| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On May 07 2014 15:30 WhiteDog wrote: Jonny ? Arguments ? I thought he only ask questions. gotta fill your own argument in. i don't know if you've ever defended a paper but this is how things go. helps with strengthening your own arguments. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i'm really not sure about who's right here, but this is the basic working distinction that turns the question. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23617 Posts
On May 07 2014 18:08 oneofthem wrote: RE: doctor's standard, it's a question of whether it is his place to determine disability standard, or if the standard is meant to be filled in by the legal structure, and he's there to provide a physical description. i'm really not sure about who's right here, but this is the basic working distinction that turns the question. None of it gets at a very basic question of how many/what percentage (ball park is fine) fit this description of 'work-capable' people on disability? Until someone has that estimate (data or not) it hasn't been shown in any way to be of any significant impact. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
taken as an abstract standard, i think it is true. however, taking who's assigning the standard, we have the question of whether the doctor is not stepping over his bounded duties in a system that has a judge in it to determine just this standards question. it seems that the doctor is being portrayed in a sympathetic light to reflect the conditions in the particular town, an air of joblessness that forces people to choose disability. (with a nudging suggestion that, if this is the case, then why not give it to them) regardless of whether the doctor is right, i think it does demonstrate successfully that there's a bigger problem that's causing the hopelessness/desperation in these places. the south in particular is very underdeveloped economically and i'm not sure they have the resources to bootstrap up something. however, getting 25% of your population on disability is certainly NOT the right way to go about rehabilitating a region. i think this probably calls for a government jobs program that is productively designed, not just building castles/pyramids. it's better than disability at least. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23617 Posts
On May 07 2014 18:15 oneofthem wrote: i was talking about whether the doctor's idea that the degree of physical infirmity that qualifies as disability is dependent on the person's background. taken as an abstract standard, i think it is true. however, taking who's assigning the standard, we have the question of whether the doctor is not stepping over his bounded duties in a system that has a judge in it to determine just this standards question. Ok the determination process of who qualifies for Disability may or may not be the worst case of fraud/mis diagnosing/ standards, bounded duties, what ever.... Imagine someone conceded every imperfection in payment how many bloody 'work-able' people/percentage of recipients are we supposedly talking about? I'll take a worse case estimate, a best case, a range, anything...? All there seems to be is obtuse obfuscations... Seems like a very weird thing for conservatives to think is such a big problem and yet not a single one has anything that resembles an idea of how big. Let alone a spec of pertinent data... Like I said before I'm all for reform in the system but the republicans in Washington are inconsolable and as obstinate as a grand canyon mule on his 2nd trip that day... And the way Senate candidates like the one that sparked this discussion and conservatives that defend those kind of remarks talk about the issue is so drenched with ridiculousness it's almost impossible to address any legitimate issues that may exist. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if you just look at teh state by state numbers, it does suggest a pretty large spread in the variable portion of disability. there's another chart that shows the type of thing granted disability, and back pain / mental stuff are more dependent on subjective reports than injury. while we don't want to call the difference fraud per se, it does show some flexibility in the standard used. from working with administrative courts and some lawyers who do this stuff, it seems like the process is pretty uneven and judge dependent. you are also faced with different and conflicting local govt loyalties. let's not take lightly this issue though. having people who can work in some capacity on disability is not the optimal solution, you'd probably want a world in which there are such job types for these people to fill. it's also not fulfilling for these people themselves to be on disability when they could work. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On May 07 2014 18:03 coverpunch wrote: You should try to answer your question with the opposite extreme hypothetical. Say you have a perfectly healthy 25 year old who simply doesn't want to work and they apply for worker's compensation claiming they are lazy. Should the government give it to this person, even though they clearly do not qualify for it and has no justification to receive money paid by everyone else? Yes. