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.
It took years for my mother to get SSDI for her crippling arthritis. Years and finally a call to Congressman Owens before she was approved.
Generally a congressman can not alter the verdict. However, having a Congressman eyeball the process on your mother's behalf is a plus. Your congressman would not jeopardize their reputation by advocating a fraudulent SSDI applicant. I too was forced to contact my congressman and his staff.
You are wrong on this. It is SS that is easier to acquire. SS is welfare, SSDI is Social Security Disability Income in which the worker pays for and can lose if they stop working for X amount of years. It is hard to qualify for SSDI unless you have a verifiable terminal condition, was a recent worker. I've seen first hand how difficult it is for a working disable, very ill person to qualify for SSDI. Not easy in the slightest and for most can take years to acquire.
SS is welfare? Huh, who knew. I thought it was insurance. I guess if it's welfare, I can stop contributing?
But it is a hallmark of right-wing perspective to be aggressively callous toward those most vulnerable in society, so the rhetoric is to be expected.
It's also a trademark of the left to drag out the "they're trying to kill old people, and make people STARVE" rhetoric whenever the adults in the room try and reign in spending. Maybe the Dems should have dealt with the waste, fraud and abuse in those programs when they had the chance?
It's a noted fact that applications for SSDI spike when we have recessions and increased unemployment.
Relaxing the definition of disability has also helped millions more get on the rolls.
Strange, I have been working for ODAR for 26 years, writing the disability decisions for administrative law judges, and I have not seen where the definition of disability has been 'relaxed'. Indeed, it is the very same definition since at least 1988 (when I was hired, and well before that).
Of course, what has happened in the past 20 years is the opposite: for instance, if substance abuse (alcoholism, drug addiction) is material to a finding of disability, then the claimant is denied benefits. The 'obesity' listing was removed years ago: one no longer can be found disabled solely on the basis of obesity, regardless of weight. Children can no longer be found disabled for 'oppositional defiant disorders'.
Of course, the number of those receiving disability is increasing, in part due to the aging of the population. Many of my cases now concern people in their 50s (or even early 60s) which makes it a bit harder to deny benefits if they have valid medical conditions and can't perform their previous work.
I will admit to at least one way that the definition of disability has been 'relaxed': by allowing some vague disorders to be 'medically determinable impairments'.
For instance: fibromyalgia. Used to be, we would say (during the evaluation process) that a person claiming fibromyalgia did not have a 'medically determinable' impairment, for it could not be substantiated by objective diagnostic tests (rather, it was usually diagnosed after all other impairments, including depression, were ruled out). Rather, the diagnosis is made by the 'trigger' or 'tender' point tests, whereas a physician touches certain parts of the patient's body, and if said patient said 'I feel pain', then the diagnosis is made!
We ignored such tests, for they clearly rely upon the credibility of the patient. Yet, in the past few years, some Authorities have concluded that it is a real disorder, and so we (ODAR, or Office of Disability Adjudication and Review) have been told that we must treat this as a medically determinable impairment (see Social Security Ruling 12-2p). Most judges I know still ignore it, but the State DDS (Disability Determination Service, or something like that) may well find more people disabled due to this condition.
I will note that over the past two decades the budget for conducting cessation reviews had been decimated, hence people stayed on disability for much longer than they were entitled to. Now, money has been forthcoming for more cessation cases. Oddly, I am the only one in my office that recalls how to write up such cases, so they mainly flow to me (although we recently had training on how to write the cases, so the other writers are getting up to speed).
We have also had more money for fraud investigations. For years we only had two or three such investigators for all of Texas. That number is slowly increasing, resulting in more people being busted (like one case I had, where the disabled person was observed to be out water skiing; he had claimed to have a bad back). Such reports are usually entertaining.
I do wish that Congress would put some type of limit on how long one may receive disability benefits (save for those chronic conditions such as mental retardation/intellectual disability, etc).
Anyone can apply for SSDI, anyone. Most are denied, and that means most 90%+. Just because the people applied does not mean millions where added to SSDI rolls. Many of those that were added were denied benefits for years, and should not have been denied. One other thing to realize is boomers are getting older and many are falling apart as humans unfortunately do.
I'm glad that SSDI is available to those that need it; but in my line of work in a very poor state - so MANY people were disabled for one reason or another. Back problems, depression, ADD, inability to read; it was sad and depressing. Did I think they were all deserving? No, I did not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise
It's also a trademark of the left to drag out the "they're trying to kill old people, and make people STARVE" rhetoric whenever the adults in the room try and reign in spending. Maybe the Dems should have dealt with the waste, fraud and abuse in those programs when they had the chance?
We won, you lost. Deal with it.
Unlike the right and their 'death panels'. Remember those?
And the SSDI program is RAMPANT with fraud with so many people seeking this to tide them over .
Yes those on SSDI should get 20% cuts. Let them go look for a job instead.
Yes, SSID enrollment is sky rocketing. Over 14 million people are on it today.
For example, in Hale County Alabama, 1 in 4 working age adults is on disability. SSID is essentially a replacement/ alternative for welfare except the pay out amount is relative to the amount you were earning prior to the claim (so there are many folks who have 'retired' on Fed funded disability (used loosely) 'earning' 50K or more a year. Statistics show SSID rising correlates directly to our recent reduction in those receiving welfare benefits. The States don't seem to mind since the funding for SSID originates from the FED rather than the States.
Part of the problem is the aging population but many people that were out of work the last several years used this as a safety net. There are many people gaming the system and plenty of lawyers to help them out.
Excellent special from 60 minutes on the disability lawyer from Stanville, KY.
No matter what the cause the system is broken and needs to be addressed, either reduce benefits or increase donations, just freezing transfers does not address the core issues.
But it is a hallmark of right-wing perspective to be aggressively callous toward those most vulnerable in society, so the rhetoric is to be expected.
My sibling is a "gatekeeper" in the medical profession in terms of evaluating people for disability.
They see a constant stream of people shopping for someone to either prescribe them pills they don't medically need or certify their faked disability. (They've been working in their field for over 25 years and can spot the fakes easily)
The government has a duty to taxpayers to make sure that the program works as INTENDED and not be milked dry by cheats.
But it is a hallmark of right-wing perspective to be aggressively callous toward those most vulnerable in society, so the rhetoric is to be expected.
Got that wrong big time.
Calous disregard is reserved for the manner in which federal programs are managed. The institutional waste and inefficiency deprive the most deserving of limited funds. the most vulnerable are the co-lateral damage of bureaucrats whose bonuses are linked to accomplishments other than stated or percieved in the conception of the programs.
Unfortunately the taste political bickering by the myopic, ensure federal programs continuue to fail the intended beneficiaries.
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.
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.
