http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 33288.html

An interesting article on the growth of food stamps. It is similar to disability in that it is a federal program, although the States administer many of the rules. As a result the States have liberalized the rules -- which has been allowed by Obama's legislation in 2009-- so that their citizens can benefit more from the program, which eases the burden for the States. It's an interesting dynamic when the feds pay, but the states can set the rules.

Rudewalrus wrote: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.

Nope, I'm not kidding. My point--as you quoted above--is that Disability is administered by the Federal government under the auspices of the Social Security Administration.

Welfare is administered by individual States.

So . . . we must divine the intent of Disability. Was it to act as a safety net for the undereducated? Was it to take the place of Welfare?

No. It was designed to help those who, because of injury, were no longer able to work.

Again, we live in an increasingly service-oriented economy. Is that true?

There are many, many jobs that do not require physical labor AND do not require college educations. Now, do they pay $100K a year? Probably not.

Does that mean we should condone a system that provides disparate outcomes, even thumb-on-the-scale, blindfold-removed judgments?

I don't think so.

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);

I don't agree.

Don't we all have the ability to buy disability insurance? Is it the government's responsibility to pick up our slack? Should we all cancel our life insurance policies and wait for the big check from Uncle Sam on that count too?

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."

He can't cite a dictionary as proof. If he wants to prove it's a Welfare program, he'll have to use government sources. I don't know of another "welfare program" that requires you to have been working and paying Social Security taxes in order to obtain a benefit.

In any event, the main point, which some want to obscure, is that the program is ballooning in its costs. It seems this is due, in part, to some people receiving benefits who should not be receiving them.

Ray Jay wrote:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323699704578328601204933288.html

An interesting article on the growth of food stamps. It is similar to disability in that it is a federal program, although the States administer many of the rules. As a result the States have liberalized the rules -- which has been allowed by Obama's legislation in 2009-- so that their citizens can benefit more from the program, which eases the burden for the States. It's an interesting dynamic when the feds pay, but the states can set the rules.

While we're told all the time that "the economy is improving," Food Stamps has increased by 70% over the past 5 years.

Liberals tut-tut the idea that the Administration is building a culture of dependency. That's because they are more than willing to ignore the evidence.

Rudewalrus - thanks for explaining. A shame that DF seems more interested in opposing for the sake of it.

I was asking what was meant by the expression that disability was not intended to be welfare. Of course, what I didn't realise is that DF actually meant "Disability" and "Welfare", and in those specifically only the actual programmes.

The reason I cited a dictionary is that I was explaining my interpretation of the non-proper noun "welfare". As far as I am concerned, programmes that are set up to provide an income for people who are disabled are a form of welfare. To take the specific programme names, and to pretend that they are a synecdoche for the concepts seems to me to be beyond the point.

So the bit -

Rudewalrus wrote: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);

Is precisely what I was working up to, based on my understanding of the meaning of the word "welfare". But this part:

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

Is not what I meant, and is itself not logical. There may very well be things, indeed many things, that need fixing, but it being 'welfare' is not one of them.

And DF, that very awareness that when I used that word, I used it in the dictionary sense, and that when some people use the words, they act like Lewis Carroll's Walrus and decide that they can declare that it means something else, or only some very specific and American (and bound up in US politics to boot) usage of the word, is why I started by asking you a question. Which you at first ignored and then mocked.

Like I say, ungenerous. Especially as when I asked the second time I added (and this is the bit you excised when replying in your snotty and superior manner):"Is it down to another one of these things where American usage changes the meaning of a word?"

All you needed to do was to say "Yes" and explain why without trying to make out I'm an idiot. I just don't speak American partisan politics as fluently as you do. Thankfully.

Anyway, on to of that post was the most mean-spirited and false:

Here's part of your reply:

Doctor Fate wrote: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? [link to article discussing a 20% jump in invalidity between 2007-2012]

So, here's my problem. I did not at any point in my post claim that all of the four factors I mentioned would explain all of the rise. Let alone just the one of them (as you imply by only quoting one of them).

