Fees For Representing Social Security Claimants Going Down
As part of a virulently hostile piece about attorneys who represent the disabled, the Manhattan Institute, a right wing "think tank", posted this graph, which undermines their argument a bit:
My impression from reading the full article was that the authors really dislike people with disabilities. They appear to promote disability discrimination by wanting to make it difficult for people with disabilities to sue businesses that break the law by denying them equal access.
Remember - these numbers are SSDI only (title II). They do not include SSI fees (title XVI) nor do they include any direct payment fees - whether because the rep is not entitled to direct payment, the approved fee exceeds 25% of the past-due benefits, or the rep has part or all of the fee in an escrow account.
My impression from the article was "why don't attorneys litigate employers regarding the ADA as hard as they try to get the claimant on fixed income under a disability tag.
Imagine how the author of that article would go through the roof if they did that!
There is a bit of humor and irony in the hypocrisy of the article. George Bush signed the ADA into law in the 1990's, giving people with disabilities the right to sue if businesses failed to provide reasonable access. NOW right wing extremists do the internet equivalent of tarring and feathering people with disabilities when they have the temerity to actually ask a court to enforce those rights. Were they supposed to sit meekly by and let the businesses get away with breaking the law and excluding them? Apparently the Manhattan Institute thinks so.
Same thing with people applying for disability benefits. If they want a lawyer's help to enforce legitimate rights under the law, shouldn't it be available?
For more irony consider that the ultra right wingers who wrote that article are likely ardent capitalists who get misty eyed if you talk about the right to make profits through hard work. Yet the article condemns lawyers for doing what???? Working hard to make a profit and a living by helping people with disabilities. Apparently a different standard applies for people who work hard to help the poor.
Relax guy, I was simply offering what I gleaned from reading the article. Whether it upsets you or not is irrelevant, I still came away with that impression. I don't consider myself right wing or left wing - I fall different ways on different issues. Maybe if we all leaned toward common sense. The country would be better off.
My impression from reading the full article was that the authors really dislike people with disabilities. They appear to promote disability discrimination by wanting to make it difficult for people with disabilities to sue businesses that break the law by denying them equal access.
ReplyDeleteRemember - these numbers are SSDI only (title II). They do not include SSI fees (title XVI) nor do they include any direct payment fees - whether because the rep is not entitled to direct payment, the approved fee exceeds 25% of the past-due benefits, or the rep has part or all of the fee in an escrow account.
ReplyDeleteMy impression from the article was "why don't attorneys litigate employers regarding the ADA as hard as they try to get the claimant on fixed income under a disability tag.
ReplyDelete@12:29
ReplyDeleteImagine how the author of that article would go through the roof if they did that!
There is a bit of humor and irony in the hypocrisy of the article. George Bush signed the ADA into law in the 1990's, giving people with disabilities the right to sue if businesses failed to provide reasonable access. NOW right wing extremists do the internet equivalent of tarring and feathering people with disabilities when they have the temerity to actually ask a court to enforce those rights. Were they supposed to sit meekly by and let the businesses get away with breaking the law and excluding them? Apparently the Manhattan Institute thinks so.
Same thing with people applying for disability benefits. If they want a lawyer's help to enforce legitimate rights under the law, shouldn't it be available?
For more irony consider that the ultra right wingers who wrote that article are likely ardent capitalists who get misty eyed if you talk about the right to make profits through hard work. Yet the article condemns lawyers for doing what???? Working hard to make a profit and a living by helping people with disabilities. Apparently a different standard applies for people who work hard to help the poor.
Relax guy, I was simply offering what I gleaned from reading the article. Whether it upsets you or not is irrelevant, I still came away with that impression. I don't consider myself right wing or left wing - I fall different ways on different issues. Maybe if we all leaned toward common sense. The country would be better off.
Delete