Time to counter

This was a right-wing hack job.

Steve Croft is no right-winger. They mainly focused on a lawyer near the border of Ky and Tn, ( i may have the states wrong). This guy has a judge who is a friend, and almost every case he takes he gets disability for them. A couple of former workers were interviewed too. You can probably see it on CBS.com I would think. You can google stories on disability fraud and find lots of stories. Last one I remember was a guy who was getting it being caught on a reality show.
The number of people on disability, as a pct of the workforce, has more than doubled since 20 yrs ago. Do you really think there are that many more people who cannot work? And it hurts those who need it. I know a couple of folks, older people, who are just ill all the time.

And I really do think there are that many more people who are unable to work. In the past 20 years, which jobs have gone extinct, and which ones have taken over the marketplace? If you care to think beyond the wing nut soundbites, you can figure it out.

Here's some music while you think, and please remember to answer in the form of a question:

Coburn himself says the majority of disability cases are valid ones. How is it a "wing nut soundbite" to point out that the number of people getting it has more than doubled? Its a fact. These are percentages of the workforce, which accounts for the increase in population. How can there be twice as many now? There are LESS labor-intensive jobs today, not more. If you dont think there are a measurable number of people gaming the system, you have blinders on. And if its only 5%, thats 400,000 people getting a check that could help someone in need. Doesnt mean we should do away with the program, it just needs to be better policed.

And since when are there more cushy desk jobs and less labor-intensive ones? I don't know where you live, but that ain't the reality here. And frankly, I think the system is policed enough. There are gamers and scammers in every system ever created, but that doesn't mean a whole lot in the big scheme of things.

SSI and SSDI on my first application. I applied on May 28th. I started receiving SSI in July, and will start receiving SSDI in December.

maybe the courts act differently in different areas of the country.

I know a few people here in the Boston area and it took years and multiple appeals.

The lawyer in the story had a judge he knew well, and almost all his cases were passed.

"know" anyone.

I was referring to the people you know who had to try several times to get accepted while the scammers get a crooked lawyer to help them do it on the first try.

took about 3 months between when I applied and I got my first check.
I guess it matters what the condition is

no court. I applied for it and was approved. Simple as that.

Appeals of denials sometimes end up in court

I had no need to file for a hearing.

I'm sorry for any pain you live with and hope that each day is a blessing for you.

But these TV lawyers seem to get by quickly. Of course there are cheaters in everything, but with the numbers this program has to deal with they need to do a better job weeding them out.
I didnt mean to imply only desk jobs, but as the years go by hard labor type jobs have been lessened. Many mfg jobs were tough, and many of those have gone overseas.

Last edited Mon Oct 7, 2013, 04:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Instead, the people who would be working despite disabilities can't, so they're going this route instead.

It's a silly idea making the rounds that if you cut people off in certain areas that like the numbers that represent them, they will disappear forever. Instead, they have to move to the next viable source, so on and so forth.

If we're obsessed with having everyone work(a stupid idea, IMO), then we have to have enough jobs for everyone...or the ovens for the "unworthy."

I've read it a couple times but I know I'm not getting what you mean. I apologize for being a bit dense sometimes. I'm missing what you mean by "cut people off in certain areas that like the numbers that represent them"

But "ovens for the unworthy"? Ouch!!

There's a tendency in DC thinking to think that if a number isn't there, the person attached to isn't there anymore. A prime example is how they cook the unemployment books- the U3 number is a bad representation of how many unemployed people there are, but since that number is used, they can pretend that all the other people that should be counted in that measure aren't really unemployed and trying to survive.

So while you might have 20 million people who are unemployed and would like to be working, if you say that it's only 7-8 million, where are those 12+million other people? Do they even exist?

And yes, I'm probably being harsh with the ovens comment, but really, this meme that everyone needs to be working full time to justify their existence only has 2 logical ends: People starve when they're left standing during the game of musical chairs, or we offer them euthanasia as a small mercy.

I'm for a different solution- reduce growth, reduce population growth, reduce consumption and allow people to leave the workforce if they want to. We're basically doing the same thing right now, just in a very cruel way.

