No, the graft does not look out of control. Older Americans make up for most of the SSDI claims. Most workers have worked over twenty years, and many of them worked hard physical labor jobs. Besides if your over the age 60 you are old, and your body is breaking down. SSDI is a very low modest income, and the workers paid into the system, so leave them alone. I say expand SSDI not cut it. SSDI is not a moochers program, it is a insurance they have paid for when they get disabled.
Yes. It is out of control. In an era of jobs that require less and less physical exertion, coupled with increased medical technology and education, the fact that increasing numbers of people are "disabled" is ludicrous.
@9:47, I wish that were so and I look forward to the day when it is true that the number of people unable to work decreases a lot! If you can convince all those folks who are against expanding decent and affordable medical coverage to the poor to cut it out, no doubt fewer people will get sick enough to need disability benefits. Vote those bums out of office! We know who they are.
Since the jobs with less physical exertion generally require more education and skills, we also need to vote out those that don't prioritize funding educational opportunity for the poor. Most people on disability are impoverished before and after becoming disabled, so that's obviously where the challenge lies.
I totally agree....low income workers that work hard physical labor are very neglected by the system. Most people retire on any job after 25 years of service in these Government job. Teacher usually retire in twenty years. So why the system expect low income workers working physical labor to work for fifty years on a job. The type of job you are on and your age should play a big factor in determining a persons limits on how many hours they can work or are they able to produce gainful employment.
"None are so blind as those who will not see." Since about 2009, approximately 50% of my clients have lost their homes for which they paid on mortgages for many years. What working person gets lazy and sacrifices a home for which they've paid 25 years on a 30-year mortgage just to get a lousy $1,000 per month stipend?
@9:47, many of the present 50-somethings who've worked physically usually dropped out of school 30 years ago. During their youth, a high school education or college was not needed to get a good-paying job. They are not trained for the non-physical or technical jobs of today, and, as 11:30 pointed out, funds to retrain such workers are being cut. At their age, any financial resources they have left are being used to maintain their homes and families. When their health failed and they had to stop work, their flexibility to retrain or to even get medical treatment to possibly restore their health disappeared.
I wish that apparently well-educated and/or youthful people could figuratively put themselves in the place of these now destitute former workers.
No, the graft does not look out of control. Older Americans make up for most of the SSDI claims. Most workers have worked over twenty years, and many of them worked hard physical labor jobs. Besides if your over the age 60 you are old, and your body is breaking down. SSDI is a very low modest income, and the workers paid into the system, so leave them alone. I say expand SSDI not cut it. SSDI is not a moochers program, it is a insurance they have paid for when they get disabled.
ReplyDeleteLet's blame it on Eric Conn!!!
ReplyDeleteYes. It is out of control. In an era of jobs that require less and less physical exertion, coupled with increased medical technology and education, the fact that increasing numbers of people are "disabled" is ludicrous.
ReplyDelete@9:47, I wish that were so and I look forward to the day when it is true that the number of people unable to work decreases a lot! If you can convince all those folks who are against expanding decent and affordable medical coverage to the poor to cut it out, no doubt fewer people will get sick enough to need disability benefits. Vote those bums out of office! We know who they are.
ReplyDeleteSince the jobs with less physical exertion generally require more education and skills, we also need to vote out those that don't prioritize funding educational opportunity for the poor. Most people on disability are impoverished before and after becoming disabled, so that's obviously where the challenge lies.
I totally agree....low income workers that work hard physical labor are very neglected by the system. Most people retire on any job after 25 years of service in these Government job. Teacher usually retire in twenty years. So why the system expect low income workers working physical labor to work for fifty years on a job. The type of job you are on and your age should play a big factor in determining a persons limits on how many hours they can work or are they able to produce gainful employment.
ReplyDelete"None are so blind as those who will not see." Since about 2009, approximately 50% of my clients have lost their homes for which they paid on mortgages for many years. What working person gets lazy and sacrifices a home for which they've paid 25 years on a 30-year mortgage just to get a lousy $1,000 per month stipend?
ReplyDelete@9:47, many of the present 50-somethings who've worked physically usually dropped out of school 30 years ago. During their youth, a high school education or college was not needed to get a good-paying job. They are not trained for the non-physical or technical jobs of today, and, as 11:30 pointed out, funds to retrain such workers are being cut. At their age, any financial resources they have left are being used to maintain their homes and families. When their health failed and they had to stop work, their flexibility to retrain or to even get medical treatment to possibly restore their health disappeared.
I wish that apparently well-educated and/or youthful people could figuratively put themselves in the place of these now destitute former workers.