What is more, I started the post with this: "It is not completely bizarre to see an increase in invalidity." which does not mean the same thing as you infer, that I seek to explain all of the increase.

And further, after the four areas I mentioned, the very next sentence was "Does all that add up to a 25% increase? I don't know, probably not." (bolding added) Thus, clearly, I never said that any (and not even all) of the points I raised would explain all of the increase - and indeed I actually stated that I doubt that all combined would. So, to suggest that I was implying that the Baby Boom would explain all of a particular rise is a Straw Man.

If you misread my post (ironic since at the same you wrote about a 'reading license'), then fair enough, I will accept a retraction and apology. However, if you read it properly, that would make your words a deliberate lie. I will generously assume the former.

Also, you called my suggestions 'cockamamie', and derided the idea that you could deign to respond to them, due to me not providing evidence.

To summarise, the reasons I was positing were:

1. People with disabilities can get better care than before, meaning they are more likely to live for longer, which would increase the number of people with a legitimate claim over time. If you want me to provide evidence, I will do so if asked in a less obnoxious manner, but I would expect that you would at the very least realise that this is not an unreasonable hypothesis.

2. Older people are at greater risk of becoming disabled. The Baby Boom generation are now in that age range. I hope you don't expect me to provide evidence for the Baby Boom, DF, and I would expect any reasonable person to understand that age is a factor in the risk of developing a disability. Again, if you want a proper discussion, rather than to win some stupid semantic argument or battle of wills, ask with a bit less arrogance and I'll see what evidence I can find.

3. Poorer diets and a more sedentary lifestyle and work life may make disability more likely, as low muscle-tone, greater weight, weaker bones etc would be factors. If you want me to find some evidence, you only need ask without the snide remarks.

4. Better diagnosis, and less reluctance to claim. Both are different, but are about people presenting and being accepted, who are perfectly valid claimants, but who may not have done in the past. Again, I don't think this is in any way an outrageous proposition. And again, I can see what I can find to show what the effect of this is over time, if you would lower yourself to ask rather than to apply your recent behaviour - ignore, dismiss, ridicule...

Sure, I put forward some suggestions as to why an increase is not completely bizarre (another, of course, is that if you are comparing raw numbers of claimants, the US population has risen, but I figure that goes without saying, right? If not, consider that number 5).

It speaks volumes that you would rather attack me for daring to come up with some other factors, than to discuss them like a grown up.

GMTom wrote:Wow this topic got really stupid!

Yep. it sure did.

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)

When you put it that way, of course it makes sense. Of course, there is also the question of whether the increase is also possibly a result of other factors, such as demographics (more people, more people in higher risk age groups, life expectancy), lifestyle, improved treatment and diagnosis...

But along come some incredibly liberal positions about disability being a "choice"? ...really?

I never said this. I never defended the idea of taking education into account, or that two people with the exact same condition etc would get a different outcome based on job history or other unrelated factors.

All I did was to come up with some other potential reasons why disability claims may be increasing that are not down to fraud, and to ask questions about what DF meant when he was making absolute statements about what is and what is not 'relevant'.

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.

Really? He sees an increase disability claims and only isolates one possible cause, and uses that to blame the government (but of course, it's mainly the Federal government), and thus 'liberals' for all of it. I will agree that ricky took an odd position, but let's be clear about this - I do not agree with everything he has written, and have written my own posts that DF has decided to conflate into the same thing, and it appears that you have also, regardless of what I actually did or did not write.

Unless, of course, you don't consider me to be on the left.

If I may change the question a bit to refocus the discussion: What responsibility does a society have to the least fortunate?

• The sick, mentally ill, or seriously disabled who really cannot care for themselves?
• The able bodied destitute who have no homes or food?
• The working poor who have no healthcare?

