|
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. |
Since 1995 disability has gone from 5 to 11 million. so a +6
Welfare families went down from 5 to 2 million. so a -3
That's an apples/oranges I know... people =/= families. And depends on if you count disabled worker's kids as well. The numbers don't line up well... welfare vs. disability.
Thrown in a figure for population growth. 1995 to 2015 would be ~20%. 265m to 320m people.
Guesstimate? around 2-3 million people are on disability outside of normal population growth since 1995.
And for the # of applications... you can see there have been over 2.5 million applications per year for the last 5 years.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/dibStat.html#f1
You have a 1:3 chance of being awarded. Those are good odds to just keep trying when you have all the attorneys representing you on contingency and/or the state willing to walking you through the application process. You have nothing to lose.
|
On May 07 2014 18:55 IgnE wrote:
Because coverpunch thinks that it's an "extreme hypothetical" to consider the relatively common case of someone who really cannot find a desk job but also has serious back pain that prevents standing all day (i.e. minimum wage retail). Apparently most of the rise in enrollment in disability programs are from lazy people. He would rather talk about the "opposite extreme" of a self-described young totally healthy person who applies to get money, but doesn't want to talk about a federal jobs plan, building, for example, more mass transit systems in this country while getting the unemployed and those out of the workforce back doing meaningful work.
In America we cut off our noses to spite our face.
This is a wild series of mischaracterizations of my position. You picked a hypothetical without any proof that it is representative of the disabled population at large. I merely picked one of my own to show that you are cherry-picking.
This discussion has nothing to do with a federal jobs plan or building more infrastructure. You started the whole thing by asking Jonny specifically about the relationship between disability and education/job skills. Nice try with the red herring though.
|
We should just cut the programs although I don't think that's a political starter. Let the disabled people's families take care of them as opposed to taxpayers. Have the disabled seek employment and if some fall through the cracks I'm OK with handing churches/charities tax free charitable status to help them.
|
Yeah.. Lets throw overboard ~100 years of social achievments because ~1-5% of People are assholes trying to exploit the System!
I've got an even better solution. We should just kill off the disabled/not fit for work, FOR THE GREATER GOOD!
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
people get rly mad when this is raised, but a study of fascism would give you this obsession over teh vitalism of the society and a hatred of 'weakness' and infirmity. it's a rather common and tempting way of thinking.
|
Bill clinton actualy did a ton of work to fix the welfare system. Its really not that big of a deal anymore beacuse of him. Its like how George W bush showed the way to fix homelessness (by ironicaly giveing people homes to live in).
|
On May 07 2014 23:07 oneofthem wrote:
people get rly mad when this is raised, but a study of fascism would give you this obsession over teh vitalism of the society and a hatred of 'weakness' and infirmity. it's a rather common and tempting way of thinking.
But we can agree that fascism is pretty bad, right? I don't get what's tempting about getting rid of social welfare, it's probably the best thing that has happened to society in the last century. What I don't understand about the US is how you guys can have 90% of the top universities on this planet and still have these political discussions that basically became obsolete a century ago :x
|
On May 07 2014 16:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2014 15:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2014 14:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
I responded in my edit but I just want to reiterate to make clear what my point is.
Let's get on the table the number/percentage of people we are actually talking about before we move forward.
I suggest the number is small. I have sited data that suggests by any available measurement, (I'm aware of) that is an accurate assessment. You cited irrelevant data. The problem isn't improper payments (that's the EITC's problem), the problem is people on disability who are fully capable of working. You have challenged that assessment and provided a slight undermining of the data I presented. You have provided no relevant data yourself (nor has the person we were discussing, nor anyone on the conservative side of the aisle, here or elsewhere). Outside of some anecdotal evidence from a sample of a few judges and a few hundred cases (The selection methodology of which has not been released or substantiated [to my knowledge]) there is little or nothing concrete to support your insinuation that it is some significant (yet undefined) number. Read the NPR article I cited. The data is very strong that a non-trivial amount of fraud is occurring. There may not be a concrete number but that's the nature of fraud, it is hidden. It's the same story as with the GSEs pre-crisis. The fraud and risky behavior was hidden, and many in Congress wanted to look the other way. We should learn from that past mistake and when we see a problem we should go after it and not wait until it becomes even bigger. It's not irrelevant. It covers all/the vast majority of mis-payments that aren't "people on disability who are fully capable of working". So now we are down to them exclusively.
No. We aren't deriving the number of people who are capable of working yet on disability from that data set. Your data was irrelevant. If you really think its relevant this discussion might be over your head.
