This is from the Social Security Advisory Board's Aspects of Disability: Decision Making: Data and Materials. A person's chances of becoming disabled soars as he or she ages. This is the sort of thing that is obvious if you are at ground level but perhaps not so obvious if you're at 30,000 feet. This has little to do with Social Security policies. It is the unavoidable effects of aging. Any analysis of Social Security's disability programs which fails to take into account the aging of the population is inherently misleading.
This graph only goes up to age 64. Notice how steep the curve gets as it approaches the 60-64 age group. What do you think it would show if it went up to 70? Is increasing full retirement age really feasible?
I think they only thing that it shows is the utter ridiculousness of the grid rules.
ReplyDeleteAbolish the grid rules, or at least adjust them upwards. IE if you're 50 and limited to sedentary, you are NOT disabled. If you're 55 and limited to light, you are NOT disabled.
No links a law firm or other such entity allowed in comments. Nobody is allowed to try to use this blog for Search Engine Optimization other than me!
ReplyDeleteIn other news, Water is Wet...
ReplyDeleteThis statement is “not true” and “erroneous” because a person’s disability or physiological functional status should be and ought to be based on a person’s physiological functional status in terms impairments, limitations, inflammations, dysfunctions, symptoms, etc. on daily basis or regular basis rather than simply based on a person’s age per se.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is there are many elderly or people age 65 or older still lived vibrantly and functioning with full maximum strength, vitality, and endurance and without bodily injuries, inflammations, symptoms, and so on. “Aging does not cause a person to develop disability or impairments,” it is usually a person’s precious body that has been “subjected to physiological and bodily inflammations, traumatic incident, dysfunctions, and weaknesses that derived from bodily injuries, internal abnormalities, and prescription drugs which directly induced inflammations and dysfunctions on a person’s body!” The issue that “many people and many so-called public agencies” took it very lightly on a person’s bodily injuries, inflammations, dysfunctions, etc. and worst of all, they misperceived on how a person’s body and life adversely altered by bodily inflammation, dysfunctions, and abnormalities. As a result, such mentality of the public and the public agencies PREVENTED the representative of the agencies and the impaired person per se to be fully and accurately educated on the essence of a normal, healthy, and functional body, body systems, and body functions!
With that being said, although not all of us are medical professionals nor enrolled in healthcare programs, but, “it is time for us to be fully and accurately educated on how a healthy, optimal, and vital body, body systems, and body functions should be operated vs. how a dysfunctional, abnormal, and weak body is operating! We can do this by doing medical research from reliable and authentic sources on a regular basis for the benefit of society, for us, for our family, for our friends, for our community, and for humanity by being educated, knowledgeable, wise, clear-headed, well-grounded, and so on by knowing how and when to constitute a person’s body dysfunctions, inflammations, and symptoms to be physically or physiologically impaired and to know how to honor this impaired person!
By Lifestar
While I would wager there is a significantly increased chance of injury/acquiring an affliction/etc. that would disable a person as he gets older, I have to agree with 9:55.
ReplyDeleteI cannot tell you how many 50 and 55 year olds are gridding out. Why is a 50-year old who can do sedentary work disabled but a 48-year old isn't? It's not like 50 and 55 are considered super old these days...
ANON 10:10
ReplyDeleteThe age-based presumptions exist because liberals want an excuse to pay more people. Even adjusting the age categories upward will not happen until we have a Commissioner who is willing to stand up to NOSSCR and other lobbies; a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was issued several years proposing to change "closing approaching advanced age" to 52 and "advanced age" to 57, but NOSSCR threw a fit and Astrue withdrew the notice.
If I was Commissioner, closely approaching advanced age would be 57 and advanced age would be 62; ten years is more than enough of a time span to give people benefits just because they are "old".