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On May 07 2014 18:34 oneofthem wrote: i'm not sure if there has been studies done, but the info source for determining what teh right number should be, with absolute case by case precision, is itself used in determining who's currently assigned disability. if you just look at teh state by state numbers, it does suggest a pretty large spread in the variable portion of disability. there's another chart that shows the type of thing granted disability, and back pain / mental stuff are more dependent on subjective reports than injury. while we don't want to call the difference fraud per se, it does show some flexibility in the standard used. from working with administrative courts and some lawyers who do this stuff, it seems like the process is pretty uneven and judge dependent. you are also faced with different and conflicting local govt loyalties. let's not take lightly this issue though. having people who can work in some capacity on disability is not the optimal solution, you'd probably want a world in which there are such job types for these people to fill. it's also not fulfilling for these people themselves to be on disability when they could work. That's a key point that people don't seem to understand. People want to have something meaningful to do. Let's give them jobs they can do and the necessary training if required. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23617 Posts
On May 07 2014 18:34 oneofthem wrote: i'm not sure if there has been studies done, but the info source for determining what teh right number should be, with absolute case by case precision, is itself used in determining who's currently assigned disability. if you just look at teh state by state numbers, it does suggest a pretty large spread in the variable portion of disability. there's another chart that shows the type of thing granted disability, and back pain / mental stuff are more dependent on subjective reports than injury. while we don't want to call the difference fraud per se, it does show some flexibility in the standard used. from working with administrative courts and some lawyers who do this stuff, it seems like the process is pretty uneven and judge dependent. you are also faced with different and conflicting local govt loyalties. let's not take lightly this issue though. having people who can work in some capacity on disability is not the optimal solution, you'd probably want a world in which there are such job types for these people to fill. it's also not fulfilling for these people themselves to be on disability when they could work. I disagree about your interpretation of those graphs/subjectivity issues/process issues but that doesn't matter until I get the important part of your interpretation. I'm not taking the issue lightly. I get there are better options than having work-able people on disability. What I don't understand why it is so impossible to but anything that resembles a number on this. I could guess at how many _______(<--- insert any numerical value question) and at least provide a ball park of what I thought it was, and I could provide one that I knew with absolute certainty. For such a serious issue I find it terribly concerning those pressing hardest for immediate reform to combat a boogie man expansion have no idea what the most or least amount of work-able people we are even talking about. It wouldn't make sense in any other comparable context I can't imagine why it would here? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
what interpretation would you have with respect to the different state by state numbers? economic climate is certainly a part, but it should only affect # of applicants maybe. there are sites (disability lawyers like this sort of data) on approval rates by region. shows a big spread as well | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
In America we cut off our noses to spite our face. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23617 Posts
On May 07 2014 18:50 oneofthem wrote: well if you are putting the burden of 'having a number' on people who think there's an issue, that seems a bit hard to do. what interpretation would you have with respect to the different state by state numbers? economic climate is certainly a part, but it should only affect # of applicants maybe. there are sites (disability lawyers like this sort of data) on approval rates by region. shows a big spread as well Everyone thinks it's an issue. I am just trying to get a reasonable position of how big anyone at this point thinks it is (since it's been made abundantly clear no one has any data beyond some really speculative and incomplete interpretations) There are tons of reasons for variations in numbers. There's the ones I listed I before and the frequency of someone fitting into those conditions variation by location. There's the economic climate that you mentioned, the environment environment, the actual industries or jobs in the area, historical and current relocations, and way too many more to list. If you want to cite the lawyers data to support a claim on how many you think are work-able people on disability, please do. It's really starting to look silly and mysterious as to why no one wants to put a number on it. I am all for solutions like Igne's though as they solve several problems and how many work-able people it gets off disability is just a bonus and not the focus. Most people would rather be part of some moment in national history than tell people they collected disability because they were lazy while Americans flooded off unemployment rolls to build the next Hoover Dam sized solar energy project, Smart Power-grid, Data Infrastructure Project, Mission to Mars, etc...(people can earn plenty of pride and honor serving the workers on such projects coffee and pie too) I have seen 0 information to lead any reasonable person to the conclusion the amount of work-able people on disability is a 'non-insignificant' amount. Furthermore, even if it was there is a significant amount of work-able people on disability there is ample evidence to believe that if there was a workable job available to them that they would take it. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
