Your source for news affecting the U.S. Social Security Administration/© Charles T. Hall
We lose 4% of our workforce and you can't believe the hearings backlog?? How about the number of hearing slots and time wasted whenever 25% of my claimant's don't show up for their hearing? Have we come to accept that?
How come we accept frivilous claims that have no merit?These take up valuable slots for people with real problems.
Lavan and Neidenburg would like you to know that it's their right to sign up every claimant they want. And it's their right to withdraw 2 days before the hearing dumping thousands of unrepresented claimants without legit cases clogging valuable hearing slots.
@ 12:52I don't think Charles was blaming SSA in his post. The staff cuts and inadequate funding are large causes for the backlog. @2:00 PMI work at a not-for-profit where we don't charge clients and we are just as happy if a client proves to be able to work (in which case we dismiss the claim and refer to voc rehab) as opposed to being found disabled. My experiences, and those of many like me I have talked to, may be interesting for someone within the hearing system.For every case I see where a person should not have applied because their claim lacked merit, I see several who applied and lost despite being clearly disabled. Sometimes this is because their treating physician does an awful job of documenting their conditions in their medical records. Sometimes it's because for one reason or another, they cannot properly access medical care and document their problems (often because of their disability and poverty). Maybe they get a consultative exam that shows some pretty serious problems. However, many ALJs will turn such cases down despite a supportive CE report, if there are not sufficient treating source records.I can only imagine that some of those cases may appear frivolous from the hearing office's perspective because of the sparse records. Many of those claimants genuinely cannot work. When and if they get better documentation and care, that becomes more clear. Many of them won't get that access, leaving them in the awful position of being genuinely unable to work, and unable to get disability benefits.
Ugh. can we please give the people who have REAL ins. claims a chance to get the aid they desperately need? So many of these people will never get the access they deserve. No one said life was fair, but this is really stacking the deck against those who need the help.
The ACA should help eliminate those fringe disability claims, right? Since EVERYONE can get healthcare now, those poorly documented or even undocumented cases will become a thing of the past. After all, it's every Americans dream to be able to put in 40 plus hours per week at a job (or two or three).
@ 9:25not so fast, sweetheart. Thanks to cruel, idiotic, political point scoring Republican governors in 21 States (last I checked), you have a lot of folks too poor to qualify for ACA plans and subsidies, yet who cannot get Medicaid because their States (since they didn't accept the new money) don't have enough money to cover everyone who qualifies.Ain't America great?
ITT: massive reading comp failCharles said he can't believe the citizenry accepts the wait, not that it exists.
Too poor for a subsidized health plan?
@ 10:50yes, believe it or not. Read up on it if you don't believe me. They put a floor because they don't want Medicaid eligible people to suck up ACA subsidy money. But that doesn't work when States can't cover everyone eligible for Medicaid...
Maybe they should have written that in prior to passing the ACA. I guess that whole, "we'll read it after we pass it" wasn't a great idea. Elected officials at their best.
@ 12:27They did write that in--they had it in the ACA law that the federal Medicaid expansion would be forced on the States. The Supreme Court struck down that portion of the law, leaving the expansion a choice for each State. Remember any of this from the news??
So the ACA is what we thought it was...worthless for those most in need. Awesome.
No, the ACA addressed that issue. Your Supreme Court majority struck down that very important piece of the law, thinking they could have a "win-win" by keeping the individual mandate and simultaneously throwing a bone to the States' rights crowd.You ACA haters are so enveloped in irrational rage towards the law and Obama generally, you cannot even use the most basic logic. There's a lot of poor people who can't get ACA plans or subsidies because the ACA is such that those people are supposed to get Medicaid, which the ACA bolsters with a lot of new Federal money. The Supreme Court invalidates that part of the law. States now can choose to take the money or not, and many conservative-run States choose not to take it. Those States now by and large do not have enough Medicaid money to cover all the poor who qualify for Medicaid (especially people without children--don't you conservatives feel for them? the poor ones who were "smart enough" to not have children they "can't afford?"), leaving a good number of very poor people uninsured.And you say this is the fault of those who drafted the law (and through no fault of their own had it invalidated by a third party reviewing body)? You guys are nuts.
My point was that the Left always has an excuse for why something doesn't work. There is no perfect system, there is no "magic answer" for everything. The left lives in a fantasy land of perfect equality and fairness for all. The reality is that it will NEVER be that way and it's not the job of the federal government to level the societal playing field. And no, I'm not a right winger or a "hater" of anyone. I'm not rich and I'm not poor. No one wants to face reality which is often not what is ideal.
Post a Comment