An advisory committee in Australia has recommended new rules for the determination of disability under that country's Social Security system. It bears more than a little resemblance to the way in which disability is determined for children under the U.S. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, complete with the impossibility of determining whether an individual is mildly, moderately, severely or extremely impaired. To make the Australian plan even better, it looks like they have no equivalent of the Listings!
Reading the Australian plan may be a sobering experience for anyone who thinks that disability determination in the U.S. is a mess and that there must be a better way. What is being recommended in Australia looks far more unworkable than what we have in the U.S.
Seems fairly workable to me, especially since for each category it actually explains what constitutes a mild, moderate, severe, or extreme impairment; unlike the US system where one person's moderate is another person's severe.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it avoids one of the major flaws of the adult system in the US -- age-based presumptions about employability.
Anon 1, how are age-based presumptions of disability a major flaw? Are you going to tell me a 55 year old former firefighter for 30 yrs is going to be realistically hired for an entry level, unskilled sedentary job? What dream world do you live in?
ReplyDeletei am not Anon 1...but the test for disability is are you ABLE to work...NOT will someone hire you.
ReplyDeletePLEASE, explain this to your clients.
The regulations clearly state that an individual will be found disabled if they cannot engage in any substantial gainful activity when considering their impairments in conjunction with their age, education, and work experience. An individual does not need to be a bedridden vegetable to be found disabled; they just need to be incapable of performing SGA when considering their injuries and their vocational background.
ReplyDeleteage-based presumptions are flawed, but they do provide an expedient way for us not to have to get into such details in every individual case.
ReplyDeleteOne problem with the use of "age" in SSD, is that it is entirely treated as a negative factor and applied to entry level job placements.
ReplyDeleteIn a more realistic world, the age 55 firefighter is no longer a rank recruit. S/He has valuable experience and seniority to move up the ladder for less demanding physical work as a fire company officer, fire safety inspector, central office desk work.
If s/he has stayed at the lowest rung in the fire department for thirty years, this is more than a disability problem.
Our experienced firefighter should also have the qualifications for less physical civilian jobs, too, if serous consideration was given to "transferable vocational skills" for skilled and semi-skilled work. Fire departments provide training, which is more than hauling hoses and climbing ladders. There are college courses and degrees in fire "science."
That this economy has insufficient jobs, new worker and old workers, skilled and unskilled, is another question, not to be solved for depleting the Social Security disability 'trust' fund. ...