Keep in mind the original Senate candidate we started this conversation on was not talking about what you and I are talking about now. He was talking about people who were receiving aid as a ~"result of their own choices" which is a whole different group of people by any interpretation no matter how charitable. Sure, but the one min video didn't break down a policy stance in detail so if we're to have a policy discussion you have to allow me to actually propose a policy change. Now if you want to talk about how you feel his comments were mean, count me out.
Now for those "people on disability who are fully capable of working". You say you have'very strong data'that these 'criminals' represent 'a non-trivial amount of fraud'
You claim the evidence is hidden. You claim that somehow the NPR article elucidates those hidden facts. I am open to seeing the evidence as I want to reduce fraud and abuse as much as the next guy, but you haven't shown what you claim to be the case.
I've certainly made a prima facia case for fraud.
The data showing the growth in disability payments and related statistics doesn't control or represent the nuance in any of the many, many, many, factors that caused those numbers to rise. (aging population, increased diagnosis of legitimate disabling mental conditions [PTSD {2 wars, more since the 70's}, Schizophrenia, etc.., other medical advances in diagnostics, and more completely legitimate explanations for the increases).
Actually history should be pushing the numbers the other way. Work has become more safe and less physically demanding, so disability should be a waning issue.
So without you even trying to suggest a ball park of how many of the numbers you have shown are the " people on disability who are fully capable of working" I can't just agree to the rest of your claims. Even if with your tea leaves you were able to see this 'hidden' fraud, it's really hard to take sincerely your attempt to claim it's 'non-trivial' in one breath and say you can't even ball-park it in the next. Whether you ever come out with any sort of actual estimate with or without evidence (so far without) you're totally proving my point. + Show Spoiler +You or he or anyone won't put a percentage/number on it because the same thing that happened to Romney will happen to those who do as you suggest. Either it will be a large headline grabbing percentage that will inevitably include veterans, widows, victims of spousal abuse, etc.. which will make the people calling them criminals look terrible, or it will be as I suggest and be relatively small when viewed in light of the entire program so that even if we were able to remove 100% of the fraud and abuse (which we all know is impossible) it wouldn't really amount to a very big dent in the numbers.
That's intellectually dishonest. I'm not going to make up a number just so that you can counter with a prepared talking point.
|
On May 07 2014 16:19 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2014 15:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2014 15:36 IgnE wrote:
To jonny specifically: Do you agree with the doctor in that NPR article you linked that whether a person with a particular physical hindrance/affliction/condition is disabled depends on their education level and job skills?
Second question that I also would like your opinion on: Do you think that the numbers might have simply increased as a way to get money to live on rather than welfare because the great recession killed a bunch of jobs that people, especially those without much education, relied on and that haven't come back? Would you rather have people on disability who aren't disabled but really can't find work or have a higher unemployment rate? I disagree with the doctor. Disabled is distinct from unskilled. I think its pretty clear that disability is being used as a replacement for welfare / unemployment insurance / etc. The problem with that is that disability is overwhelmingly a one way street. Disability is mainly disability for life. If was mainly a temporary safety net it wouldn't be nearly the problem it is. As is though, its a place for skills to atrophy and hides economic problems, which makes it more difficult for intervention. So what do you say to people who say, "There just aren't any jobs out there that I can do with this debilitating back pain. No one will hire me to sit all day because I'm 40 years old and didn't complete my college education." Too bad? Take some oxycontin and work at McDonalds like everybody else?
Disabled is distinct from unskilled. Someone who cannot get a job because they have a disability is different from someone who cannot get a job because they are unskilled. For the example you gave, if the back paid isn't too severe working at McDonalds and sitting in a chair most of the day should be fine. It depends on how much back paid we're talking about.
Why do you think it's a problem that unskilled people are collecting disability? Do you just want them to collect welfare rather than disability for accounting's sake? Or do you think it's causing some serious budget difficulties that can only be remedied by cutting these programs?
I already explained this, as did the NPR article. Disability is not designed to be a transitory program and so it does not serve that function well. You do not gain additional skills while on disability, the system does not encourage you to gain skills while on disability and it masks underlying economic issues from policy makers.
|
There is a valid reflexion to have on the evolutions of labor and the question of disability. I don t know about the US, but in France and since 20 years, we saw an explosion of repetitive strain injuries that cost quite a lot to social security. Now that the US has some kind of social security, with the obamacare, maybe we will see a decrease in disability applications.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On May 08 2014 00:36 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2014 23:07 oneofthem wrote:
people get rly mad when this is raised, but a study of fascism would give you this obsession over teh vitalism of the society and a hatred of 'weakness' and infirmity. it's a rather common and tempting way of thinking. But we can agree that fascism is pretty bad, right? I don't get what's tempting about getting rid of social welfare, it's probably the best thing that has happened to society in the last century. What I don't understand about the US is how you guys can have 90% of the top universities on this planet and still have these political discussions that basically became obsolete a century ago :x
yea fascism is terrible but i dont want this to become a discussion on who is showing the fascist tail. this tendency to disregard or see moral flaw in the weakest of society is what i meant to highlight and criticize.
