There's another in the series of Washington Post articles about Social Security disability. It repeats many of the same themes we've come to expect from the Post:
- Disability recipients can go back to work if they really want to -- but they mostly don't want to because they don't want to lose their disability benefits.
- There's a lot of disability in rural areas because there aren't many jobs in rural areas, meaning that disability benefits are little more than disguised unemployment benefits.
- Disability is mostly due to things like mental illness which people can overcome if they really want.
- Drugs and alcohol are a major factor in disability.
The article is misleading. It presents mental illness as if it were no more than feeling a bit anxious, depressed and discouraged. Who among us doesn't feel that way sometimes? I know nothing about this woman's case but I know you don't get on Social Security disability due to the sort of mild psychiatric symptoms discussed in this article.
I also know that in any case, mental illness is but a fraction of the disability picture. If you wanted a more typical disability recipient, you'd have an older man or woman with physical health problems that will only get worse with time but a case like that wouldn't display what the Post wants to display.
The unstated message of this series is that Social Security ought
to approve fewer people for Social Security disability and should be
required to take a more coercive approach to getting disability
recipients back to work. I don't think that's justified. It's already incredibly difficult to get on Social Security disability benefits. No further effort to get people back to work will be effective because the vast majority of disability recipients are far too sick to work and don't get any better over time.
14 comments:
how do you define "incredibly difficult" to get SS disability benefits? Most waterfall charts show around 1/2-2/3 or so of applicants ultimately get approved with the majority of those approved at the DDS (first level).
See the most recent waterfall chart https://socsecnews.blogspot.com/2017/06/they-call-this-waterfall-chart.html
Your numbers are way off. Yes, most of people approved are approved at the initial level. 841,000 of the 2,648,732 that apply.
The total number approved at recon is 76,940 and at ODAR 219,022. So, in reality, 74% of those approved are approved at initial. And, last year 19% of those approved are approved by ODAR. Historically, this number varies from 20-25%. So, for those who believe ODAR is giving it away, not true now and never was.
The percentage of people ultimately approved is 45%, substantially below the one half to two thirds you suggest.
So, yes calling it "incredibly difficult" is a value statement but the numbers show it is not easy at all.
These articles are like the disability claimant with the borderline case demanding to know "why can't I get my disability when some guy in my neighborhood just does drugs and gets it?" They focus on a red herring individual who, based on outside observation, is not disabled and somehow got lucky enough to draw an easy judge or DDS reviewer. If I had to guess, they didn't get approved in the last few years, as the agency has gotten rid of pretty much every outlier high granter. For every judge that grants 65% plus, there are probably 20 that grant under 30%.
Let me spell it out for you. 50 and older: you have a chance. 55+: good chance. 49 and under: be prepared to be screwed. Evidence be fanned, they can find a "job" you "can do." Whether you could do the job is irrelevant. They are going to claim you can.
One thing I have learned from this blog is that everyone is disabled and wrongly denied. I am amazed that anyone is working anywhere!
SSA data show that when all is said and done,37% of SSDI claimants are awarded benefits.
I'd like to see how much high denier "outlier" judges cost the American taxpayer with remands, extra manhours spent at the agency levels to rehear cases, etc.
9:45 AM anonymous. Here is a hypothetical for you. How many of the so-called experts (VEs) would actually hire the same individuals that they claim can do job x if they were suddenly in charge of HR of a company that has job x positions? I am guessing none. And deep down, you know it, too.
9:15 I don't think this lady is a red herring individual who is not disabled... If you read the whole article, at the end she became suicidal and so depressed she couldn't go to work. She is bipolar. Anyone who has dealt with bipolar individuals know that it is not unusual for them to be functioning for awhile, only to crash and burn. The Washington Post article is offensive because it states that she "decided" to be disabled instead of working. Obviously, the writer has never dealt with dibilitating depression before.
I don't know why the Post keeps hammering on this dead horse. In the end, this older women with a history of mental illness could not even hold down a job at Walmart. In Trumpworld, the belief is that anyone can work at Walmart. Anyone might be able to get a job there, but it is having the physical and mental ability to show up day in and day out that counts. Studies have repeatedly shown that once you have a physical or mental impairment and leave the workforce, the odds of getting back are remote.
I agree with 5:37, although I get the impression from reading the article that the Post's authors still don't get the real issues here, whether intentionally or not. Talk to HR people for employers and ask if they would keep someone on with symptoms like the woman in the article, like repeated mistakes after warnings, tardiness and absence. Ask psychiatrists if those result from mental illness and whether will power alone can cure them.
"I know nothing about this woman's case but I know you don't get on Social Security disability due to the sort of mild psychiatric symptoms discussed in this article."
This is as much a generalization as the themes in the Washington Post series. It is possible to get on disability benefits with relatively mild impairments - not because of the standards, which are high, but because the system is administered by imperfect people with differing views on how to apply those standards. For an example, look no further than the Conn fiasco. Many if not most of his clients probably would have qualified as disabled without rigging the game, but nowhere near the number that were actually approved. Some ALJs pay 20%, some pay 80%. The low-payer almost certainly gets some cases wrong, but are you willing to climb out on a limb and say that the high-payer gets them all right?
As for the typical older disability recipient, that's not the story because there's no mystery there. The mystery is why large communities of working age people in rural America are receiving disability benefits at a much higher rate than their peers in other parts of the country. You may have plausible theories, such as poor access to health care and/or genetic predisposition to certain conditions, but they're still just theories. Another theory is that the lack of jobs that pay a living wage creates an incentive to pursue disability benefits instead of work. The rise in disability applications during economic downturns is real, and it's perfectly reasonable to ask why.
I understand that it feels like the entire disability system is under attack right now, but fighting the stereotypes with even more generalizations about how getting disability benefits is a Herculean task is not productive.
Wonder how many reps lined up to take the case and how many turned it down?
When I see groups of younger persons who get benefits, I find that they are ill. It is hard for individuals under 50 to qualify for benefits. Disability instead of work isn't much of an 'incentive' as the amount paid is usually low. If a person can work and make a good wage, that's better than waiting on a small disability check that only comes once a month. Unless you have good earnings (which you wouldn't forsake unless you had to), your disability check will be small. So many of my clients are still struggling because the check, while better than nothing, just isn't very much.
Post a Comment