From Sunshine State News:
This bill is based upon the mistaken premise that many Social Security disability recipients get better over time and should be cast off benefits. However, beneficiaries are already subject to continuing disability reviews and are cut off benefits if they have improved to the point that they can work. What's wrong with this process? Not enough claimants are cut off benefits to satisfy these Senators. I think this should lead a reasonable person to conclude that few claimants actually get better. However, if you base your judgments not upon the facts that exist but upon what you think the facts should be, you might conclude that you just have to be much sterner about cutting people off. Don't worry about whether they've improved. Just make them prove over and over and over again that they're disabled. We'll get them off benefits!
Forcing claimants to prove over and over that they are disabled would be cruel. How many people think that schizophrenics get better over time? Not many who are actually familiar with schizophrenia. However, if you subject schizophrenics to this plan, many would lose their benefits, not because they've improved but because they're too impaired to effectively pursue new claims. Would that result please these Senators?
By the way, I was around when the Reagan Administration did wholesale continuing disability reviews without a medical improvement standard and without interim benefits, which is the functional equivalent of what these Senators propose. It was by far the most unpopular policy of the Reagan Administration. It's how we came to have a medical improvement standard we have today. These Senators weren't around for that. If they had been, they wouldn't be proposing this.
U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., joined with two Senate conservatives on Wednesday to back a proposal reforming Social Security disability benefits.
Noting that disability benefits are consuming more Social Security funds, Rubio and U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, are co-sponsoring U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton’s, R-Ark., “Return to Work Act" which places new applicants who qualify for Social Security disability benefits in four groups based on whether medical improvement is expected, likely, possible or not expected.
Beneficiaries in the first three groups would be given a timeline to receive disability benefits while those who are not expected to recover would not. If beneficiaries in the first three groups have not recovered at the end of their timelines--two years for those deemed expected to recover, five years for those deemed likely to recover, longer for those whose recovery is possible--they will be able to reapply for disability benefits.The number of people drawing Social Security disability benefits is declining. That's a fact. There's no crisis for this bill to address.
This bill is based upon the mistaken premise that many Social Security disability recipients get better over time and should be cast off benefits. However, beneficiaries are already subject to continuing disability reviews and are cut off benefits if they have improved to the point that they can work. What's wrong with this process? Not enough claimants are cut off benefits to satisfy these Senators. I think this should lead a reasonable person to conclude that few claimants actually get better. However, if you base your judgments not upon the facts that exist but upon what you think the facts should be, you might conclude that you just have to be much sterner about cutting people off. Don't worry about whether they've improved. Just make them prove over and over and over again that they're disabled. We'll get them off benefits!
Forcing claimants to prove over and over that they are disabled would be cruel. How many people think that schizophrenics get better over time? Not many who are actually familiar with schizophrenia. However, if you subject schizophrenics to this plan, many would lose their benefits, not because they've improved but because they're too impaired to effectively pursue new claims. Would that result please these Senators?
By the way, I was around when the Reagan Administration did wholesale continuing disability reviews without a medical improvement standard and without interim benefits, which is the functional equivalent of what these Senators propose. It was by far the most unpopular policy of the Reagan Administration. It's how we came to have a medical improvement standard we have today. These Senators weren't around for that. If they had been, they wouldn't be proposing this.