Really? Did the federal program create the Missouri poor?
Without the back stop from the Federal government, what would happen to Missourians on welfare?
Your blaming the federal government from stepping in to ensure that Missourians who are disabled receive minimal benefits? But not blaming the Missouri state government for failing to train them well enough that they can find employment? Or alternatively, for not raising enough taxes in Missouri to be able to adequately support its poor and infirm at some minimal level?

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:

Alternatively One could say its a case of a State not being able to cope adequately with its poor, and finding a bureaucratic way of dumping the problem on the federal Government.
That this is a red state, reaching out for assistance to more prosperous blue states, should be the obvious take away.

No Ricky, the obvious take away is that the federal government needs to get its act together. The liberal agenda political take away is to blame it on red states because your cognitive dissonance prevents you from acknowledging the obvious take away.

Boom! Now . . .

So I'll ask the key question again that the three of you have avoided.
Where is someone who has high school education, over the age of 55, with some physical infirmities, in a one industry town , going to find work? You seem to think that this move to disability is ending the initiative of people like this...
If there are jobs galore that they are avoiding then, yes, it is...

So, you've established that the 25% increase in back/tissue disability claims is in people above 55 years of age?

You might think this is a particularly instructive segment:

In Hale County, there was one guy whose name was mentioned in almost every story about becoming disabled: Dr. Perry Timberlake. I began to wonder if he was the reason so many people in Hale County are on disability. Maybe he was running some sort of disability scam, referring tons of people into the program.

After sitting in the waiting room of his clinic several mornings in a row, I met Dr. Timberlake. It turns out, there is nothing shifty about him. He is a doctor in a very poor place where pretty much every person who comes into his office tells him they are in pain.

"We talk about the pain and what it’s like," he says. "I always ask them, 'What grade did you finish?'"

What grade did you finish, of course, is not really a medical question. But Dr. Timberlake believes he needs this information in disability cases because people who have only a high school education aren't going to be able to get a sit-down job.

Dr. Timberlake is making a judgment call that if you have a particular back problem and a college degree, you're not disabled. Without the degree, you are.

I find that insane. Here's why: whether you are "disabled" or not is not dependent upon your education. To put it another way, why should everyone else be forced to support someone for life because they failed to get an education?

Now, if you want to say there should be a support system in place for a time while they go to school, that is a different matter. But, two people with the same injury cannot have two separate disability outcomes based on their education.

The disability rolls are growing because it's easier to collect disability than to work at a job you'd rather not have.

I'd love for you (rickyp) to prove this:

Americans seem to spend an inordinate amount of money making sure that people aren't stealing the lavish amounts that welfare and other social benefits pay.

How much money do we spend policing welfare benefits? Go ahead. Make your case.

Anyway, the basic question is, if you didn't have these disability and welfare benefits, would the unemployed and the poor suddenly become employed and well off?

Who says they will be "well off?" I call "straw man."

Is Missouri a "red state"? Just because a state votes for a Republican president, and all the other offices are Democatically held, you call it a red?

[url]http://enr.sos.mo.gov/ENR/Views/TabularData.aspx?TabView=StateRaces^Federal%20/%20Statewide%20Races^011656688155[/url]

Ray Jay wrote:Sure, but when times are good the government is flush and no one feels any urgency to make cuts. You'll hear the left say something like: "how can you cut benefits when the government is no longer in fiscal crisis?".

Well, in that case, let straw men lefty quotes rule your decision-making process!

Besides, during the last 'boom' (since the early 90s recovery, as the 2001 blip was more of a pause than a real recession) who was running the Federal government - just the 'left'? Bush was President for 7 years before the crash. The Senate was Majority Republican Controlled from 95-01 and 03-07 (with Cheney holding the casting vote during the 50-50 split 01-03). The House was Republican controlled through the whole of 95-07.

Clearly they did nothing with this power during the good times (holding all three for 4 years, two of the three for 12 years and the executive for 7 years) simply because they were scared of what 'the left' would say.

That's fair. Every dollar spent by the government (whether it is for ethanol, equipment, health care, the alleged disabled, mohair, foreign aid) develops a constituency. There are massive forces at work that prevent spending cuts in good times and bad. In the UK you have to balance the budget which forces the discussion. In the US, we just print more money so we don't have to make hard choices.

fate

Here's why: whether you are "disabled" or not is not dependent upon your education

.

If you are only qualified to do manual labour, and you are physically incapable of the tasks required, you aren't able to do the work...
If you can sit and work, don't need to lift heavy objects or wield tools ... you need not be physically disabled from doing your work. It depends on what you were qualified to do before the disability...

But, two people with the same injury cannot have two separate disability outcomes based on their education.

