1. You never answered my question, DF, on why programmes to assist the disabled are not intended as welfare. Is it down to another one of these things where American usage changes the meaning of a word?

2. I have posted already a series of reasons why disability may be rising more quickly than population. I note that you'd rather respond to ricky and put him down than to address those. Will you return to the sensible end of the debate sometime soon?

3. There is a fairly obvious link between disability and healthcare. Disabled people are more likely to need care. Healthcare may lead to someone becoming less disabled or even no longer disabled. Lack of healthcare or poor healthcare may lead to someone becoming disabled. Airily dismissing a link between the two doesn't make it disappear.

danivon wrote:1. You never answered my question, DF, on why programmes to assist the disabled are not intended as welfare.

If you believe Social Security is welfare, then you've got a good argument. Disability is administered under the SSI umbrella.

Disability is not intended as a substitute for work for those who simply don't wish to work (and there are plenty for whom "depression" is their "disability"). It is not simply a matter of need--one must also have a demonstrable inability to work.

2. I have posted already a series of reasons why disability may be rising more quickly than population. I note that you'd rather respond to ricky and put him down than to address those. Will you return to the sensible end of the debate sometime soon?

You asserted many things. You proved none. I don't have to bat down every cockamamie explanation you give for which you adduce no evidence. For example:

Secondly, the risks are greater in the older working age population, and the USA is seeing a statistical bulge of those due to the baby boom ending about 50 years ago.

So, that would explain this?

In 2007, 8.9 million people were on disability. Now that number is 10.7 million, a 20% jump in just five years.

Yes, the article points out the aging population. However, it also notes that there is no way that accounts for the increase.

So, when you want to gather some evidence and marshal it, let me know.

3. There is a fairly obvious link between disability and healthcare. Disabled people are more likely to need care. Healthcare may lead to someone becoming less disabled or even no longer disabled. Lack of healthcare or poor healthcare may lead to someone becoming disabled. Airily dismissing a link between the two doesn't make it disappear.

Apparently, someone has revoked your reading license as well. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop attacking an argument I'm not making.

My point is there is no justification for disparate treatment. If an injury prevents work, it does so without further qualification. It's not a matter of whether someone may be able to work another job because they're better equipped than someone else. An injury is either qualified for Disability benefits or it is not.

That has nothing to do with healthcare.

Please do address what I'm saying, not what you imagine me to say.

and when the government rewards people for choosing to be uneducated and stupid, then we get more and more of the same. It would seem Rickyp wants us to reward this system.

GMTom wrote:and when the government rewards people for choosing to be uneducated and stupid, then we get more and more of the same. It would seem Rickyp wants us to reward this system.

I know someone will object to "rewards," but it is true. If someone gets a permanent benefit based solely on bad choices, then guess what? See single moms and welfare.

Before I get home and have time to fully respond to your... ungenerous reply, I want to refer you to the part where you appeared to be claiming that healthcare was irrelevant. Just do you know that I can read perfectly well, thanks:

Doctor Fate wrote: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.

(my bolding).

danivon wrote:Before I get home and have time to fully respond to your... ungenerous reply, I want to refer you to the part where you appeared to be claiming that healthcare was irrelevant. Just do you know that I can read perfectly well, thanks:

Doctor Fate wrote: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.

(my bolding).

I was "ungenerous" because I've already answered that.

Doctor Fate wrote: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.

In other words, you want to argue that people are attracted to Disability because it offers healthcare.

I'm saying the problem exists BEFORE that consideration: Disability should not be a "choice." You are either injured and therefore incapable of working or you are not. So, healthcare is not a factor.

You can't say, "I need healthcare. Hmm, Disability looks like a good way to get it."

At least, you should not be able to go that route. You should be injured and unable to work, apply and get approved, and as a result of misfortune get healthcare. It ought not be a conscious choice.

Fate who declares some one disabled? Their medical doctor. He decides if their physical problems stop his patient from continuing to pursue his occupation....
Who is better equipped to make that judgement.?
Moreover, you would have someone find a new career after decades of employment in a manual job dependent on them being physically capable.
And you offer no evidence that there this transformation is possible, other than your 1 guy... Even your article offers that most of the retraining is "for show" and doesn't solve the dilemma of people in later life who see their occupations change due to the economy and business changes..
The options you think exist, aren't necessarily there...
This article looks at the reality of retraining and employment for all workers... Manual workers have the toughest time...
. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 27932.html

Tom

and when the government rewards people for choosing to be uneducated and stupid, then we get more and more of the same. It would seem Rickyp wants us to reward this system

I don't think of a disability pension as a reward. If its a reward its pretty miserable. It seems to offer meagre subsistence and because of its medical coverage, security.
These, "uneducated and stupid " people as you call them have often, based on the article Fate provided, worked decades. They paid taxes, and contributed to society working in occupations that required good honest hard working people like themselves. Now that they are no longer required, that the employment market has changed, now their limited education is a bad choice?
For themselves, and for their employers, for years the choice was okay.
I don't quite get your disdain for working people.
When the jobs dry up, through no fault of theirs, adapting is nigh impossible near the end of their working lives...
I agree that the disability program is a welfare program. So what? Many of these people will become homeless and starve without welfare.... Is letting them become homeless the solution. Or is it possible that society has a role to play in caring for the unfortunate people who had had hard times and ill health befall them? And care for them with a reasonable level of dignity.

