Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most I know on ss dis are younger lazy people. Perhaps the ''baby boomer's'' worked for 40 plus yrs to raise disrespectful punks like yourself and are too busted up to work any more.
Then you're experience (not surprising) does not match the reality of the situation AT ALL.
Here's some hard facts for you:
There were appx. 2 million people on SSDI between the ages of ZERO and 44.
45 - 49 is 1.1 million people.
The cohort between 50-59 ALONE is 2 million people!
60-64.... even worse.... is 2.4 million.
Above that, retirement or death so the number drops to 500k.
Most of these so called disabilities these people have are minor and they are able to function, I am sure they are able to work some type of menial job and in most cases they would earn more money than they do on SS dis. I stopped at the local watering hole one day last week, I was looking for someone, there were 4 people there and guess what, 3 out of the 4 are on SS dis. If they can hang at the bar and drink, I am sure they can mop a floor or flip a burger. The fourth one does not work either, but I'm not sure what his gig is. I bug them all the time telling them they should be working and the answer I get is, "I'm looking". They have been looking for years, I am sure there is something they are qualified for.
They may very well be qualified to work, but it's hard to get a job, even for recent college graduates. So what luck is someone with a spotty resume and frequent gaps in employment going to have?
I think people go too far in determining who is legitimately disabled. I think some level of compassion needs to be involved. It needs to not just be whether a person is capable of performing some type of work, but whether they are able to reasonably function in society.
I mean you can't use Stephen Hawking as an example to declare someone else capable of work. Hawking is a brilliant physicist and he is able to formulate his ideas without needing any of his limbs. That doesn't mean we should stop thinking of paralyzed people as disabled.
Depression may in fact disable someone. Just because most people are able to function even while clinically depressed, doesn't mean an individual's brain chemistry might not be so messed up they they are permanently severely depressed and unable to function.
In my opinion the criteria shouldn't be whether a person is so disabled that they are unable to perform any work at all. It should be whether they are disabled enough that having to work would destroy their quality of life. I mean you don't need arms to be a Walmart greeter, so someone without arms is technically able to work. But we need to use some common sense. That person, even if able to perform some menial labor, is clearly disabled and can't function in society. Same with someone with severe chronic fatigue syndrome or chemical depression that doesn't respond to medication, etc.
Well then, I guess for people with disabilities who cannot work or cannot find work this safety net is well deserving. I mean, as long as employers can just say "We chose to hire X instead" and not admitting that they don't want people with disabilities working for them, even if they are fully capable, what else are we supposed to do?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.