http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

NPR is, no doubt, a right-wing outfit. This is a lengthy article, but worth the read. One excerpt:

People don't seem to be faking this pain, but it gets confusing. I have back pain. My editor has a herniated disc, and he works harder than anyone I know. There must be millions of people with asthma and diabetes who go to work every day. Who gets to decide whether, say, back pain makes someone disabled?

As far as the federal government is concerned, you're disabled if you have a medical condition that makes it impossible to work. In practice, it's a judgment call made in doctors' offices and courtrooms around the country. The health problems where there is most latitude for judgment -- back pain, mental illness -- are among the fastest growing causes of disability.

I have an ex-neighbor who was milking the system, he AND his wife suddenly developed mental conditions that prevented them from working. The company they worked for was in financial trouble then all of a sudden they stopped working and went on disability before the company closed, sound fishy to you as well???

GMTom wrote:I have an ex-neighbor who was milking the system, he AND his wife suddenly developed mental conditions that prevented them from working. The company they worked for was in financial trouble then all of a sudden they stopped working and went on disability before the company closed, sound fishy to you as well???

Sure does.

However, the article goes far beyond anecdote. I think it goes to show that government can actually take initiative out of its citizens.

fate

think it goes to show that government can actually take initiative out of its citizens.

You got that from this?

Scott's dad had a heart attack and went back to work in the mill. If there'd been a mill for Scott to go back to work in, he says, he'd have done that too. But there wasn't a mill, so he went on disability. It wasn't just Scott. I talked to a bunch of mill guys who took this path -- one who shattered the bones in his ankle and leg, one with diabetes, another with a heart attack. When the mill shut down, they all went on disability

it was a good read. But I'm not sure where you got the idea that the program takes "initiative out of its citizens". These are largely people who are near the end of their working life, with poor educations. From the evidence in the article many are in poor health, and certainly aren't up to hard physical labour.
I'm wondering, when a mill closes in a one industry town, what initiative do you expect? Start up a dot com? I'd challenge you to find a realistic option for someone in Scot's position in a mill town. Poor education, few relevant skills and with a body giving in to age and poor health...

Strikes me that choosing disability is showing a certain initiative... They've decided not to become homeless out of pride but to take advantage of a program for which they qualify and which will allow them to reach retirement age with a certain dignity.
I think what it demonstrates is that there is a certain portion of the populace being fundamentally dislocated by the changing economy, and that there is a support system for them, even though the programs intentions seem to have been stretched by the need of these people.
If not for disability, what happens to these people? Take away those benefits and they don't suddenly stop being located in regions with high unemployment, they don't suddenly stop being poorly educated, they don't suddenly stop being near the end of their prime working years, and they don't suddenly stop having some medica issues..
What do you think is going to magically happen if you took away the benefits? How would any of these conditions change?
I'm sure there are some malingerers in that mass... and emotionally I'd love to weed them out as freeloaders... But the majority are just in a tough circumstance.... In the old days, before society decided to care for the least amongst us, they'd probably succumb to a cholera out break or something. Now, we've decided they should be assisted. ....
I also noticed that 8 of the top 10 states were Red States. That is small government states. Does that strike you as odd Fate?

Anyone else see the humor here? It's like Ying and Yang, Black and White, two sides of the same coin, these guys are polar opposites
DF sees the system being corrupted and used while Rickyp sees only the good. Like anything, there are two sides but I think I see DF pointing to a system with good intentions that is being taken advantage of while Ricky seems to want to avoid the obvious and simply put up with the corruption as he sees the greater good is being served?

GMTom wrote:. . . Ricky seems to want to avoid the obvious and simply put up with the corruption as he sees the greater good is being served?

You are too kind.

What rickyp actually did was cherry-pick a quote from the article, match it up with something I said (not of the particular example rickyp extracted) and create a straw man.

rickyp wrote:From the evidence in the article many are in poor health, and certainly aren't up to hard physical labour.