A couple stories that have been going through my mind on this recently:

Story 1: In New York City people have a legal right to housing: if you’re homeless, and can prove that no one can take you in, the City has to give you shelter. For years they ran a huge homeless shelter in former women’s prison 50 miles away in Orange County, and ran buses back and forth to the City five times daily. They had to close it down a while back and have since been housing the homeless men in a shelter on Randall’s Island, in the East River and they still run buses back and forth to Manhattan. Families are housed in hotels. The solution is expensive and frankly pretty lousy for everyone, especially the neighborhood where that bus discharges it passengers.

Story 2: Our neighborhood had a homeless guy who was a regular on the corner of our street for years. He had a dog, so he couldn't go to the City shelter. He used to beg, but after a few years, he didn't have to anymore. People saw him on the corner with his newspaper and his dog and they made sure he had enough to eat and he had dog food. He died in November and hundreds of people came to a funeral mass for him. The guy who adopted his dog brings the dog back to the corner to bark at all the people he knows.

While some will disagree, I think most people want to help others. Most people feel some level of responsibility for our fellow man: be it helping someone up who’s fallen, stopping to help someone change a tire, or feeding someone who’s hungry. The problem, I think, is that it’s really hard to help people effectively in most cases. If you have a program (food stamps, welfare, disability, whatever) there will be people who use it and there will be people who abuse it. Likewise, if you try and help people individually, you’re not likely to make a difference and you’re likely to be taken advantage of.

I think DF’s response on trends in disability is understandable. But what should we do to help the least fortunate? How much should we care that some people take advantage of a system that helps many more legitimately? These are very complicated question in my mind without any easy answers. Maybe some of you black and white thinkers can help me see more clearly.

But our lefty pals do not want to assume the system is broken despite the rather obvious facts that it is. The article is clear as can be and it was pointed out that one in four is on disability, does anyone really believe one in four Americans is unfit to work? The eyeball test alone should be proof enough?
What about the stats ... in 1961 Back pain and Mental issues accounted for 18% of all claims, in 2011 they accounted for 53%, you can assume anything you like but nothing is going to "explain away" that sort of increase, the fact is these two areas of "disability" are the two that require the least proof and are the easiest to fudge.
I have seen some suggestions maybe obesity has a role in this? Well, that makes no sense since heart problems accounted for 26% in 1961 while they now dropped to 11%, even the very vague "other" category went from 22% to 8%. Another guess was the shear numbers of people has increased...true, but these are percentages now aren't they?

The facts are quite clear, the system is being abused, to make any sort of claim that disability is an "option" is doing nothing but accepting the system is broken, if you CAN NOT WORK, then you can not work, it's not an "option" as is being suggested, it is not based on your education, not unless that is, the system is broken and as is being suggested by some that this is an option, they too are simply continuing the whole acceptance of this being something other than it was intended.

Arguing this issue is pure lunacy, it's broken plain and simple.
We are indeed rewarding people for not working, to claim a person is uneducated and can no longer do a menial job they used to be able to do and they do not want to alter their choice of work, then yes, you are rewarding people for being stupid and lazy.

So we have lazy ass "Bob", he didn't want to go to college, he decided to instead work a construction job making a decent living. That's his choice to live for the moment knowing full well he could not lug around heavy objects forever but the money was decent at the time, he did not plan for the future, now he can no longer lift heavy objects and can no longer do his construction job he did for the past 20 years, at 40 he needs to either re-educate himself or possibly find a new career and make less money doing so. But wait, Bob can claim disability and make more than changing his career, we are now to reward him for his stupid decisions and lack of foresight, after all, it's not HIS fault is it?
YES, YES IT IS!
Please, why would anyone "reward" this dolt for his own stupid choices?

geojanes wrote:I think DF’s response on trends in disability is understandable. But what should we do to help the least fortunate? How much should we care that some people take advantage of a system that helps many more legitimately? These are very complicated question in my mind without any easy answers. Maybe some of you black and white thinkers can help me see more clearly.

