Unfit for Work

Social Security Disability is a mess. Whether or not you get approved seems to have more to do with whether you and your doctor have crossed all Ts and dotted all Is in the paperwork than with whether or not you're truly disabled.

I would not make the system adversarial for three reasons. First, if you did, every claimant would have to hire a lawyer or face almost certain defeat. Lawyers should be handling appeals, not taking every case from the get-go. Second, the Social Security Administration would have to hire thousands of lawyers to defend the government. It would be a huge undertaking and very expensive. Third, the hearing process would likely shift from being fairly quick and informal affairs into being full-scale litigation (or something similar to it), which would boost everybody's costs and make the process take much longer.

Instead, they should revamp the eligibility criteria and make it more flexible. The idea that a claimant has to be totally incapable of any kind of work to draw benefits is a crock, and everybody knows it. Plenty of people who could do some kind of job receive benefits. Furthermore, it seems that the less qualified and skilled you are, the easier it is to be deemed "disabled." As the article suggested, someone with a herniated disc may not be able to do manual labor and get declared disabled, but a professional with the same injury likely would not be declared disabled. That’s silly.

They need to come up with more options for the judge. If someone is truly messed up (paralysis, missing both arms and/or both legs, etc.), give them lifetime benefits. That person probably isn't going to be able to adapt to any kind of serious work no matter how much he wants it, and I don't think anyone would begrudge them getting benefits. If a paralyzed guy does somehow figure out how to work a full-time job, he’s a fuckin’ genius. Let him keep his benefits anyway.

However, we need another option for persons who are unable to work in their current field but could reasonably find work in another field if their qualifications improved. We shouldn't just presume that someone's station in life and qualifications for employment are static and can't improve. Those persons should get benefits for a time but be required to attend a job training program that is geared toward labor market needs as a condition of receiving benefits.

I’m not suggesting that a construction worker who’s suffering from back problems should have to become a CPA or a brain surgeon. However, there's no reason why he shouldn't be required to pick up some basic writing and/or computer skills that might enable him to work a desk job of some kind. If he has a loss of earning capacity (meaning his new skill can’t make him the same money his old job could make him), I don’t have a problem with him getting a partial benefit. If a guy was making $15/hour doing construction and now can only make $10 answering phones, don’t make him choose between working for $10 per hour and losing benefits or keeping his benefits and doing nothing. If he takes the $10/hour job, let him keep some of his benefits to get him closer in income to what he was making before. I’d rather him get some benefits while working than sit on his *** and get his full benefit.

Just my thoughts.
 
It isn't always so simple. I have a cousin with lupus who was a high level advertising executive. The stress of her job caused her disease to flare up. Now she is on disability. She is very intelligent so she should be able to take a less stressful job and get off disability. But how can a judge or even a physician know if such a job would keep her lupus from flaring up? Personally, I think she should be taken off disability but really it is just based on my feeling that people should be self sufficient and not rely on being provided for by others.
 
This may be for me the most difficult issue to only support one side.

I know way too many people who could do work but think what the heck i can make nearly as much not working.

Mrd you example is a good one, in the case of the disabled person who can no longer be do the work before but is willing to work period I 'd be inclined to make up the difference

BUT where does it end? What about the 55 y o mid level manager making good money whose company went belly up.? Through no fault of their own they are now unemployable in their own field, much like someone who got physically sorta hurt.

Those jobs are gone forever which is a kind of disability. If they are willing to take a job making half should we subsidize?
 
Everyone should have the incentive to work. The government should not provide disincentives to work.

So no, a 55 year old that is educated, experienced, and capable of work is not disabled and he should be eligible for a lifeline to help him get up and moving but not a an income stream that tells him he can just opt out of the work force for good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top