Yes, they dont count so many that may not be actively looking and that makes it seem as though the rate is lower. Of course those folks still exist, but I guess not to the government.

Thanks for clarifying.

are you a very comfortable conservative with no working reality how many people live? Or maybe don't really give a damn about anyone else

It qualifies you for unemployment. As a poster above said, we need to better the economy to provide more jobs to the people out there. We need more hiring, more work on infrastructure, etc.
I have an ex-wife who has been trying to get on the program. She has Lupus among other things. I want the money to be available for people like her who have actual health problems. I help her, but the program would be a bigger help.
I'm sick of these holier than thou people on DU who immediately label someone just because they point out something different than what THEY consider to be the progressive viewpoint. You're fine with people ripping off the system? Is that a progressive position? No, its not. I haven't said anything that isn't true, but you instantly assume I dont care about others and I'm a "very comfortable conservative". I work 3 jobs and have for years.

to find work or loose what little they have including their life, dignity, health, home, etc when there is not enough good paying employment. No wonder desperate people try fraud...just to be able to exist without extreme heartache and pain. There is no plan to address lack of sufficient job, yet you whine about unemployment not being disabled. Take care of the problem of low pay and fewer jobs and people will not be desperate. It says in the Bible that in the latter days man will have no love for one another... you fit the bill or you are just plain ignorant of what is happening to people.
requiring people to find employment when there is not sufficient work available is just plain cruelty

And you think this represented unbiased reporting on the part of Sixty Minutes? Allowing an anti-disability republican politician to drive the discussion while focusing on ONE attorney with sketchy practices? You really don't realize how outrageously biased that sort of "reporting" (rather, myth-making) is? While real people, people with devastating diseases and illnesses (many terminal), are affected by this garbage "reporting? Why were NO disabled persons interviewed or a range of disabled persons, and their doctors and/or representatives, to discuss their experiences?? The report was offensively one-sided, right in step with Fox News and Joh Stossel, who argue that ALL welfare and ALL disability is fraud, "those people" are all freeloaders, surfers (remember him?), drug addicts, and women with ten SUVs who should be drug tested (remember how this story died when welfare recipients were forcibly drug tested in Florida and the program cost a fortune while accomplishing nothing).

The reality is heartbreaking. People who are seriously ill, many with terminal diseases and/or permanently disabling conditions, often earned on the job, have to wait an average of two years before being approved for a MINIMUM WAGE income, and then after another two years (during which many people die), they can get Medicare.

Do you think these "googled" stories you have found and a tale of some guy on a "reality show" accurately represents the majority of people who receive SSD -- who can never work again and must have all of their doctors report on their condition (plus verify imaging reports, lists of medications, etc.)? If so I am shocked that you are interested in being a member of DU. The Welfare Queen and Disability King mythology is a republican, not a democratic argument.

But when you have 12 million on the program, you do the math if 5% of them are fraudulent. Just how many is OK with you? Thats a crapload of people and money. And shyster lawyers getting undeserving people checks takes money away from the people YOU mention. And I said that too; I know a few who NEED this program but they havent been approved and are still trying.
I've never said those ridiculous terms either, please dont assume that I believe it. I cant believe you and others would have a problem weeding out cheaters.

More people are APPLYING, but applying doesn't MEAN approval.

The increase isn't because more people are "abusing" the system when in fact it is goddamned difficult to get it.

I RESENT very much the propaganda that says that "abuse" is widespread.

It's rare. THAT is why this made 60 Minutes in the first place.

move people onto SSI and SSDI from TANF or other state-funded rolls.

That's one reason I think a move to drastically tighten disability requirements will end up being opposed by Republicans, because it's keeping poor states' safety nets afloat.

but also believe that there are many people that probably would qualify for SSDI but for whatever reason don't go through the process. That probably outnumbers the fraud.

Some DUers said there is abuse. Thinking there is no abuse is like saying no one deserves it. There needs to be a way to evaluate people who are really disabled. People lie. Doctors lie. Lawyers lie.

