks, Slick Willie Sutton famously answered, “Because that’s where the money is.” Today, millions of Americans appear to have jumped onto our disability rolls for the very same reason. Today, 8.8 million Americans – nearly 6 percent of our workforce – claim they are physically incapable of working.

Add in dependents, and the figure swells to nearly 10.9 million. The number has grown every month since January 1997, when there was a small dip, and has grown faster than the number of added annually to the workforce. For the United States, this is an expensive proposition. The Social Security Administration spent $137 billion on disability last year; Medicare costs for this group tack on another $80 billion, since folks on disability automatically qualify for Medicare.


Read more at The Disability Scam: A Great Government Freebie

I've seen these numbers and looked into some of the causes which included looking through disability demographic charts and other source information.

I'm at work so I don't have the time to really post all the links and dredge up all that information....

But for the most part...it seems to be boomers hitting the age of 55 and not quite able to retire yet worn down from manual labor. It's the result of an aging workforce. SS retirement age is fine for someone like me that sits on their ass at a computer for work but it's a different ballgame for someone that depends on providing their physical labor. There's also another part which is the loss of certain job types (manufacturing/construction) and someone that's in their 50's and most likely not going back to school to find a job in another field.

There are some numbers showing younger folks joining disability but once again...probably associated with other factors like workman's comp being chiseled away and the need for health insurance after a workplace injury. I know in Florida Gov Scott has pretty much destroyed workman's comp and our state employ's a lot of blue collar manual labor types.

This is what happens when you deregulate and believe that companies that make tons of profits off of someone's labor is no longer responsible for them. We all subsidize that cheap labor with no benefits.
 
?..

And how high someone can lift their leg tells us what exactly about their ability to sit in a chair and complete paperwork? Either way, often back pain is preventable and those "physical limitations" ....

I was just giving an example that back pain from certain diseases such as severe spinal stenosis is not enough to qualify one for
SSDI unless they also have a number of other physical limitations such as those I described for physical labor.
Other tests would need to be done to see if the person could sit a desk long enough to do paperwork.
 
Back
Top Bottom