You guys can keep going round and round. Until something new is introduced, I'm out. It's simple: it's called "disability" because you're supposed to be "disabled." Two people with the same "disability" should not get different results from the same doctor.

That is insane.

Doctor Fate wrote:I was "ungenerous" because I've already answered that.

No, you were being generally rude and obnoxious throughout. And a little disingenuous. ("ungenerous" and "disingenuous" should be read as classic British understatement).

Doctor Fate wrote: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.

This is what I had asked before, about this idea that benefits paid to people with the stated intention of being to allow them to maintain themselves at a time when they are not able to themselves is not 'welfare'.

I am not 'arguing' based on what taxes/insurance pays for it, or what law it was passed under, or anything like that. I am asking what you mean by 'welfare'

Here's what I mean (and by 'I', I mean 'a standard English dictionary) by 'welfare':

Oxford Dictionary wrote: noun
[mass noun]

1 the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group:
they don’t give a damn about the welfare of their families

2 statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need:
the protection of rights to education, housing, and welfare
[*] chiefly North American financial support given to those who are unemployed or otherwise in need:
critics feared an increase in inequalities in the provision of welfare

Seems to me that it matches not only the second definition, it also comes under the more specific North American aspect of that definition, as as far as I can see, disability comes under 'otherwise in need'.

In other words, you want to argue that people are attracted to Disability because it offers healthcare.

That is not my argument. My argument is that healthcare affects disability, and vice-versa. You appear to only want to use the terms in the meaning of 'the US programmes', and not the more general, but even so, there is a relation.

And yes, I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that someone who is out of work, who is not 100% fit, and finds that they may be able to claim a disability benefit as opposed to unemployment benefit might be also attracted by the idea that they would be less likely to lose it after a period, and associated benefits including access to healthcare.

At least, you should not be able to go that route. You should be injured and unable to work, apply and get approved, and as a result of misfortune get healthcare. It ought not be a conscious choice.

I am not saying that's how it works. I think what you are ignoring is the idea that disability is not a simple on-off state, like pregnancy. It is more of a spectrum, and as we know, some conditions may have subjective measures of how severe they are. So, it's not like a completely able person 'chooses' to define themselves as disabled (and if they do, it is fraud), it is more that a lot of people who are not 100% able and are finding it hard to get work that they can actually do as a result in part of their physical/mental restrictions would look at alternatives to time-limited out of work benefits.

I still haven't addressed the main objection I have to your earlier post, which is in the selective quoting and clear straw man creation, but I will get back to you.

But in the meantime, please do not argue with me as if I am making the same arguments as ricky, unless I explicitly do.

danivon wrote:This is what I had asked before, about this idea that benefits paid to people with the stated intention of being to allow them to maintain themselves at a time when they are not able to themselves is not 'welfare'.

I am not 'arguing' based on what taxes/insurance pays for it, or what law it was passed under, or anything like that. I am asking what you mean by 'welfare'

Here's what I mean (and by 'I', I mean 'a standard English dictionary) by 'welfare':

Oxford Dictionary wrote: noun
[mass noun]

1 the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group:
they don’t give a damn about the welfare of their families

2 statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need:
the protection of rights to education, housing, and welfare
[*] chiefly North American financial support given to those who are unemployed or otherwise in need:
critics feared an increase in inequalities in the provision of welfare

Seems to me that it matches not only the second definition, it also comes under the more specific North American aspect of that definition, as as far as I can see, disability comes under 'otherwise in need'.

However, while you're fighting for a definition, it's not terribly relevant.

Welfare is a State program. Disability is a Federal program.

And, whether it's welfare or not, I really don't care. Call it "hamburger" if you want.

In other words, you want to argue that people are attracted to Disability because it offers healthcare.

That is not my argument. My argument is that healthcare affects disability, and vice-versa. You appear to only want to use the terms in the meaning of 'the US programmes', and not the more general, but even so, there is a relation.

And yes, I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that someone who is out of work, who is not 100% fit, and finds that they may be able to claim a disability benefit as opposed to unemployment benefit might be also attracted by the idea that they would be less likely to lose it after a period, and associated benefits including access to healthcare.

I must be terribly unclear.

Disability ought not be a "choice" in the sense that one may have steak OR fish OR a salad. It's not "Gee, I can't find a job, maybe I'll make ends meet on disability." Well, it shouldn't be.

You get injured. You see a doctor. He says, "That's it mate. Your working days are done." That's disability.