I think there are some "black and white" answers.

For example, would it be wrong to suggest that those who can do some kind of work but don't possess the skills ought to be trained instead of merely given a check? There are people in their 20's who have "tissue injuries" and could work given the right training and opportunity. Additionally, there are many who are "depressed" and therefore incapable of working. Surely some of them have latched on to the notion that "depression" is easier than "looking for work," yes?

So, retraining should be part of the solution.

Should we care that some people take advantage of the system?

In an era when many government services are being reduced due to budget constraints, I take fraud a bit personally. There absolutely should be a system for getting malingerers and charlatans off the rolls.

danivon wrote:To summarise, the reasons I was positing were:

1. People with disabilities can get better care than before, meaning they are more likely to live for longer, which would increase the number of people with a legitimate claim over time. If you want me to provide evidence, I will do so if asked in a less obnoxious manner, but I would expect that you would at the very least realise that this is not an unreasonable hypothesis.

Yes, people live longer.

Please demonstrate that older people are disproportionately represented in the increase of those going on Disability.

I would note that the article spoke of people getting disparate treatment based on education. I don't recall discrimination against the young being a feature. I deleted #2 because it is closely related.

3. Poorer diets and a more sedentary lifestyle and work life may make disability more likely, as low muscle-tone, greater weight, weaker bones etc would be factors. If you want me to find some evidence, you only need ask without the snide remarks.

There is no way of proving this--that more people are on disability because of diet and lack of exercise. In fact, I would suggest that more people exercise now than 50 years ago. There were no "running shoes" in the early 60's. There were no gyms. There were no home gyms.

4. Better diagnosis, and less reluctance to claim. Both are different, but are about people presenting and being accepted, who are perfectly valid claimants, but who may not have done in the past. Again, I don't think this is in any way an outrageous proposition. And again, I can see what I can find to show what the effect of this is over time, if you would lower yourself to ask rather than to apply your recent behaviour - ignore, dismiss, ridicule...

I think you may have hit on something here. There is far less shame about going on the dole these days, so you may have a point.

Sure, I put forward some suggestions as to why an increase is not completely bizarre (another, of course, is that if you are comparing raw numbers of claimants, the US population has risen, but I figure that goes without saying, right? If not, consider that number 5).

The article deals in percentages, so I don't think raw numbers really are an issue.

It speaks volumes that you would rather attack me for daring to come up with some other factors, than to discuss them like a grown up.

Well, that's very mature of you.

Look, the article speaks for itself. There is a huge increase in people on Disability. I think the article provides ample evidence (25% in one town???) that there is something larger than age at work.

And, consider this--something I mentioned but you failed to engage with, although I'm not motivated to excoriate you or suggest you were being childish in ignoring it--there are far more service jobs now than 50 years ago. It's pretty tough to suffer a career-ending injury while making phone calls or writing computer programs. Manufacturing, an industry where people did get hurt, has become safer and harder to find work in.

GMTom wrote:But our lefty pals do not want to assume the system is broken despite the rather obvious facts that it is. The article is clear as can be and it was pointed out that one in four is on disability, does anyone really believe one in four Americans is unfit to work? The eyeball test alone should be proof enough?

When it comes to 'eyeball tests', your words fail.

I read the article DF linked to, and other. At no point has any evidence been put forwards that "one in four Americans" is on disability. It was one in four in one county.

What about the stats ... in 1961 Back pain and Mental issues accounted for 18% of all claims, in 2011 they accounted for 53%, you can assume anything you like but nothing is going to "explain away" that sort of increase, the fact is these two areas of "disability" are the two that require the least proof and are the easiest to fudge.

On the other hand, we have made great strides in diagnosis of mental illness in the past 50 years,

I have seen some suggestions maybe obesity has a role in this? Well, that makes no sense since heart problems accounted for 26% in 1961 while they now dropped to 11%,

If all obesity did was cause heart attacks, if the treatment and diagnosis of heart problems was the same as it was in 1961, then you may be able to make this conclusion. However, that is not the case, and so I would want to see more evidence.

even the very vague "other" category went from 22% to 8%. Another guess was the shear numbers of people has increased...true, but these are percentages now aren't they?