|
For what it's worth, bitching about the disability system is a little bit out of date. The gravy train was shut off about 2 years ago. The ALJs in charge of hearing disability claims have been given marching orders to tighten up their granting of benefits, and they are certainly following them. If anything, the problem now is that legitimate claims are being denied. Just ask the SSDI attorneys how things have changed.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well there you go. administrative judges taking govt orders solves the problem somewhat.
|
No. We aren't deriving the number of people who are capable of working yet on disability from that data set. Your data was irrelevant. If you really think its relevant this discussion might be over your head.
Except no one is deriving "the number" at all ROFLMAO!
Sure, but the one min video didn't break down a policy stance in detail so if we're to have a policy discussion you have to allow me to actually propose a policy change. Now if you want to talk about how you feel his comments were mean, count me out.
You were just the only person who tried to say he was saying something different. I was just pointing out what he said is no where near what you are saying.
That's intellectually dishonest. I'm not going to make up a number just so that you can counter with a prepared talking point.
Is that a joke? You wouldn't be making anything up you just said you 'extracted' it from your data. So just come out with it...Unless you now claiming you have this mystery number but you just don't want to share it because you would be proving my point? (This is getting pretty funny)
For what it's worth, bitching about the disability system is a little bit out of date. The gravy train was shut off about 2 years ago. The ALJs in charge of hearing disability claims have been given marching orders to tighten up their granting of benefits, and they are certainly following them. If anything, the problem now is that legitimate claims are being denied. Just ask the SSDI attorneys how things have changed.
Even Xdaunt thinks your 'bitching' is 'out of date'. You would think it be sinking in by now?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
daunt introduced new on the ground info. i don't think that's a fair characterisation of hwo it went down. anyway i'm out for a couple months
|
The lawyers that cleared New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) in the George Washington Bridge scandal haven't come cheap.
Documents released Tuesday show that Christie's office was billed nearly $1.1 million for work done from Jan. 12 to Jan. 31 by the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher -- meaning that the total amount taxpayers will pay the firm will likely be significantly higher. The Bergen Recorded reported that the $1,077,785 in charges includes more than 3,000 hours’ worth of work and $1,693 for photocopying. The Christie administration announced in January that it had hired Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher to conduct an internal review of the scandal and to help Christie's office respond to the federal investigation into the lane closures. In late March, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher attorney Randy Mastro announced the results of the internal investigation, which found that Christie had not participated in the plan to close the lanes.
According to the newly released billing statements, 38 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher employees worked on the case in January, with all but one billing the state of New Jersey at a rate of $350 an hour. That figure is significantly lower than the $650-an-hour the administration originally said it would pay Mastro (and even that number, $650, was a discount from Mastro's normal rate.) In a letter to the state dated May 1, the law firm explained why it had charged at a reduced rate.
Source
|
On May 08 2014 02:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +No. We aren't deriving the number of people who are capable of working yet on disability from that data set. Your data was irrelevant. If you really think its relevant this discussion might be over your head. Except no one is deriving "the number" at all ROFLMAO!
ROFLMAO is right, a number doesn't need to be derived for the argument to be valid. Moreover, the fact that you cited irrelevant data, and insisted that it was relevant, remains.
Show nested quote +Sure, but the one min video didn't break down a policy stance in detail so if we're to have a policy discussion you have to allow me to actually propose a policy change. Now if you want to talk about how you feel his comments were mean, count me out. You were just the only person who tried to say he was saying something different. I was just pointing out what he said is no where near what you are saying.
I explained at the start. He was differentiating between people who, in his eyes, have a legitimate need and those who don't. A working policy example of that would be DI reform. It is different, but it is certainly related.
Show nested quote +That's intellectually dishonest. I'm not going to make up a number just so that you can counter with a prepared talking point. Is that a joke? You wouldn't be making anything up you just said you 'extracted' it from your data. So just come out with it...Unless you now claiming you have this mystery number but you just don't want to share it because you would be proving my point? (This is getting pretty funny)
No, I never said that I extracted a number from the data. If you look at the NPR article there are clear trends and correlations that you can draw from the data. I don't know what your issue here is. Are you unable to look at information yourself and draw your own conclusions?
