tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post3237954241515674657..comments2024-03-27T20:39:24.337-04:00Comments on Social Security News: Room For Debate?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-74559841782901103592009-05-08T10:44:00.000-04:002009-05-08T10:44:00.000-04:00If A#3 is addressing me, I answer that only the cl...If A#3 is addressing me, I answer that only the claimants have the right to determine who should file. And, the process itself has never been perfect, nor will it ever be. Consequently, to pay claimant's representatives is necessary. As to the moans of those who regard payroll taxes and benefit payments as the only barriers between them and limitless weath, I have nothing to say.<br /><br />However, I note a completely unreasonable prejudice against both the claimants and their representatives is fairly commonplace. The payroll taxes are the same no matter how much SSA pays out in benefits. Income taxes are not affected. And, lawyers who have to wait two or three years for their small fees are scarcely a menace to society or the grasping, greedy fee ogres some suppose them.<br /><br />As to the definition of disability, it would be unwise to assume that I or anyone else writing here endorses or accepts every jot and tittle of the definition of disability or definable medical conditions listed in the act. I could sing you quite a long song about the insanity of the definition of "personality disorders" and their inclusion in the act. But, that is not your complaint. You may think, as many do, that every nickle of the Trust Funds paid out comes directly out of your own resources. It doesn't hurt you one bit, you know. It would be good to reexamine your thinking on this matter. For more information on Social Security and its financing, take a look at Angry Bear.com, a blog coming from UC Berkeley from academics and economists. It is quite enlightening from many perspectivesNancy Ortiznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-28685573957018938772009-05-08T10:25:00.000-04:002009-05-08T10:25:00.000-04:00So it seems once again that the only changes in th...So it seems once again that the only changes in the disability process that you agree with are those that put more money in the pockets of claimant representatives.<br /><br />Be honest about it for once. What you really want is a system in which a great many claims are filed and denied by the DDSs, then appealed to the ALJs, where you want high allowance rates so you can grab you slice of the pie. <br /><br />Any other considerations (such as reducing program costs, thereby saving taxpayer dollars) are always mocked by you. <br /><br />You will support more staff in the DDSs (so they can run more cases through the process) and you will support more ALJs (so more cases can be heard and allowed), but you won't support any tightening of the rules or any other form of efficiencies. You rail against "backlogs," which seems like a concern about program efficiency, but which is really a cover for your real agenda: push more cases through the process faster so you can get a bigger piece of the action.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-53840111000747359782009-05-08T10:10:00.000-04:002009-05-08T10:10:00.000-04:00You know, our blogger *may* know a great deal more...You know, our blogger *may* know a great deal more from a practical standpoint than many observers. He certainly knows more that I do, despite my SSA experience. What I note is the ALJ's remark that fraud is overstated. I agree because in 32 years of DIB claims work I have seen only one really clearcut case of fraud--it was a doozy. A referral from the CA Insurance Commission regarding a class A con-man with video by our IG's agents, medical testimony, etc. The ALJ loved this guy because the con man was a Vet (sure he was!) and so was the somewhat dotty ALJ. Put him back on. Oh well.<br /><br />Any other ALJ would not have reinstated him. Our bad guy went back to LA where he is apparently back in the slip/and/fall business and doing quite well. Problem--1)dotty ALJs. 2)Fraud is an intent crime and it's hard to prove. This guy was never tried by a jury, and in CA would probably have gotten off. The Carter Administration tried CDR's and quit. Suicides don't make good headlines. So did Reagan. But, in the 80's, people didn't seem to care either about suicides or the homeless people being cut off created. Now, I don't know. <br /><br />I notice they're still going to do work CDR's which make more sense. However, Obama is giving cover to Congress which won't touch this with a stick. The idea of defined periods of disabililty together with permanent payouts on the WC model is one everybody hates. Gee! Wonder why? But, the idea you're gonna save gobs of bucks by doing CDR's and collecting the resulting OP's is just plain meschugennah.Nancy Ortiznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-5662954321415189042009-05-08T09:38:00.000-04:002009-05-08T09:38:00.000-04:00So I guess you are the only one with all the answe...So I guess you are the only one with all the answers?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-7714596636459233522009-05-08T09:27:00.000-04:002009-05-08T09:27:00.000-04:00ALJ White's suggestion is far from irrelevant. Wh...ALJ White's suggestion is far from irrelevant. When you have a few ALJs churning out 2500 decisions a year with a 90 percent approval rate, you know people are getting on the rolls who shouldn't be there. Having a government rep at the hearing would temper the enthusiasm of these folks and/or help identify cases that need own motion review by the Appeals Council. Preventive medicine, in other words.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com