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.
If a person is disabled due to something they did to themselves, should they be eligible to draw disability?
It depends if the damage to themselves was done intentional and whether it is work-related or not.
Unfortunately lotsa stupid accidents happen while on the job.
Like (truck) drivers causing an accident because they didn't get enough rest (because of not being able to rest for whatever reason).
Originally Posted by SuSuSushi It depends if the damage to themselves was done intentional and whether it is work-related or not.
Unfortunately lotsa stupid accidents happen while on the job.
Like (truck) drivers causing an accident because they didn't get enough rest (because of not being able to rest for whatever reason).
Mmm, no...I'll give work-related incidents a pass, unless the person was drinking or doing drugs on the job and that caused it.
What brought up this question is a fellow employee who said his brother is on permanent disability due to the ravages of a former drug addiction. Obviously, taking drugs is a voluntarily detrimental act to the drug-user, and it kind of chaps me that someone like that gets to live off my tax dollars forever, after being an idiot. I'd also throw into this lot people who have eaten themselves so fat that they are now drawing disability.
People who eat themselves to the point they are so fat they cannot work and suffer the various maladies from their over eating do not deserve life long public money. Drug & alcohol abusers are the same.
I get the argument- it's all due to "addiction" and addictions are stronger than we are and that is the root cause... And to a certain extent, I do think there is some truth to the argument. I like the idea of a one time 1-year SS disability for people who's addictions puished them over the top. They get one full year to lose weight, get off drugs, get off booze... this helps them help themselves. But a life long SS disability for addictions, to me, is way over the top.
But then there's false illnesses like fibromyalgia (or however it's spelled)...
Originally Posted by SuSuSushi Well eating disorders can be a psychological disorder (or at least caused by stress) so it isn't always a conscious choice.
I understand what you're saying, and I agree there are some people who have medical disorders (that are not their fault) that cause their obesity. But these people are easily distinguished from those who simply and frankly can't stop shoving food into their face.
And I'm not just thinking of obesity when I discuss this subject. Drug users, people who do something so stupid that they disable themselves (the guys who jump onto trains and ride them just for fun come to mind) et cetera...
These are the ones that I feel annoyed that we pay for them...it's like people who commit insurance fraud. They cost us all!
"What research has discovered is that a malfunction in the central nervous system of FM patients causes disordered sensory processing which leads to pain amplification."
"After years of being told “It’s all in your head,” patients finally have proof that Fibromyalgia is a very real, physical illness. Research studies have revealed a number of biological abnormalities"
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLAZER PROPHET
My opinion is the obvious- no, they should not.
People who eat themselves to the point they are so fat they cannot work and suffer the various maladies from their over eating do not deserve life long public money. Drug & alcohol abusers are the same.
I get the argument- it's all due to "addiction" and addictions are stronger than we are and that is the root cause... And to a certain extent, I do think there is some truth to the argument. I like the idea of a one time 1-year SS disability for people who's addictions puished them over the top. They get one full year to lose weight, get off drugs, get off booze... this helps them help themselves. But a life long SS disability for addictions, to me, is way over the top.
But then there's false illnesses like fibromyalgia (or however it's spelled)...
Where do you draw the line? Someone who injured themselves while bungee jumping or skydiving? What about someone injured in a car accident while speeding or running a red light? Couldn't that be considered reckless behavior?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLAZER PROPHET
But then there's false illnesses like fibromyalgia (or however it's spelled)...
You spelled it right, but you got the "false illness" part wrong.
Where do you draw the line? Someone who injured themselves while bungee jumping or skydiving? What about someone injured in a car accident while speeding or running a red light? Couldn't that be considered reckless behavior?
Yes, it could. And if one engages in reckless behavior and permanently injures him or herself, why should the public have to pay them for it?
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.
It depends if the damage to themselves was done intentional and whether it is work-related or not. 