Of course they can. Before the injury what were they capable of doing, and how has their injury affected that capability?
Consider whether someone could make a living whilst being a quadriplegic, requiring a computer with a special interface to voice communicate? With a high school education no. What would you be doing of special value?
As a respected PHD in advanced physics, sure... You might be advancing the next theory on the beginnings of everything..or dark matter.

Perhaps the greatest reason that more are going on disability is that when they do they gain health insurance. Which they wouldn't if they worked at a minimum wage job. Its a pretty miserable choice to make, but if the insecurity that comes from a lack of medical insurance forces some into the choice. (Below is from the NPR piece Fate)...
.

But disability has also become a de facto welfare program for people without a lot of education or job skills. But it wasn't supposed to serve this purpose; it's not a retraining program designed to get people back onto their feet. Once people go onto disability, they almost never go back to work. Fewer than 1 percent of those who were on the federal program for disabled workers at the beginning of 2011 have returned to the workforce since then, one economist told me.

People who leave the workforce and go on disability qualify for Medicare, the government health care program that also covers the elderly. They also get disability payments from the government of about $13,000 a year. This isn't great. But if your alternative is a minimum wage job that will pay you at most $15,000 a year, and probably does not include health insurance, disability may be a better option.

But going on disability means you will not work, you will not get a raise, you will not get whatever meaning people get from work. Going on disability means, assuming you rely only on those disability payments, you will be poor for the rest of your life. That's the deal. And it's a deal 14 million Americans have signed up for.

rickyp wrote:fate

Here's why: whether you are "disabled" or not is not dependent upon your education

.

If you are only qualified to do manual labour, and you are physically incapable of the tasks required, you aren't able to do the work...

How much manual labor has Nancy Pelosi ever done?

We live in an economy that is more and more service-oriented. I know a guy who just started at $16 with virtually zero skills--as a customer service rep.

So, frankly, your argument is . . . specious.

But, two people with the same injury cannot have two separate disability outcomes based on their education.

Of course they can. Before the injury what were they capable of doing, and how has their injury affected that capability?

Um, maybe the word "can" confused you.

It's more about the justice angle. Two people have the same injury. They should not receive disparate treatment--or, are you suddenly opposed to the 14th Amendment being over-applied?

Consider whether someone could make a living whilst being a quadriplegic, requiring a computer with a special interface to voice communicate? With a high school education no. What would you be doing of special value?
As a respected PHD in advanced physics, sure... You might be advancing the next theory on the beginnings of everything..or dark matter.

That is a worthy example of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Since most of what we're dealing with are back/muscular injuries (that's the biggest area of "growth"), what I cited--tech support is a perfectly reasonable way to make a living.

rickyp wrote:Perhaps the greatest reason that more are going on disability is that when they do they gain health insurance. Which they wouldn't if they worked at a minimum wage job. Its a pretty miserable choice to make, but if the insecurity that comes from a lack of medical insurance forces some into the choice. (Below is from the NPR piece Fate)...
.

But disability has also become a de facto welfare program for people without a lot of education or job skills. But it wasn't supposed to serve this purpose; it's not a retraining program designed to get people back onto their feet. Once people go onto disability, they almost never go back to work. Fewer than 1 percent of those who were on the federal program for disabled workers at the beginning of 2011 have returned to the workforce since then, one economist told me.

Bold added to help you.

Disability has become a welfare program.

It's not supposed to serve that function.

Therefore, there is something wrong with it that should be fixed.

That fact has NOTHING to do with healthcare.

Ray Jay wrote:That's fair. Every dollar spent by the government (whether it is for ethanol, equipment, health care, the alleged disabled, mohair, foreign aid) develops a constituency. There are massive forces at work that prevent spending cuts in good times and bad. In the UK you have to balance the budget which forces the discussion. In the US, we just print more money so we don't have to make hard choices.

Don't know where you got that idea from. We have a sovereign curremcy and can get the BoE to print money. They are doing it, in fact, through Quantitative Easing.

And we have deficit budgets too. The one unveiled last week will give us a deficit of about £120bn, 8% of GDP.

And our government are heavily cutting welfare, and those claiming disability are among the targets. Even people who are dying of cancer are being graded as fit for work (as was a guy who was having a heart attack during the assessment).

fate

Since most of what we're dealing with are back/muscular injuries (that's the biggest area of "growth"), what I cited--tech support is a perfectly reasonable way to make a living.

I'm sure all those former miners and mill workers in West Virginia are well qualified to serve as Apple geniuses.
If these people don't have this welfare program, which I agree is what it is, what do you think they'd do? They are manual workers for the most part...

fate

That fact has NOTHING to do with healthcare.

