The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has scheduled what they call "a conversation with some of the nation’s top disability experts and policymakers" for June 6 in Washington. Two of the speakers have focused their attention on ways to encourage disabled people to return to work. One speaker is a Democratic staffer for the House Ways and Means Committee and another is a career staffer at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Two Senators may speak.
6 comments:
Ask me. I can testify that all the money in the world wont get our disabled back on the work rolls with any great numbers.
Disabled here with a full time job, I respectfully disagree. Not all but some can and want to work, but most lack the skills needed for todays jobs. With proper training it can and does happen every single day. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water just because we cannot put everyone back to work doesn't mean we shouldn't try to put any back to work.
I know the feeling on the blog is once found disabled for SSA benefits then disabled and unable to work for life. One of the biggest problems is leaving Medicare and the assistance programs that many disabled folks use to get by. LIS for prescriptions QMB or SLMB healthcare costs, energy assistance, TANIF and on and on and on. It takes a large income to cover all of those costs. Add to that any special equipment or transportation needs and it gets complicated and expensive quickly.
These are the real obstacles. Not always the conditions and the limitations of those conditions, but the costs and the great US tradition of hiding the disabled from everyday view.
I'm supposing this is a continuation of the Simpson-Bowles folks who never met a government program that benefits real people that they ever liked. All of the former democratic politicians make clear the problem of the corporate democratic party that stopped fighting for the American people back in the Jimmy Carter days and has been more than happy to conspire with the billionaires and right wing republicans to destroy the safety net and loot people's retirements. David Stockman has seen the light after he helped sell supply side economics and run up the record deficits of the Reagan period. The really funny part is if the Wall Street banks drove us off a cliff tomorrow and needed a bail out, these same folks would be wringing their hands and "reluctantly" lobbying congress to write the banks monumental bailout checks to "save the economy" because they are all way to important and too big to fail. They don't care if the nation's grandmothers eat cat food out of trash cans.
Can some people with disabilities work, especially with proper training and support? Of course.
Should SSA be the agency managing and paying for this training and support; if they did would it be cost-effective (ie, would the cost of the services be less than the savings to the trust fund); and is SSA policy rather than Medicaid and Medicare eligibility, the special education system, insufficient investigation of ADA violations, limitations in public transit for those unable to drive, inadequate child care, and a low minimum wage the major driver of low workforce participation among people with disabilities? No to all of these.
You are correct @6:10. I wish that money could be spent to build a real vocational rehabilitation program where people could get medical care and counseling while they tried to see if they could work. But that's not really where government priorities are. Look how quickly billions were approved for farmers recently.
@4:42
I agree with you that help should be available. Historically, about 2-5% of disabled beneficiaries are able to benefit from such help.
Making the system understandable and easy to navigate for that 2-5% should be a priority. Congress has failed there, by making a bunch of complicated piecemeal rules with rather severe consequences attached. Navigating the work incentive programs is like dancing in a minefield. You're likely to trigger overpayments, loss of health insurance and benefits, and all the associated problems which can include for some, becoming more sick, financially ruined, and/or homeless. I am not surprised that many beneficiaries are reluctant to use them. Fixing that by making incentives simple and easy to use, while also removing penalties for those who try would, over time, remove some of that reluctance. That would require an pretty comprehensive overhaul, and you would still likely be only looking at 5% or less of beneficiaries being able to benefit from it, in my estimation. That being said, I still think it is worth doing.
Post a Comment