..in the last 3-4 years the rates of SSDI have skyrocketed as people know how to game the system as they can't find employment or want to get out of their lousy job..

That being said I know so many people who deserve to be on it but can't get on it..lot of people know how to work the system and they are the ones who get on it even though many don't deserve to be on it. ...it also comes down to how good your lawyer is..

Sad that is has come to that..instead of merit it's based on how well your lawyer knows the system.

A local Chiropractor near me just got nabbed for falsifying SSDI claims in lieu of kickbacks..


My best friend is 54 years old, legally blind,,cannot drive and does not drive and he was just declined for the 2nd time..does not make sense.

There has to be a better way to get these people who deserve SSDI

I know Republicans and for some reason certain DUers claim that they "know" "many" people/doctors/chiropractors etc. "gaming" the system. I wonder how many of these people have ever even looked the the SSD application and read the list of conditions it covers? Or know that SSD requires ALL medical info to be released in addition to a physician making the case that a person is disabled? The actual level of abuse according to reports that have been done before (always when republicans want to beat the welfare/disabilities queen drum) have shown incredibly low levels of fraud.

I read a number of posts that reminded me of the "welfare queen" meme.

we have to BURN THE WHOLE MOFO DOWN!!1!"

This piece was designed to rile up anyone out there's who's skeptical of the idea of disability payments in the first place.

There is abuse in the system..clean it up and get SSDI to the people who really deserve it,.

I'm hearing it all around. Going after the few who might scam the system ...just like everyone needs Voter ID when there's little evidence of folks scamming the system...but, we just know there MUST BE MILLIONS (according to the Repugs and their Think Tanks, Koch Bros. and Petersen Foundation.

that's being played out here.

Seems to be the theme here at times on some subjects "If 1% act that way let's treat the 99% like they are just the same" - flies well around these parts. Let's pass a few more laws, make it harder to get, etc.

Are also the same people who want gun control.

sometimes it seems like impossible odds to fix some huge wrongs. sometimes it seems impossible to go after all the lies and misinformation and the heavy weight of big money fighting against us all.

but hopefully it will be easier after this President's term. It will be easier for a good minded and hearted leader to carry forward what these 8 years of fighting has been about.

And do not for a minute think fraud is not taking place in this area. What the hell is chronic fatigue syndrome and how do you prove you have it or do not have it.
Having a family member who just went on disability due to a stroke I am not suggesting we stop it but, i honestly think there are lawyers getting rich off this and enough fraudulent cases that it should be examined. I also have a neighbor that went on disability years ago and has improved his golf handicap immensely since doing so along with having the prettiest yard in the neighborhood.

the little guy. Or are the powerful to strong for you to handle?

called Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (joint hypermobility type). A lot of people can manage with EDS but with others' it's as debilitating as MS, but it's "invisible."

Please don't mock this until you've walked in their shoes. Imagine feeling so weak it's like you're waking up from surgery every day, plus the pain from the connective tissue tearing--which gets translated into fibro but has EDS folks in wheelchairs.

"Chronic fatigue" can actually be demonstrated in a lab test for something called "post-exertional malaise." It's an expensive test, but it's diagnostic. Controls vs CFS run 5 miles. All fine. Next day, same groups exert themselves again. The CFS's bodies react like they're in their 80s. They don't recover the same way.

This is not a bogus thing in mostly women's (the majority of cases) heads. One cannot hold down a job because you never know when you'll be hit with instant narcolepsy and doing anything 40 hours a week will put you in bed for another two. But it's invisible.

So the message these people get, with this condition, is that they should just go off and die already, if they're too young for SS and Medicare. Can't work, and have a condition no one believes.

I hope people will try a little harder to inform themselves.

and brain damage was just turned down for SSDI. I am so sick of the most vulnerable in this country getting slammed every day!

he needs to say he has Chronic fatigue Syndrome and he will get right on..

This country is so screwed up..

everyone is turned down first time they apply. my relative with stroke damage got it after first application.

he shouldn't have to, but unfortunately that is how the fucked up system works.