25% in one town?

it was a good read. But I'm not sure where you got the idea that the program takes "initiative out of its citizens".

Look at the graphic. Over a span of 52 years, the percentage of disability injuries from back and musculoskelatal injuries went up 25%. Do you suppose we had more labor-intensive jobs in 1962 than we do today? I think so.

Strikes me that choosing disability is showing a certain initiative... They've decided not to become homeless out of pride but to take advantage of a program for which they qualify and which will allow them to reach retirement age with a certain dignity.

"Choosing disability (shows) . . . initiative." That is so funny. Only you, or a genuine socialist, could come up with that out of the article.

Maybe you missed the part where some people with very similar injuries choose to find work they can do and others choose to get a check? That is what takes the initiative out of people--they can get tax-free money for doing nothing, even though they can work. It is easier to go on disability than to take a job one does not necessarily want.

I also noticed that 8 of the top 10 states were Red States. That is small government states. Does that strike you as odd Fate?

Not at all. Now, if you could demonstrate those people were registered Republicans, then yes.

I'm not suggesting ending disability. I am suggesting that it is being exploited during a slow economy and that additional oversight seems warranted.

Again, how is it possible, in a service-oriented economy, that 25% MORE suffer from back/muscular issues than 50 years ago?

Ricky:

I also noticed that 8 of the top 10 states were Red States. That is small government states. Does that strike you as odd Fate?

That is reasonable to me. One of the items discussed in the series on NPR is that States have hired consultant to move people from their welfare roles to the federal disability program. States pay consultants about $2,000 per person to find these people and then arrange the necessary information, doctor visits, etc. so that they can plead their disability case. Over a lifetime the average disabiility claim is about $250,000 and the average welfare claim is a bit less than that.

This saves the states money since welfare payments may come out of the state funds but disability comes out of federal money. The states are being enterprising, the consultants are too. However, the federal bureaucratic structure is so poor, and the federal oversight is so bad, that the incentives are all wrong. A state with lower taxes will be more motivated to find ways to save money. Transfering people to the federal disability system is a good way to do that.

People and organizations respond to incentives, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, or live in red states or blue states.

Another thing to take from the article is just how easy it is to scam the system. Say you are hurt, see a doctor, presto-insto-check in the mail! (just like my EX-neighbors and typical of such low-life sticking the system, he let the bank foreclose on his house and moved to a place that was paid for by government money further dragging him deeper into government dependence allowing him to not work)

Ray Jay wrote:This saves the states money since welfare payments may come out of the state funds but disability comes out of federal money. The states are being enterprising, the consultants are too. However, the federal bureaucratic structure is so poor, and the federal oversight is so bad, that the incentives are all wrong. A state with lower taxes will be more motivated to find ways to save money. Transfering people to the federal disability system is a good way to do that.

People and organizations respond to incentives, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, or live in red states or blue states.

Good point.

So, the Federal government should respond to a program being abused. The best way would be to transfer it to the States--so they would be less likely to want to move someone from Welfare (temporary) to Disability (potentially permanent).

The overarching issue, which is something rickyp and Democrats don't want to address, is the perverse failure of the Federal government to look for ways to reduce costs. There are a myriad examples of it--from duplicative programs to empty Federal buildings. All the government ever does is grow.

And so, some (like rickyp) simply shrug when a program like disability begins to expand rapidly. Why not examine it and determine if changes need to be made? Why is the Federal government the only organization that need not look for efficiencies?

Agreed. Another aspect of the problem is a Keynesian ideology that always enables someone to say that it's money for nothing because of multiplier effects.

It is not completely bizarre to see an increase in invalidity.

Firstly, medical treatment and support available has increased, improving the life expectancy for people who are permanently disabled. Similarly, acutely fatal incidents and conditions are less so.

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.

