Media Matters has a blog post up concerning the criticism that the Sixty Minutes piece on the Social Security disability programs has received from national disability organizations.
Michael Hiltzik at the Los Angeles Times calls the Sixty Minutes story "shameful." He notes that the Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) who told Sixty Minutes how easy it is to get Social Security disability benefits were singing a different tune in 2009. At that time, they said that the standards were too tight!
The Center for Economic and Policy Research has posted a criticism of the Sixty Minutes story on its blog.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research has posted a criticism of the Sixty Minutes story on its blog.
The 60 minute story on Social Security was a shameful story. To think everyone on it does not belong on it cries out for an apology. They interviewed two former employees that appeared they had an axe to grind with there ex employer. In addition the senator who is looking into some cases has his staff which has no medical back ground to make such statements. I think the senator should focus on the government shutdown and the debt ceiling in which they are doing a poor job settling.
ReplyDeletebut Coburn let's you know, every 5 seconds I might add, that he's a doctor.
ReplyDeleteHe might be a doctor, however how do you tell if someone belongs on disability without given that person an exam? You can't. All people that apply are given an exam xrays etc. By the government.
Delete60 minutes story on people who are disabled was a shameful story. A story about one senator going after people who are disabled. He should be a shamed of him self. Especially when he is in this dysfunctionly government that can not work together. A government that us causing pain to the people of this country. There is the true story 60 minutes. You had one of the people in front of you causing this shutdown and you go with attacking disabled people..you should be a shamed!
ReplyDeletebut, but, but he's a doctor, a doctor, I tell ya...
ReplyDelete;-)
All the scamming claimants, attorneys and doctors must be quaking in their boots. Too many SS disability claims are phony with lying claimants, dishonest attorneys, and greedy doctors who will say anything for a price.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, the ALJs are lazy, loaf at home, and approve almost every claim just to make numbers, i.e., 500 to 700 dispositions a year.
It's the opposite most claims are denied. It is clearly wrong for senator Coburn to attack people who are disabled based on a file review. Doctor Coburn you know better than that. You have to exam a person before coming up with any conclusion. I along with others think you should concentrate on re- opening our government. Something you and the rest of congress have failed to do.
DeleteAs a 32 year SSA Vet, I found the story right on. Fraud is pervasive. Although not part of the story SSI childhood benefits is out of control..
ReplyDeleteApparently compassion for people who are disabled is not your cup of tea wrong place for you to work.
DeleteTo 4:34:
ReplyDeleteEnough already! Either you are a disgruntled fed or a denied claimant. Get a life!
Attacking the disabled Is wrong, based on a file review , from Coburn. I agree you need to exam the person. In addition the government sets up a exam to all people filing. My point that most are denied.
ReplyDelete@ 6:53 and 7:10.
ReplyDeleteYour anger is misguided. DDS employees actually award benefits based on a "file review." If you are happy with granting based on file review alone, you should be willing to accept denial based on file review.
What your saying is totaly false. You are sent to a doctor set up by the government to confirm your disability. It's statement like this person who make up stuff, just to say something.
DeleteKiss my broken ass I'm sad an I. Hate this life of looking down on me as a lazy ass but I wish I got a check every week not month
ReplyDeleteSome of the problems with the Coburn staff review of cases are that there is no explanation of the expertise of the people who did the reviews. At least at DDS, even given their denial orientation, they do have specific training and probably know something about the local providers which might guide their decision making.
ReplyDeleteMore importantly, Coburn's staff was reviewing ALJ decisions, decisions which were made after hearing and seeing the claimant, in addition to reviewing the medical records. That is the point of having face to face hearings. Medical records do not always give an accurate or complete picture of claimants, especially when claimants do not have ready access to real medical treatment. Coburn's staff basically was second guessing ALJ's judgments without all of the relevant information and probably with a bias towards finding what were, in their opinions, "errors", while applying a DDS type, paper only review. If the DDS approach is the best,that is, that there is no need to see and hear the claimant, then there is no point in having hearings, which seems to be the direction ODAR is headed, with barriers to face-to-face hearings such as video.