He had to have BOTH hips replaced at age 35. It took 2 year and a 3rd replacement before he was approved. That was two years with no child support while he had to appeal twice. He is back to work and doing okay, but he had to fight like hell for a benefit that should be there for someone exactly in his situation.

From what I understand this is normal in so many cases. They deny and deny until the person gives up.

Where are all these people so easily getting disability? I've never heard of one, except for children born with disabilities.

They make it EXTREMELY hard to get the benefit. I was able to get it for my disabled parent, but it was a fluke after 2 1/2 years of rejections, stonewalling and having their doctors say that they were a nutcase rather than a victim of poisoning on the job.

I have trouble buying in to the idea that the fraud is rampant. Supposedly people on welfare are all drug addicts, but when we start mandatory testing...we find .05%?

Really what I hear from all of this is, "We need to eliminate all social help programs and funnel it to the 1%." In contrast, I'd like to see more social help, higher payments, and less welfare to the 1%.

If they're really that amazing, they'll innovate their way to the money they feel like they deserve.

It all hinges on the ALJ you get. Some will approve as many as 85 percent of cases, while others will approve as few as 15 percent.

It's all at random.

My brother could have theoretically gone on my late dad's benefit of 1300 a month rather than SSI, but we decided against appealing that part of it because it would have risked his continuing to be on SSI. We wouldn't have the same ALJ for this as his hearing to get SSI.

They are engaging not in news but in an agenda.

n/t

Kentucky and West Virginia. Two states that vote republican. I wonder if it's residents will be mad if the rethugs start taking away those payments.

I had to apply to the SSDI program for my autistic son to move into a group home. I could not afford that $1200 every month. I waited until he was 20 years old to do this. There are real people out there who need help and what I got from the Sixty Minutes was the guy who abused the system and had the disability judge in his pocket. The scammers will end up ruining the system for those who truly need it.

It's a hatchet job and doesn't even explain how utterly DIFFICULT it is to receive the benefits.

Also, the Tea Party must have seen who the real culprits are in getting something dishonestly...and they ain't minorities.

60 Minutes practically invented the modern hack job. They pioneered the "one-sided story presented as news" format. If you've ever seen them do a story on something you know well, you know what I mean.

As for the facts, any program as large as SSDI will have some fraud. We should be, and I believe we are, taking reasonable steps to minimize fraud. One of the key differences I've seen between Democrats and Republicans is that the former look to see whether a program is more helpful than not while the latter will kill any program out of fear that someone, somewhere might be getting an undeserved benefit.

Too bad you can't see the difference.

They'd peddle KIPP schools, and the Khan Academy, and other such garbage in order to further a right-wing/neoliberal line.

There is VERY little "fraud" in disability because it is so goddamned HARD to get it.

Furthermore, you have to account for every stinking dime to you spend when you receive it, especially SSI.

As I mentioned a few months ago, the right-wing media and some of our politicians - especially the utterly revolting Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan-Smith - have been on a crusade against disabled people.

From a moderate Conservative journalist with a disabled child:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/04/ian-birrell-prejudice-against-disabled

From a left-wing disability activist blogger:

http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/iain-duncan-smith-launches-shocking-attack-on-disabled-workers/

From the International Disablity and Human Rights Network, on the lies of the Daily Mail:

http://www.daa.org.uk/index.php?mact=Blogs,cntnt01,showentry,0&cntnt01entryid=385&cntnt01returnid=98


This is leading both to increased hate-crime against disabled people, and to the government's hate-crime of cutting services that had enabled disabled people to live with dignity, and adding to the stress of seriously ill people (there have e.g. been people deemed 'fit to work' and denied invalidity benefit when they had just weeks to live with a terminal cancer diagnosis).

National disability organizations have criticized a misleading CBS News 60 Minutes report on Social Security disability which relied on anecdotal evidence to deceptively portray the vital program as wasteful and unsustainable, despite the fact that award rates fell during the recession and that fraud is less than one percent of the program.

On October 6, 60 Minutes stoked fears that the Social Security Disability Insurance program is "ravaged by waste and fraud," relying on Senator Tom Coburn's (R-OK) partisan investigation and anecdotal evidence to hype growth in the program while misleadingly claiming that it "could become the first government benefits program to run out of money."