Thirdly, while work for many may be less physically demanding, that also means it is less likely to be all that good at maintaining physical fitness, making them more susceptible to injuries of certain types. Additionally, obesity is on the rise, and certainly increases the chances of back and lower-body muscular and skeletal problems. As does poor diet - too much soda leading to osteoporosis, too much sugar to diabetes...

Fourthly there is improved diagnosis of some conditions, greater recognition of some conditions, and also less reluctance among people who are genuine but proud to put in a claim.

Does all that add up to a 25% increase? I don't know, probably not. But combine that with a situation where there is constant unemployment, and in some post-industrial areas a high level even in boomtimes for the nation, while welfare is under fire for the unemployed, and the fit unemployed are demonised, and there is a 'push' as well as your suggested 'pull' to exaggerate a condition

On that score, how does the number of currently open vacancies compare to the number of unemployed? Last I checked here it was about 1 for every 5. Meaning if everyone claiming unemployment got one of those jobs, 80% of the unemployed would still be so. In such circumstances - and for some the chances would be far worse if they are middle aged and only trained for obsolete work - and if welfare is time limited, or linked to workfare (often cheap labour rather than an opportunity to improve any skills), why not explore the alternatives?

If you have a problem with the system, time to look at the whole system.

Ray Jay wrote:Agreed. Another aspect of the problem is a Keynesian ideology that always enables someone to say that it's money for nothing because of multiplier effects.

Except that it's not Keynesian. His theory (as opposed to 'ideology') would imply that paying people to work would have a greater multiplier and should be used eveb by the state.

All serious economic theories/ideologies recognise that recessions (like the recent one) cause unemployment and other welfare demands to rise, causing spending to go up. Cutting them at times like this can, however, be seen as a false economy, because indeed those welfare and disability cheques do get cashed and spent, generating economic activity. That is not an argument for more of it, but it is a reason to be careful before using it as a target to cut spending in the recession-recovery part of the cycle. Much easier to do during stronger growth.

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...
If on the the other hand there are no jobs for people like this, who've demonstrated that they work hard when there is work available, then the claims that this discourages initiative is groundless.

The disability rolls are growing because of people exactly like this... People who have demonstrated years of initiative, and hard work, who are out of realistic options as they come to the end of the working lives...

I do agree that the bureaucracy is ridiculous. 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. (I'm being sarcastic about "lavish" BTW) Swedes, for instance, have less trouble with people stealing benefits, spend next to nothing policing the benefits claims, and have lower disability rolls.
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? The answer, if you look back in time to the period in the US before these thinks existed, is that no.... For some people there aren't the options you imagine.

ray

That is reasonable to me. One of the items discussed in the series on NPR is that States have hired consultant to move people from their welfare roles to the federal disability program

Well, Missouri is... I haven't seen evidence that other states in the top 10 have, but maybe I haven't looked in the right places ..
One of the main reasons that Missouri is doing this is because they can't seem to meet the goals of the 1996 welfare reform act. As a result they also face steep fines for failing to have welfare recipients in training. Its somehow easier to hire consultants to finesse a move to disability then to initiate and maintain proper retraining programs.
I suppose this is a case of a state government being super efficient? 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. And Ray, they are reaching out because they can't maintain a minimal standard for their state run retraining programs, not because they are super clever efficient... ..

Missouri could save up to $80 million as a result of the effort, the radio program reported. A big portion could come from avoiding penalties under the welfare work requirements. The state is fighting a federal ruling that it owes $44 million for failing to meet those requirements in 2008.
The state has consistently missed the work participation requirement and faces additional penalties. Under the 1996 welfare reform law, at least half of recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or TANF, must be engaged in training or other "work participation" programs to remain eligible for benefits. That requirement is reduced by the amount state welfare rolls have fallen.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/pol ... ents=focus

Danivon:

That is not an argument for more of it, but it is a reason to be careful before using it as a target to cut spending in the recession-recovery part of the cycle. Much easier to do during stronger growth.

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?".

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.