tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post8795048568327308543..comments2024-03-28T15:24:37.140-04:00Comments on Social Security News: Senator Lankford Has A PlanUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-82902743948410213592015-07-07T14:14:02.110-04:002015-07-07T14:14:02.110-04:00He wants to revamp the system, in part, "Beca...He wants to revamp the system, in part, "Because a government watchdog group had reason to believe that yet another lawyer and/or doctor was involved in Social Security fraud." <br /><br />His failure to suggest actually pursuing the lawyer (i.e. Conn) involved, and instead suggesting to change the entire system, shows his true colors. He doesn't care about getting rid of these types of lawyers and doctors, he only wants to reduce what SSA pays out. If scapegoating all lawyers based on the actions of a few helps to achieve that result, well it appears Senator Lankford is all for it. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-48141073486794082532015-07-07T14:06:31.318-04:002015-07-07T14:06:31.318-04:00He's also totally wrong about the Senate's...He's also totally wrong about the Senate's report. He said, "... a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee report titled 'Social Security Disability Programs: Improving the Quality of Benefit Award Decisions' concluded that a shocking one-quarter of all disability insurance claim decisions were flawed, improperly addressing 'insufficient, contradictory, and incomplete evidence, thus increasing the chances of rewarding nondisabled persons.'"<br /><br />That's not what the report said. It looked at 300 case and found, of those, they were flawed, not <i>all</i> decisions. Also, his quote: "thus increasing the chances of rewarding nondisabled persons," never appears in the report. It might be an editing error from The Hill, but it's not there. <br /><br />It's really a terrible op-ed, but The Hill will print anything. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-61334112996173053642015-07-07T13:15:49.663-04:002015-07-07T13:15:49.663-04:00Lankford also conveniently neglects to say that SS...Lankford also conveniently neglects to say that SS charges a $91 user fee on each check they send out to reps.<br /><br />And yes I am pretty sure every rep wants every case paid yesterday. The existing SS hearing backlogs render any conspiracy theory argument that reps try to delay hearings further specious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-52438475024288950002015-07-07T12:21:08.635-04:002015-07-07T12:21:08.635-04:00Considering the esteemed Senator doesn't seem ...Considering the esteemed Senator doesn't seem to properly explain what the grids are, I'm not sure how seriously he has studied the issues. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-82393617580467053642015-07-07T12:09:14.371-04:002015-07-07T12:09:14.371-04:00all reasonable ideas.all reasonable ideas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-57696744629426666772015-07-07T11:20:46.986-04:002015-07-07T11:20:46.986-04:00Nobody increases delay to increase backpay.
The g...Nobody increases delay to increase backpay.<br /><br />The goal is to get the claim paid, not to generate unfavorable decisions that have a value of $0.<br /><br />A rep's utopia is no hearings and 100% OTR decisions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-39814748932551598182015-07-07T10:44:01.284-04:002015-07-07T10:44:01.284-04:00While those who frequent this site know i CONSTANT...While those who frequent this site know i CONSTANTLY harp on fellow reps who don't submit evidence ahead of ALJ hearings, I've never actually heard of reps purposely delaying a decision in order to increase backpay. The backpay fee structure is more of a disincentive against proactive and early advocacy than an incentive for stalling a case. (Yes, there is a distinction). Lankford is incorrect when he states that no law or regulation prevents this type of behaviour; it's clearly prohibited by any state's ethical code. <br /><br />Also, Lankford's diatribe against the SSA's proccessing of fees makes his true motivations pretty transparent. SSA is already calculating backpayments. Is it that much harder to calculate a simple percentage of said backpayment? Clearly he just wants to unneccessarily shoulder reps with the responsibilities of debt collection and make the field less appealing to reps. Which is ridiculous because there are plenty of simple reforms that could be put in place that would accomplish his clandestine purpose and also further overall fairness and efficiency. (Maximum cap on IA fees/penalties for late submissions)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16749657789192685274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-53703508752796502092015-07-07T10:22:01.267-04:002015-07-07T10:22:01.267-04:00When attempting to introduce evidence the day of t...When attempting to introduce evidence the day of the hearing, ALJs have threatened to not approve my fee agreement. Not sure why this writer thinks attorneys have so much control over the process.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com