Pardon? Care to put that in English for us?

So we have lazy ass "Bob", he didn't want to go to college, he decided to instead work a construction job making a decent living. That's his choice to live for the moment knowing full well he could not lug around heavy objects forever but the money was decent at the time, he did not plan for the future, now he can no longer lift heavy objects and can no longer do his construction job he did for the past 20 years, at 40 he needs to either re-educate himself or possibly find a new career and make less money doing so. But wait, Bob can claim disability and make more than changing his career, we are now to reward him for his stupid decisions and lack of foresight, after all, it's not HIS fault is it?
YES, YES IT IS!
Please, why would anyone "reward" this dolt for his own stupid choices?

What if Bob wanted to go to college, studied as hard as he could but was just not smart enough?

Your example is a caricature, the image that the comfortable and complacent middle class like to make about the working class, so that they can blame the poor for being poor.

Because a 16 year old kid should not just make the right decision and decide how his life will go, he must also be prescient and able to predict how the economy and employment situations will change over the next 50 years? Give me strength!

GMTom wrote:So we have lazy ass "Bob", he didn't want to go to college, he decided to instead work a construction job making a decent living. That's his choice to live for the moment knowing full well he could not lug around heavy objects forever but the money was decent at the time, he did not plan for the future, now he can no longer lift heavy objects and can no longer do his construction job he did for the past 20 years, at 40 he needs to either re-educate himself or possibly find a new career and make less money doing so. But wait, Bob can claim disability and make more than changing his career, we are now to reward him for his stupid decisions and lack of foresight, after all, it's not HIS fault is it?
YES, YES IT IS!
Please, why would anyone "reward" this dolt for his own stupid choices?

Furthermore, since he worked in one of the rare "dangerous" jobs, why didn't he get disability insurance? Why is that everyone else's responsibility?

Is there no such thing as personal responsibility? Should I cancel my life insurance and count on the US government to give my wife half a million if I die? Should I squash my 401K and demand Uncle Sam give me 8X the amount of SSI they're going to?

Seriously, is this country a nanny state?

We have made great strides in the diagnosis of mental illness in the past 50 years?
Ohhhh, so the people could work 50 years ago are only now unable to work?
The diagnosis is what caused the ability to work or not, not the actual condition?
...makes perfect sense to me

and the eyeball test, gee sorry I read the headline, so let's simply change to this one county, does it change anything really??

Regarding obesity, you simply WANT to embrace this as anything other than a scam. Obesity leads to heart problems, no way around that. a simple google search will prove that out, I kind of assumed this to be common knowledge. If your claim that obesity is to have a part in this, then it would naturally follow that heart problems would also rise, I was adding the "other" into the possible heart problem category yet even adding it to the mix, the numbers still fail to explain the rise ...unless you want to accept fraud that is!?

Oh, and your example about poor stupid "Bob"
what if he were not smart enough for college? Fine, he could have learned a trade, or how about this, he did his menial job. Good for him! He made a choice and later must pay the piper, he can no longer work, this is MY problem? If it were due to a real problem and not due to his choice of career and not due to his wanting to not do something else that paid less, that's another issue. But that's what you want to defend here???

Doctor Fate wrote:Yes, people live longer.

Please demonstrate that older people are disproportionately represented in the increase of those going on Disability.

It's not easy to find relative stats, but here are the statistics on the ages of people who are disabled: HHS Office on Disability fact sheet

HHS fact sheet wrote:According to data from the 2001 Census survey, the percentage of any type of disability in the civilian noninstitutionalized population over 5 years of age is: 5 to 15 years (5.8%), 16 to 64 years (18.6%); 65 years and over (41.9%).