This is not disability: "You're injured? Hmm, what kind of education do you have? Job skills? That's no good . . . looks like I'll have to declare you 'disabled' wink, wink, nudge nudge."

It is fairly clear, per that article, that the latter has come into fashion.

I am not saying that's how it works. I think what you are ignoring is the idea that disability is not a simple on-off state, like pregnancy. It is more of a spectrum, and as we know, some conditions may have subjective measures of how severe they are. So, it's not like a completely able person 'chooses' to define themselves as disabled (and if they do, it is fraud), it is more that a lot of people who are not 100% able and are finding it hard to get work that they can actually do as a result in part of their physical/mental restrictions would look at alternatives to time-limited out of work benefits.

Let's say you're right. In my opinion, that is entirely too subjective and would lead to a ballooning roll of disabled folks--like we have.

I always thought definitions were important to you as well, Danivon.

Exclusive control vs Sovereignty...

DF wants a fixed definition with regard to disability--I am not sure that would be fair. Like that judge who is talking about his ailments and the fact that he was not disabled but some in front of him with the same ailments was saying that he was disabled. Is that judge in the same boat with regard to his health problems with someone who has been laid off in a milll is with regard to their ability to work? First, there are the physical requirements of the job. If you're college educated you are much more likely to have a job that does not tax you too physically. So someone with a high school degree is going to be less likely to be able to physically do the jobs that are available to them.
There is also the fact that a person might be able to sustain a lot of pain, discomfort, stress, etc. if the is rewarding or pays enough. You can take a lot of painkillers to do a job you like but are we going to require the 50 year old laid off from a middle-class job to take painkillers to do a physically taxing minimum wage job? There was one guy who had a heart attack who got disability who said he would have continued to work in the mill. Would we really object if a guy with a heart attack took disability from a job requiring a lot of heavy lifting? Probably not. But I would bet that a lot of guys would stick it out even with such disabilities to maintain a good job that supports their families.
Of course we have had an explosion of chronic diseases associated with obesity over the past 50 years. I suspect that has a lot to do with higher disability claims. But most people will not choose disability, even if they quaify, if they have a good job. But are we really going to insist that a middle-class 50ish worker with back pain, or diabetes, or heart problems or a combination of them all, laid off from a middle=class job, take a physically taxing job that pays minimum wage? That seems cruel to me.
People will adapt to our situation. My feeling is rather than judge these people as having the moral failing of not being willing to work and wanting handouts, we should create a better situation for them. Things have not looked too good for workers in the U.S. with high school educations. Now we want to take their $15K a year and free medical? If it is outright fraud, yes, that is wrong and those people should be kicked off of disability. But as Danivon pointed out you can't just come up with a fixed definition of disability and I suspect that probably 98% of the people on disability believe they deserve it.

Preferably, we would have an economy that would produce decent jobs for these folks on disability who could probably do some jobs. And certainly if someone is in their 20s or 30s we want to see a pretty severe disability before we start sending them checks. But someone who has health problems in their 40s or 50s and there are not any decent jobs they can do, well, I am going to cut them a little slack.

bbauska wrote:I always thought definitions were important to you as well, Danivon.

Exclusive control vs Sovereignty...

So you and DF think the dictionary definition of a word is less important than the illusory 'State' v 'Federal' distinction.

DF. I asked you not to do that - argue against me as if I am making the points that ricky is. I have not sought to argue that education level is relevant to disability. Shoddy, tawdry, and you hate it if someone does it to you.

Dr. Fate wrote:

However, while you're fighting for a definition, it's not terribly relevant.

Welfare is a State program. Disability is a Federal program.

And, whether it's welfare or not, I really don't care. Call it "hamburger" if you want.

Not terribly relevant? You've got to be kidding. This is a debate; words, and their meanings, matter. If we can't agree on definitions, it's all just noise.

Why? You said:

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.

A nice, concise, clear, logical argument. However,

If Danivon is arguing (and I believe he is) that Disability IS a welfare program, then here is the consequence if he is correct:

Disability has become a welfare program (It always was one);

It's not supposed to serve that function (yes it is);

Therefore, there is something wrong with it that should be fixed (therefore there is nothing wrong with it that requires fixing).

The logic is inescapable. Perhaps you don't agree with Danivon's characterization of Disability as Welfare; Fine, I think that he has invited an explanation why the connotations in the U.S. context invalidate the comparison. But that's the point of his question: debate it; don't dismiss it as "irrelevant."

Wow this topic got really stupid!
The issue is about the exploding number of disability claims and how easy it is for someone to make such a claim. People are obviously taking advantage of the system, it is broken so DF suggested it should be fixed, that seems to make a lot of sense to me, to most of the world this would make sense (you would think)
But along come some incredibly liberal positions about disability being a "choice"? ...really?


This simply shows the widening divide between left and right, honestly, this isn't really a "right" side position DF took, it's right smack in the middle yet the far left takes it and runs, I gotta say this government can do everything position is simply unsustainable.