According to your own source, which i quoted, it does.

People who leave the workforce and go on disability qualify for Medicare, the government health care program that also covers the elderly. They also get disability payments from the government of about $13,000 a year. This isn't great. But if your alternative is a minimum wage job that will pay you at most $15,000 a year, and probably does not include health insurance, disability may be a better option

How is disability not supposed to be a welfare programme?

rickyp wrote:fate

Since most of what we're dealing with are back/muscular injuries (that's the biggest area of "growth"), what I cited--tech support is a perfectly reasonable way to make a living.

I'm sure all those former miners and mill workers in West Virginia are well qualified to serve as Apple geniuses.

You are a walking and typing illustration of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

You really should read it.

I cited one (admittedly only one) person with NO skills who is now working customer support (not tech support) and started at $16/hr. I didn't mention he has a criminal record, but that would be true.

That company is hiring. All they want is a high school diploma. What part of that is too grand for you to grasp?

That fact has NOTHING to do with healthcare.

According to your own source, which i quoted, it does.

Either poor editing or dishonesty on your part. Do try to follow an argument, won't you. To repeat:

Disability has become a welfare program.

It's not supposed to serve that function.

Therefore, there is something wrong with it that should be fixed.

That fact has NOTHING to do with healthcare.

The fact that "there is something wrong" that needs to be fixed has NOTHING to do with healthcare. Disability is NOT supposed to act as a welfare program, but it does. That has NOTHING to do with healthcare no matter how many times you want to say it does.

Healthcare is a secondary issue. The primary one is that the program is not functioning as designed.

People who leave the workforce and go on disability qualify for Medicare, the government health care program that also covers the elderly. They also get disability payments from the government of about $13,000 a year. This isn't great. But if your alternative is a minimum wage job that will pay you at most $15,000 a year, and probably does not include health insurance, disability may be a better option

Disability ought not be "an option." One is either disabled or not; it's not a choice.

fate

Disability ought not be "an option." One is either disabled or not; it's not a choice

Why do you want to take away the freedom for some to choose to work? If it isn't a choice a person gets declared "Disabled" and they aren't allowed to work? Because that's the other side of your position. Government mandated disability.

But, this contradiction aside, why do you think this is such a wonderful choice being made? That somehow the choice of disability is remarkably attractive? The income is about $2,000 less than a minimum wage job. That's not exactly nirvana.

I'd bet, that may of those disabled people, if they had access to a universal health insurance plan, would work. even part time. There are rewards in working that go beyond pay. But if unpayable medical bills threaten, the secure route, disability and coverage under medicare makes more sense.
The system is wrong. But not the way you imagine... .

rickyp wrote:fate

Disability ought not be "an option." One is either disabled or not; it's not a choice

Why do you want to take away the freedom for some to choose to work? If it isn't a choice a person gets declared "Disabled" and they aren't allowed to work? Because that's the other side of your position. Government mandated disability.

But, this contradiction aside, why do you think this is such a wonderful choice being made?

Once again, your failure to grasp the English language is astounding.

Here's the current situation: Persons A and B both have the precise same injury. Person A has a college education and tech skills; Person B does not. The Doctor approves Person B's claim for disability; he denies Person A's request. The reason? Person B has no obvious ability to work.

I say that is unequal treatment under the Law. I say that is granting Person B money and permission to do nothing (potentially) for the rest of his life. It's possible that Person B is only in this situation because of a lack of initiative, not a lack of intelligence. However, whatever the reason, it is not right to grant B something and refuse A when they have precisely the same injuries.

So, it is a "choice." It is the government's (doctor's) choice who gets to go on the dole and who doesn't.

That somehow the choice of disability is remarkably attractive? The income is about $2,000 less than a minimum wage job. That's not exactly nirvana.

Actually, it is fairly attractive. Throw in food stamps, whatever other government benefits are available, and move to small town America . . . life is possible.

I'd bet, that may of those disabled people, if they had access to a universal health insurance plan, would work. even part time. There are rewards in working that go beyond pay. But if unpayable medical bills threaten, the secure route, disability and coverage under medicare makes more sense.
The system is wrong. But not the way you imagine... .

Well, Obamacare solved all that. Don't you know that premiums are going down? Costs are lower than ever? Insurance is mandatory, so all those concerns are a thing of the past. Your Man has solved that.

The real issue is: why is there a program (Disability) booming like this (growing disproportionately to population growth) and failing to be restricted in its scope to its original intent? It has nothing to do with healthcare; it's just that is your hobby horse and you ride it into every argument. I presume if we revisit the Invasion of Iraq you'll make that about healthcare as well.