Show nested quote +For what it's worth, bitching about the disability system is a little bit out of date. The gravy train was shut off about 2 years ago. The ALJs in charge of hearing disability claims have been given marching orders to tighten up their granting of benefits, and they are certainly following them. If anything, the problem now is that legitimate claims are being denied. Just ask the SSDI attorneys how things have changed. Even Xdaunt thinks your 'bitching' is 'out of date'. You would think it be sinking in by now?
I don't know if xdaunt is correct or not. Here's a news story from march referencing the issue and a new paper on the topic that came out a couple months ago. If I'm behind the curve, so are a lot of people.
|
On May 08 2014 02:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:I don't know if xdaunt is correct or not. Here's a news story from march referencing the issue and a new paper on the topic that came out a couple months ago. If I'm behind the curve, so are a lot of people.
There's a difference between SSDI abuse and structural problems within the system itself. All that I'm saying is that SSDI abuse isn't really a significant problem anymore. Your article points at the structural problems within the system that require reform, which is an entirely different matter.
|
On May 08 2014 01:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2014 16:19 IgnE wrote:On May 07 2014 15:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2014 15:36 IgnE wrote:
To jonny specifically: Do you agree with the doctor in that NPR article you linked that whether a person with a particular physical hindrance/affliction/condition is disabled depends on their education level and job skills?
Second question that I also would like your opinion on: Do you think that the numbers might have simply increased as a way to get money to live on rather than welfare because the great recession killed a bunch of jobs that people, especially those without much education, relied on and that haven't come back? Would you rather have people on disability who aren't disabled but really can't find work or have a higher unemployment rate? I disagree with the doctor. Disabled is distinct from unskilled. I think its pretty clear that disability is being used as a replacement for welfare / unemployment insurance / etc. The problem with that is that disability is overwhelmingly a one way street. Disability is mainly disability for life. If was mainly a temporary safety net it wouldn't be nearly the problem it is. As is though, its a place for skills to atrophy and hides economic problems, which makes it more difficult for intervention. So what do you say to people who say, "There just aren't any jobs out there that I can do with this debilitating back pain. No one will hire me to sit all day because I'm 40 years old and didn't complete my college education." Too bad? Take some oxycontin and work at McDonalds like everybody else? Disabled is distinct from unskilled. Someone who cannot get a job because they have a disability is different from someone who cannot get a job because they are unskilled. For the example you gave, if the back paid isn't too severe working at McDonalds and sitting in a chair most of the day should be fine. It depends on how much back paid we're talking about. Show nested quote +Why do you think it's a problem that unskilled people are collecting disability? Do you just want them to collect welfare rather than disability for accounting's sake? Or do you think it's causing some serious budget difficulties that can only be remedied by cutting these programs? I already explained this, as did the NPR article. Disability is not designed to be a transitory program and so it does not serve that function well. You do not gain additional skills while on disability, the system does not encourage you to gain skills while on disability and it masks underlying economic issues from policy makers.
How does welfare or unemployment, as opposed to disability, encourage you to gain skills? Because you are required to say that you've been looking for a job? Or am I missing something?
|
The United States Government filed a request with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims late yesterday asking the court to dissolve its injunction against the government or United Launch Alliance (ULA) from making payments to Russia because it might violate sanctions imposed by President Obama against Russian Deputy Prime Minister Rogozin.
The court enjoined the Air Force and ULA from making payments to the Russian entity NPO Energomash for RD-180 engines, used for ULA's Atlas V rocket, on April 30. Judge Susan Braden ruled that no such payments could be made until the court received the opinion of the Departments of the Treasury, State and Commerce that such payments did not violate the sanctions against Rogozin, who oversees Russia's space sector. Rogozin was among the first group of Russians sanctioned by President Obama in Executive Order 13661 in March because of Russia's actions in Ukraine.
In yesterday's filing, the government provided letters from each of the three government departments that "collectively, demonstrate that, as of the issuance of those letters, purchases from or payments to NPO Energomash would not directly or indirectly contravene" the sanctions. The government therefore requested that the court dissolve the April 30 injunction and also asked for expedited consideration of the matter. ULA joined in the motion.
The motion is related to a lawsuit SpaceX filed regarding the Air Force's block buy of Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle cores from ULA. SpaceX's complaint is that the contract was awarded on a sole source rather than competed basis and it did not seek the judge's injunction against payments to Russia. The lawsuit did discuss the fact that ULA uses Russian engines and that Rogozin oversees the Russian space sector and that he is sanctioned by the U.S. government, leading the judge to issue the injunction.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
