By the way, this is an excellent point:

geojanes wrote: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.

I'm not really sure what it is that DF is advocating, other than that there is a problem. OK, so let's try to quantify it (hence looking at alternative reasons for a rise in claims which are not a problem). Let's try and see what can be done to rectify that problem. And let's consider if any of those solutions would themselves cause problems or not.

I was on the first part of that, because I thought perhaps we might want to be constructive.

Of course, if it's just a case of attacking the government, or your political opponents, perhaps it's time to take our leave.

In Britain the number of people claiming Disability Living Allowance grew from 1.1m in 1992 to 3.2m in 2011. It nearly trebled in less than 20 years. I don't care what anybody tries to say to justify that level of increase, I simply don't believe that the number of seriously disabled people has grown by that amount in that time. I haven't read all of the posts in this thread but from the figures I have picked up it seems that the US is experiencing the same sort of phenomenon. This is clearly bullshit. There's no way that the number of disabled people has grown by that amount over the last 20 years. This is not to say that it should be scrapped altogether, but surely there must be ways to curtail the explosive growth in obviously spurious claims.

About 8 years ago I shared a house with a guy who was on DLA. The medical condition that caused him to get it was 'stress'. Now ok, I do realise that severe anxiety can be a major problem for certain people, but there was essentially nothing wrong with Simon. He'd just been on benefits for so long by the time I met him that he found the idea of having to get a job to be a major downer. So far as I'm aware he's still on benefits and hasn't worked a day in his life since I moved out. I repeat, there are no physical impediments to him getting a job. Neither are there any intellectual impediments. He's actually a very bright guy with a degree and a fairly keen intellect. If I were a prospective employer and if I didn't already know what a lazy waster he is I'd happily employ him myself. He just doesn't want to work, and because he's been officially classified as being 'unable' to work then it's easy for him to avoid it.

I realise that the above is just one anecdotal example which can't be taken to prove a general trend, but I'm willing to bet there are millions more out there. The welfare system has become bloated and is being exploited by the workshy. In fact you could arguably say that many people are being actively encouraged by well-meaning do-gooders to avoid work. This can't go on indefinitely, and we're not helping the recipients by pretending that it can.

danivon wrote:

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'm not an MIT economist. So, I found two to rebut you.

The aging of the baby boom generation has contributed little to the rise of receipt of disability benefits, while improvements in population health have likely reduced the incidence of disabling medical disorders.

In fact, earlier in the report, they wrote:

During the past two decades, the fraction of individuals receiving Disability Insurance benefits has grown substantially, as shown in Figure 1. In 1985, 2.2 percent of individuals between the ages of 25 and 64 were receiving DI benefits, but by 2005 this fraction had risen to 4.1 percent. If recent entry and exit rates continue in the years ahead, then more than 6 percent of the nonelderly adult population will soon be receiving DI benefits.

That's pretty specific refutation of your extrapolations.

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.

Actually, I'm not so certain that "we know" obesity is higher. I think it is more publicized. I think there is more of an effort to make an issue of it. Primarily, this is due to the objective of some to exert more control over our lives.

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?

Nope. Shame is just a lost bit of our culture. For example, when I was a young man, many women kept diaries. Shame on the person who read it. Now? Every young woman has a diary called "Facebook" and they want everyone to know what they're thinking at all times.

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.

Agreed.

However, there is no societal shame on "milking the system." That's the problem. The "system" or "government" is perceived to be some rich entity, detached from any cost to anyone else.

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.

However, it takes a bit more to extrapolate the extreme case to make generalisations about the whole system.

Thankfully, I found the MIT paper. More:

Why Are the Disability Rolls Growing?

By far the most important contributor to the recent growth of Disability Insurance is the liberalization of the DI screening process in 1984, which increased the number of disability awards and shifted the composition of recipients towards claimants with lower mortality disorders. Two other substantial contributors are rising financial incentives to apply for a disability award and changes in labor force participation that increase the share of citizens insured by, and therefore eligible to receive, DI benefits. By contrast, changes in health and age structure do not appear to be quantitatively important contributors. We discuss these factors in turn.

Read the suggested reforms, beginning on p. 92.

In response to Danivon's question on what we should do about it:

There are a few obvious things that we should do right away:

1. If the states are making decisions on disability, then they need to have skin in the game and pay some of the cost. Otherwise incentives are not properly aligned.
2. The government should hire an attorney to represent itself. Right now, the individual on disability has an attorney whereas the federal government does not. The poor judge often decides with the attorney because there isn't adequate rebuttal of the point. (Ironically, the government pays for the individual's attorney, but doesn't hire its own.) I've been in several court hearings where either side's attorney can make it seem like they are 100% correct. It's quite amazing how good some lawyers can be.
3. Once people go on disability, there should be monitoring of the program to see whether they can stay on disability.
4. I would consider turning it into a state program. I know that's something that Paul Ryan has suggested.