I think it's clear that the older people are, the more likely they are to be disabled. It is also clear that due to life expectancy and to the surge in population, there are more people (and a higher proportion of Americans) who are over 65, and thus have a higher prevalence of disability.

I would note that the article spoke of people getting disparate treatment based on education.

I never said that I agree with that. It's not what I was talking about. In fact, I have said that I don't agree that it should happen.

I don't recall discrimination against the young being a feature.

And I never suggested that was the case. So your point is?

I deleted #2 because it is closely related.

Well, (1) was really about people living longer with disabilities than would have been the case 50 years ago. For example, Multiple Sclerosis sufferers have a much better prognosis than before. This is not the same thing, and is why I put it separately from (2), which is about the general population being older and the Baby Boom (which is what you have asked me to get data on), not the life expectancy for people with disabilities - which would affect the number of people claiming at any one time.

There is no way of proving this--that more people are on disability because of diet and lack of exercise. In fact, I would suggest that more people exercise now than 50 years ago. There were no "running shoes" in the early 60's. There were no gyms. There were no home gyms.

But we do know that obesity is at much higher levels than it was 50 years ago. Maybe more people are exercising, but it's not having the overall desired effect.

I think you may have hit on something here. There is far less shame about going on the dole these days, so you may have a point.

Indeed. Which you would mean you concede that in the past people who would have been perfectly entitled to claim did not do so due to the 'shame' of it?

If someone is genuinely disabled, there should be absolutely no shame in claiming due benefits. I would object if we tried to make it about putting shame on the disabled.

The article deals in percentages, so I don't think raw numbers really are an issue.

It dealt in both raw numbers and percentages. I read it, and looked at the graphs.

Look, the article speaks for itself. There is a huge increase in people on Disability. I think the article provides ample evidence (25% in one town???) that there is something larger than age at work.

Yes, clearly that one county (and potentially the actions of one doctor in it) is an extreme. It would be no surprise to me (and it should not be to you) if the report writers looked for the county with the highest rates to see what was going on there. However, it takes a bit more to extrapolate the extreme case to make generalisations about the whole system.

And, consider this--something I mentioned but you failed to engage with, although I'm not motivated to excoriate you are suggest you were being childish in ignoring it--there are far more service jobs now than 50 years ago. It's pretty tough to suffer a career-ending injury while making phone calls or writing computer programs. Manufacturing, an industry where people did get hurt, has become safer and harder to find work in.

And I did address this, so did not ignore it. The lack of physical jobs contributes to my third point - people with sedentary jobs (even if they do have a home gym) are less likely to be physically fit. Besides, RSI is a potential career ending injury to a computer programmer.

Also, not all 'disability' arises from in-work accidents. Quite a lot does not. People get hit by cars. They develop cancer. They are born with a disability. They contract a long term debilitative condition that manifests in later life...

While we may well expect a reduction in work-accident-caused disability, what are the figures? Can you work with us and provide some evidence of your own on that?

Indeed, it would be interesting to get a better idea of what the actual size of the problem really is. And also, what you would want to do to ensure that people who are entitled to disability (in your own terms) are not unduly disadvantaged by measures to crack down.

GMTom wrote:and the eyeball test, gee sorry I read the headline, so let's simply change to this one county, does it change anything really??

Well, yes, it does because you are basing your complaints on an assumption that 1 in 4 Americans are on Disability, which is a much larger proportion than the true figure.

Regarding obesity, you simply WANT to embrace this as anything other than a scam. Obesity leads to heart problems, no way around that. a simple google search will prove that out, I kind of assumed this to be common knowledge. If your claim that obesity is to have a part in this, then it would naturally follow that heart problems would also rise, I was adding the "other" into the possible heart problem category yet even adding it to the mix, the numbers still fail to explain the rise ...unless you want to accept fraud that is!?

Yes, Obesity does lead to heart problems. I didn't dispute that. However, it also leads to a lot of other problems. And heart problems are more treatable than before.