In response, organizations that advocate for and support people with disabilities nationwide have criticized the report. Rebecca Vallas, co-chair of the Social Security Task Force at the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities -- a coalition of approximately 100 national disability organizations -- told Media Matters the coverage was "sensational" and did a "tremendous disservice" to people with disabilities.

The myths pushed by 60 Minutes have been repeatedly debunked by experts. The report admitted that the vast majority of people applying for benefits are denied, but ignored the fact that the majority of appeals are also denied, and that award rates have actually fallen during the economic recession. In April, the Wall Street Journal called the claim that federal disability benefits were to blame for people leaving the labor force "exaggerated," explaining that disability was in fact the least common reason individuals left the workforce.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/07/60-minutes-report-denounced-for-disability-misi/196317

to find out where this problem originated.

It originated with the SSDI program and the judges who ruled on cases.

Everyone was denied. It didn't matter what they had or how much documentation, it was well known that everyone would be denied on the first application.

In addition, the paperwork was complicated and difficult for a non-attorney to do correctly.

Lawyers took advantage of this situation and started helping people, but some of them began abusing the system.

Physicians hold some responsibility, but had learned that the system was so broken that they might have to exaggerate in order to get their patients the SSDI that they believed they were entitled to.

And, if I am not mistaken, the attorneys fees come out of the applicants back pay once they are awarded SSDI, so it does not come from the government but right out of the applicants pocket.

The story was badly done and shoddy journalism, but that doesn't mean that there is not a legitimate problem.

I was a benefits counselor for a non-profit organization in the 90's. Part of my job was assisting clients with SSI / SSDI applications.

They were and are, as you note, pretty complicated. And yeah, legal fees if a client took that route came out of initial benefits. Or up front, depending on the circumstances.

The result of the process led to some limited "gaming" of the system by all parties. Applicants, lawyers and medical professionals. A small segment of the whole in my experience, but a part of the picture. And some of the gaming wasn't malicious, just an attempt to get through the hoops. Some was sketchy. Some just an understandable frustration with the whole thing.

My advice as a non-legal, non-medical advocate was always - document, document, document. Each and every medical or psych visit, allied professional services, lab work, etc. Second opinions if feasible. And to complete those health care visits to get documented assessments.

Was never a big advocate for legal services unless absolutely necessary. There was even then a growing trend of legal "trolling" for disability clients. Not my call, of course. Remained neutral but didn't jump on the legal bandwagon at the outset. Initial reviews are handled by medical professionals as are secondary reviews. After that a legal course may be one's best option.



.

that very few have.

Unfortunately, in my experience going the legal route was often the only effective thing to do.

This is an interesting debate and I take issue with the 60 minutes take on it, but to say there is not a problem with fraud is a mistake.

Agree that the 60 minutes piece was simplistic. The nature of the beast, I guess, yet they've done better.

And thanks. I feel I have some background to comment on this one.

What is disability - medically, functionally, socially, legally? It's a good discussion to have. And what are the barriers to recognize and document a disability. And what are our responsibilities as a society to address disabilities in our communities.

It was about the rather sharp increase in applications made and granted.

They made the point that before the economy went sour, a lot of people were working at the top of their capacity.

Since it was those jobs (low paying, low demand, low educational requirements, etc) that faced the greatest elimination, some people were unable to find anything else that they could do.

Some of these people had marginal disabilities - couldn't stand for long or intellectually impaired or with psychiatric disorders that would be exacerbated by stressful situations.

They went on unemployment, but when that ran out, many applied for disability.

The question was whether a change in the job market should require a change in the definition of disabled.

One glaring point I get from this is that the loss of a job, or economic stress brings some disabilities to the forefront. Hadn't thought of that aspect, but it makes sense.

A fluid definition of "disabled" seems apt, but awkward. I think psychiatric disabilities could be seen as independent but related to situational stuff. i.e. a person is disabled due to ongoing psychiatric problems, yet functional at some level. And at risk at some level.