Doctor Fate wrote: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.

I agree.

But I will say that training and/or education does not equal a job. There are boatloads of people graduating from 2 and 4 year colleges with a degree and no skills and few job prospects and often loads of debt. So training is not the end of the story, it is just a step in address the needs of the less fortunate, isn't it?

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote: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.

I agree.

But I will say that training and/or education does not equal a job. There are boatloads of people graduating from 2 and 4 year colleges with a degree and no skills and few job prospects and often loads of debt. So training is not the end of the story, it is just a step in address the needs of the less fortunate, isn't it?

True, but I think many of the "boatloads" are getting pretty useless degrees. If you major in "sociology," etc., you're not going to be in high demand. However, the people I know graduating with business degrees and computer programming degrees seem to be doing well.

Doctor Fate wrote:True, but I think many of the "boatloads" are getting pretty useless degrees. If you major in "sociology," etc., you're not going to be in high demand. However, the people I know graduating with business degrees and computer programming degrees seem to be doing well.

Indeed. I was one of those boatloads. When I graduated with an undergraduate degree in history, my job prospects were awful. I started my first business after six months of searching, not because I was particularly entrepreneurial, but because no one would give me a job.

But this can only be partly about training, because there are bunches of people you can't even train. We have some some large number of people who because of sickness, mental issues, ignorance, incarceration, social incompetence, whatever, singly or in combination who will starve if someone didn't take care of them. We can argue at what that number is, but regardless of its magnitude, what do you do with the least fortunate?

The least fortunate need help and nobody here has suggested disability should go away. Most of us seem to see the problems in this system and see it is being abused to a great degree (I say "most" but it would seem one of us has no problem with it in the least) Getting this fixed should be a priority and thanks to Sass it seems to be a bit more global a problem than we Yanks had thought? (fyi, Sass, if you read this, I had earlier posted a remarkably similar example to yours). But it would seem, we have liberlas that want to block and and all attempts at fixing broken government programs, I think they think the government can do no wrong and once something is started by the govt, it must proceed. If even one person does not get what he is "entitled" to, then we must bite the bullet and keep on going as is???

Ray Jay wrote:In response to Danivon's question on what we should do about it:

There are a few obvious things that we should do right away:

1. If the states are making decisions on disability, then they need to have skin in the game and pay some of the cost. Otherwise incentives are not properly aligned.

Seems reasonable. Or to remove them from the decision-making. Either way would help. But if States are contributing, what taxes should they increase to pay for it?

2. The government should hire an attorney to represent itself. Right now, the individual on disability has an attorney whereas the federal government does not. The poor judge often decides with the attorney because there isn't adequate rebuttal of the point. (Ironically, the government pays for the individual's attorney, but doesn't hire its own.) I've been in several court hearings where either side's attorney can make it seem like they are 100% correct. It's quite amazing how good some lawyers can be.

Alternatively, you don't use 'disability court' in the same way at all? What is the process before it gets there - does the system make a decision, and allow an internal appeal before it goes to court? Or do you guys leap straight to seeing a judge.

3. Once people go on disability, there should be monitoring of the program to see whether they can stay on disability.

Periodic checks make sense.

4. I would consider turning it into a state program. I know that's something that Paul Ryan has suggested.

I'm not sure this isn't just shifting the problem around, and maybe hiding it. Again, the question is going to be who pays for it, and then how different States would have different rules/interpretations.

One of the questions I would have is about what the basic eligibility for Disability is, and how it compares to other welfare benefits. For example:

Is it only available up to 65, or for any age?
Is it more, or less, than unemployment benefit?
Is there a time-limit on full unemployment benefit? If so, what do people still out of work then get, and how does that compare to Disability?

If we are going to talk about the incentives, let's see what they actually are. It seems to me that this is a complex situation, and as there are currently more people than usual out of work, that will put pressure on regardless of what benefits there are.

I also have a few other suggestions:

5. Evidence from a doctor to be verified by a second opinion, preferably through an independent/court appointed doctor
6. Making sure that people who are out of work and can't get it have an alternative to claiming disability
7. Different levels of disability benefits depending on the severity (not sure if this already happens or not)
8. In-work disability benefits, so that there is less of a disincentive to getting a job, and also to enable people to get to work
9. Encouragement for employers to make it easier for people with disabilities to work

Sassenach wrote:In Britain the number of people claiming Disability Living Allowance grew from 1.1m in 1992 to 3.2m in 2011. It nearly trebled in less than 20 years.