also several of the factors you mentioned are merged into a difference in applicant number. the rate of approval should indicate a standards/process problem. im in the middle of some stuff and just postin here to procrastinate. you can do some research on the rate stats shouldnt be hard to find on a state level basis. there are records kept on per judge basis but idk if there is access to those | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23617 Posts
On May 07 2014 19:08 oneofthem wrote: it's not mysterious at all. this number is hard to get to and requires a lot of analysis. i dont see the need for a headcount number when we have a lot of prima facie indication of potential issue though. your explanation of the variation is rather unconvincing. also several of the factors you mentioned are merged into a difference in applicant number. the rate of approval should indicate a standards/process problem. im in the middle of some stuff and just postin here to procrastinate. you can do some research on the rate stats shouldnt be hard to find on a state level basis. there are records kept on per judge basis but idk if there is access to those This number is harder to get to than any other number known to man apparently because no one can even estimate it. Well the amount of people legitimately qualifying can vary significantly for a lot of reasons and then cause significant variation in approval, but it diverts from my main point/question. I know there are anomalies in the system (corrupt judges, lax standards, rushed decision, lazy beauracrats, etc..) I estimate all of them are pretty small, relative to the whole process, as the only available data suggests. I suggest the amount of work-able people on disability is even smaller, and the work-able people who are on disability because they don't want to work even smaller still. Normal policing/regulations I don't think anyone disagrees with. Reasonable improvements in said policing in regulations most people can get on board with. What gets ridiculous, is when the rhetoric starts to speculate without definition, about how the work-able lazy's on disability are having any substantial impact on the overall outlays of the program on mass. If there is data that suggests otherwise I am more than willing to review it when provided. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23617 Posts
Why did you post that npr piece again? this time without even an explanation? | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On May 07 2014 18:05 oneofthem wrote: gotta fill your own argument in. i don't know if you've ever defended a paper but this is how things go. helps with strengthening your own arguments. Yeah, there is the discourse and its "order" - "defending a paper" - and there are arguments. What helps strengthening your argument is work and readings, not asking questions on meaningful anecdotes just to disturb your interlocutor, then resorting to autoritarian judgements as soon as the argument discussed goes against your core principle. The few who believe they are not biaised are generally the most biaised. On May 07 2014 19:51 RCMDVA wrote: http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ That's a pretty impressive and interesting work, but what do you actually get from it in terms of policy ? Seems like you can look at all that from various perspectives. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
On May 07 2014 19:54 GreenHorizons wrote: Why did you post that npr piece again? this time without even an explanation? Posted early w/o edit. Doing some hearthstone dailies. 1) The system allows you to try as many times as you want to get on disability. 2) The system isn't adversarial. 3) The States want you to get off state-aid and be declared disabled. 4) Once you get on disability you *almost never* get back into the workforce. This might be one of the best articles on disability that highlights all the unintended consequences of "Ending Welfare as we know it" | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23617 Posts
On May 07 2014 20:23 RCMDVA wrote: Posted early w/o edit. Doing some hearthstone dailies. 1) The system allows you to try as many times as you want to get on disability. 2) The system isn't adversarial. 3) The States want you to get off state-aid and be declared disabled. 4) Once you get on disability you *almost never* get back into the workforce. This might be one of the best articles on disability that highlights all the unintended consequences of "Ending Welfare as we know it" That's not good if it's one of the best and it doesn't even speculate on how many people it is we are supposed to be talking about. With more than 50% not getting payed that sounds pretty adversarial... (even if not in the traditional sense) "Try as many times as you want" is not really reflective of the reality but I really have no intention of getting mired in the details until we get some idea of how many people we are talking about. | ||
| ||
HomeStory Cup
Day 3
HeRoMaRinE vs SerralLIVE!
ShoWTimE vs Clem
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Calm Stormgate 2373Shuttle  758Larva 295Mini 268EffOrt 267firebathero  158actioN 141ggaemo 103PianO 32Free 25[ Show more ] Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
|
|
|
EPT