(pinto thinking way out of his expertise)

They should be reporting about how utterly DIFFICULT it is to navigate this system because the overwhelming majority of claims are rejected the first two tries. It can take YEARS to get approved. Awards have actually declined in the past few years, not increased. But according to the media, who cares about facts?

The paperwork, by the way, isn't that complicated. One can actually represent oneself or a loved one without an attorney, but it helps your chances with the ALJ. I could have done my brother's case alone, but the lawyer did help. She received about 600 dollars out of 2500 back pay that my brother got, and it took two years.

But this is all about creating false outrage where none is needed while the top 1 percent of the top one percent get away with destroying the country.

it's worth at least discussing is that this program has always been short funded. If there is anything that places it at risk, we should pay attention.

I totally agree with the difficulty in navigating the system and they should have focused on this being the root of the problem.

If people who are entitled to SSDI could actually get it, lawyers would be cut out of the process.

I personally worked with people who were grossly disabled and who were turned down again and again and again. They didn't get it until they got an attorney. That's just wrong.

My father worked at Social Security and was a disability consultant. I've been a Democrat since 1968 and plan to stay one till I die. But, I do know fairly well two cases of people on disability and I do believe in means testing and more supervision.
I have a relative who had a drug induced btreakdown 35 years ago and is on full disability. After attempts to keep her in group housing and in various job programs, I guess SS gave up. She has her own apartment, food and cigarette money and is loosely monitored. I think if she got less money she would learn to "get along with others", stay in group housing and be a more productive person.
The other is a case for "means testing". This person does have medical problems, but also has a great deal of inherited money as well as long term disability from a high paying job. Not only do they have SSD, but so do two children. I see no reason why SSD can't be means tested. There is no reason why someone with a family income of $ 150,000 should get SS Disability.

If you experience the loss for which the insurance indemnifies you, you should be covered.

you say SS tried to do it one way and at some point decided to do it another way which you disapprove of. Well, the way you tell it, the SS decision was based on pragmatism and your attitude is somewhat moralistic and not necessarily very rational. You imagine her being "productive" but have you noticed the economy lately? There is not a whole lot of demand for a middle-aged woman's productivity. Without an income, a lot of people simply end up on the street. And SSI is just one of many parts of the safety net under attack.

Social Security disability assessments aren't lightly done. They focus on a person's ability, or disability, to adequately function and meet their needs on an ongoing basis. It's not SSA's role to see that clients "get along with others". Nor is it SSA's role to monitor a client's smoking habits. SS disability, especially SSI, is a safety net. And a slim one at that. Your relative apparently has housing, food and yes, tobacco. I obviously don't know the specifics but if she got less money would it be likely that she'd have to learn to get along with others on the street?

SSDI is an insurance fund. Workers pay into it over the course of their employment. Benefits are based on a five year average of their peak earnings prior to a disability determination. Picture this - if you get hurt, injured by a hit 'n run drunk driver you're entitled to an insurance benefit. You or the driver paid into those funds. If you become disabled due to illness you're entitled to an insurance benefit that you paid into.

http://www.ssa.gov/disability/

if she lived in a group home? I wouldn't want to live in one, would you? Seems to me she's just fine where she is. And what exactly would she produce? You think she'd be better off with someone assigning her chores and planning out her life for her? She's probably just fine where she is; after all, she could go live in a group home if that's what she wanted. Let her smoke and live her life as she sees fit. Just because she's got a disability doesn't mean her freedom should be taken away.

what they're going to say next. It's so transparent.

But, please explain more about your relative on "full disability". Do you mean SSDI, meaning that they paid into the system for 40 quarters and are therefore drawing on the insurance that they contributed to? Or do you mean SSI, which is awarded to people who are unable to work but don't have a long enough work history to draw on?

Because there is a big difference between the two, and they're often confused. SSI is currently paying around $700-$800/month as the max payout, which is hardly living large in this day and age. And I don't agree that SSDI should be means tested - everyone who has paid in over the years is entitled to their payout. Why shouldn't they be? They contributed.

There really is no excuse for the moralizing and judgemental attitude. Keep your head down and pay attention to your own affairs.