DLA was only introduced in 1992, so it may be that the initial figure is depressed. There are also different levels of it so it would be useful to know what the breakdowns are. Of course. DLA is being abolished and replaced by the 'Personal Independence Payment' over the next three years. People in work are entitled to DLA (and will be to PIP), so it may not be all of the problem.

The other benefit available (which could be in combination with DLA) was Incapacity Benefit, but this was changed in 2008, and folded into the Employment and Support Allowance.

We have also seen reform on that, though - everyone who claims Employment and Support Allowance on the basis of incapacity has to be re-assessed. The principle of this is fine, but the practice I do have a problem with, because we are seeing a lot of successful appeals and cases where the company brought in to handle the reassessment (ATOS) seem to be over-strict.

Not knowing Britain well enough, I will ask the question...

Do you think the 1992 number should actually be 3.2 million, but there were 2 mil undocumented disabled?

fate

Actually, I'm not so certain that "we know" obesity is higher. I think it is more publicized. I think there is more of an effort to make an issue of it. Primarily, this is due to the objective of some to exert more control over our lives.

What, You don't believe the centres for Disease Control now?

Of all countries, the United States has the highest rate of obesity. From 13% obesity in 1962, estimates have steadily increased, reaching 19.4% in 1997, 24.5% in 2004[4] 26.6% in 2007,[5] and 33.8% (adults) and 17% (children) in 2008.[6][7] In 2010, the CDC reported higher numbers once more, counting 35.7% of American adults as obese, and 17% of American children.[8]

Of all countries, the United States has the highest rate of obesity. From 13% obesity in 1962, estimates have steadily increased, reaching 19.4% in 1997, 24.5% in 2004[4] 26.6% in 2007,[5] and 33.8% (adults) and 17% (children) in 2008.[6][7] In 2010, the CDC reported higher numbers once more, counting 35.7% of American adults as obese, and 17% of American children.[

Obesity has been cited as a contributing factor to approximately 100,000–400,000 deaths in the United States per year[10] (including increased morbidity in car accidents)[49] and has increased health care use and expenditures,[11][12][13][14] costing society an estimated $117 billion in direct (preventive, diagnostic, and treatment services related to weight) and indirect (absenteeism, loss of future earnings due to premature death) costs.[15] This exceeds health-care costs associated with smoking or problem drinking[14] and accounts for 6% to 12% of national health care expenditures in the United States

Obesity has grown three fold since 1962. It stands to reason that the number of people who, due to obesity or complications from obesity are no longer to do their usual jobs, should also grow three fold.
The whole point about the disability welfare is that it is a choice. People have to make a claim and substantiate the claim.
I would guess that the percentage of malingerers, false claimants is no different from the 1980s... There's no reason since the benefits have become suddenly very attractive. A disability pension is not a great life style. However the people unable to continue their previous employment due to physical limitations will have grown three fold....

Ray's suggestions would all probably chip away at disability claims. And if the method of avoiding welfare payments followed by Missouri, (helping those on welfare get into the federal program) is somehow discouraged ...then some of the growth will decline a little. .
However, if obesity is the root cause of many older people being unable to continue working, just as it is the root cause for the surge in medical care use ... then the disability problem is real.
The surge in disability claimants is because these obese people genuinely can't do their jobs anymore, not that they don't want to do them.

and it would also stand to reason that due to increased obesity rates that the number of heart problems related to obesity would also jump, but it has not, instead we are now making claims of back and mental issues. The back issues would play a part in obesity but not as much as heart problems and the whole mental claims jumping out of sight, obesity aint playing a role there either. That claim that it is now diagnosed more often only implies people used to work through this would only prove they are not incapacitated and the simple diagnosis is causing the claim. This "system" most certainly is not only being abused but rather being dramatically abused!

rickyp wrote:fate

Actually, I'm not so certain that "we know" obesity is higher. I think it is more publicized. I think there is more of an effort to make an issue of it. Primarily, this is due to the objective of some to exert more control over our lives.

What, You don't believe the centres for Disease Control now?

Of all countries, the United States has the highest rate of obesity. From 13% obesity in 1962, estimates have steadily increased, reaching 19.4% in 1997, 24.5% in 2004[4] 26.6% in 2007,[5] and 33.8% (adults) and 17% (children) in 2008.[6][7] In 2010, the CDC reported higher numbers once more, counting 35.7% of American adults as obese, and 17% of American children.[8]

Not on that one. I don't think there was sufficient data in 1962.