Adam Hartung writing in Forbes tells us that Americans have reacted to limited economic growth "by feigning disabilities in order to create their own form of social welfare net similar to Europe." Hartung's short piece may be less interesting to me than the vigorous response it received, proof that those who represent the disabled are beginning to fight back against ferocious, unjustified attacks on the disabled population of the United States.
11 comments:
with the increases in health, etc. cited by this guy--and I by no means support the idea that tons of people getting SS benefits are not really disabled--I am troubled by the numbers.
Charles, in 2010 the Census data indicates that there are just about 194 million people between 18 and 65 in this country. I won't even shave off a few million to account for the significant number of people between 62 and 65 who are getting retirement benefits and not disability benefits since I can't find hard data or even enough data to guess the number--but just know the true number of possible working adults is less than 194 mil.
As of June 2012, about 13.6 million American adults are getting DIB (for themselves--they are the worker) or SSI.
That means just a hair over 7% of the adult population is disabled. Are you ok with that number? Does that make sense considering the advances we've made in health, longevity, etc.? Seven percent of American adults are disabled? I don't accept that percentage is appropriate in this day and age, and I have to assume some significant portion of that percentage represents people who actually can work.
A significant percentage of the "disabled" between 50 and retirement can actually work. Remember, many of the people in this age cohort were found disabled (especially at the hearing level) because they were limited to sedentary work (50 and older) or light work (55 and older) and it is presumed that older workers have a harder time finding a job (even though whether or not you can find an employer to hire you is supposed to be irrelevant). These individuals are perfectly capable of working
Ditto the last comment....the Grids are terrible
assume what you will anon 10:49AM, but look at disability rates in developing countries and you will probably find US on par with the rest. Plus, US is ageing faster than most and more women now in the workforce at or near prime disability age. It's not all boogeyman stuff like liberal ALJs, feigning filers, and unethical lawyers intercepting unemployment filers, although that obviously may happen. Think about the number of people who are denied. I would think US has a higher denial rate than most other developing nations.
OP here, and I work for SSA. The second two posters are completely correct. The grids make no sense. If we won't take into account the availability of jobs in your regional area, the unemployment rate, how many jobs we cite that are actually open, your criminal convictions, and the host of other factors we don't consider when saying there is work available for you, why in the world do we make age such a powerful factor. It blows my mind that we give you the RFC for light work--we say you can do light work!!!!--but will find you disabled simply because you are 55 and not 54.
I haven't kept detailed numbers on the cases that come accross my desk, but I can say that the percentage of favorable claims that are either: 1) someone 50 or greater with an RFC that is compatible with a significant number jobs available in the national economy (one who grids out); or, 2) someone who is over 60 that has decided to retire but has applied for disability to get the higher benefit amount they'd have to wait much longer to get by way of retirement benefits (you never weighed in on that one, Charles)
is quite significant. And it's only going to get bigger as all the boomers start shuffling towards the exits.
The grids were not adopted by SSA to pay benefits to loafers. They were adopted because SSA decided decades ago it was cheaper to use the grids than to pay vocational experts to testify at hearings involving older workers. It isn't a liberal conspiracy.
If SSA decides it cheaper to get rid of the grids, they are free to do so through a rulemaking. So for those SSA'ers here who think this is some terrible scandal, you need to be talking to your boss.
Talking to the current boss won't work because any effort to change the grids will result in horrible whining from NOSSCR, with SSA bowing to the pressure, as occurred a few years when there was a proposed rule to increase closely approaching advanced age to 52 and advanced age to 57.
"SSA decided decades ago..." yep, you are right. The Grids are old and not applicable to todays health or retirement age. Eliminate the Appeals Council...it just delays the appeal process a year. and---> please do those continuing disability reviews like they should be. The Grids take the case away from the judge and he or she HAS to pay it...regardless of the facts of the case. I see it all the time
A laborer, 58 years old, worked out of the Union Hall his whole career. He did water lines, sewer lines, road projects, hundreds of days of grimy dirty work in summer heat and winter cold. He is a high school graduate, no other education. His back and knees are shot, herniated discs, L4-S1 nerve root impingement, knees bone on bone needs replacements from the physical work for 40 years. CE in 25 minute exam finds he can sit 6 hours and stand/walk 2 hours and lift 20 lbs occasionally. No GRID, capable of Sedentary work finding would be not disabled. I am sure he can be retrained as a customer service representative, medical billing and coding, ticket taker, sleep car attendant, or carnival ride attendant. Employers will be glad to hire him for an office job!
Per the first post at 10:49 am - if 7% of the "working class" is already on disabilty, then the percentage applying must be horrifying! This is assuming that the allowance rate is Lisa's everyone says. The allowance rate for all DIB claims for 1999-2009 was about 55%. So if 7% are disabled, then about 14% applied - seems high to me.
12:47
not quite that cut and dry, as 7% is a cumulative number, we can't account for all the sub apps and multiple apps by the same people (some of whom eventually were award benefits), etc. But yeah, your general point is true. The percentage of working-age adults who applied is surely some significant number, bringing the total number of adult Americans trying to get disability benefits well above 7%, perhaps above 10%. Scary. 1 out of 10 adults.
Post a Comment