Personal Finance >
Retirement
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould Social Security disability benefits be given to more or fewer people?
Results so far:
| More | 40% | 33 votes | Total: 82 votes | |
| Fewer | 60% | 49 votes |
More
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesHaving worked for the Social Security Administration (SSA) early on in my career, I must say this question does not depict what actually happens. There really is no definitive "yes" or "no" to this question because the system does not work that way. The agency does not decide whom it will "give" disability benefits to, there is a process where an individual is determined disabled based on prescribed medical definitions and criteria. Individuals applying for disability benefits must first meet the following test before even applying:
Be unable to do any substantial work because of their medical condition(s); or have a medical condition(s) that must have lasted, or be expected to last for at least 1 year or expected to result in death.
There are those who may believe an individual can receive disability benefits simply by going to an office and telling the representative their doctors say they are sick. That is not true. Just because doctors say someone is sick or has a disability does not equate to him or her receiving a disability check. Disability applications are completed in local SSA offices and along with medical reports, etc., are forwarded to the Disability Determination Services (DDS), a State entity, for a disability determination. The process takes from five to six months.
See http://www.socialsec urity.gov/disability /professionals/blueb ook/index.ht to see how medical evidence is weighed and how the disability process works. Individuals applying for disability benefits must have a severe impairment(s) and they must show how the severity of the impairment(s) prevents them from engaging in substantial gainful activities.
To start the process, they must have names, addresses, and phone numbers of physicians, psychologists or other health care professionals; their medical history; their clinical findings; their laboratory findings, diagnoses; and proscribed treatments with responses and prognosis. Applicants must also provide statements about their limitations in their own words, such as the degree of lifting, standing, walking, speaking, duration, treatments, etc. Some applicants, for various reasons, will not have adequate medical evidence that's necessary to make a decision on their disability. For those cases, SSA examiners will contact the treating sources if there are any or they will use independent sources for a consultative examination.
Medical determinations are not simply made by looking at the evidence received from medical sources, SSA examiners and administrative law judges make their determinations based on definitions from an extensive and comprehensive listing of disorders. For example, for Immune System Disorders, there are approximately eight or nine sub-categories of the disorder.
(There are different judging criteria for children and adults. Each category has its own listings, definitions, and descriptions of disabilities and the severity of the individuals' impairment(s).)
Major questions that are asked for Immune System Disorders are:
A. What disorders is evaluated under the immune system disorders listings? All defined immune system disorders are listed here and defined, such as lupus, etc. B. What information is needed to support an immune system disorder? A host of criteria is listed here, based on SSA's own doctors' findings, etc.
The determination process is lengthy, but it is much more difficult and comprehensive than most folk perceive it to be. Therefore, one can see it is nearly impossible to respond "yes" or "no" to this question, but I am going with the "yes" side simply because every one has the right to apply for disability benefits.
Folks who are denied have appeal rights.
Please go to http://www.socialsec urity.gov/redbook/en g/main.htm to read everything you ever want to know about disability.
Learn more about this author, Dossie M Terrell.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Fewer
Definitely fewer people should receive Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits. In a perfect world, no one would even need it. But this is the real world.
The original intent of Social Security was to provide a basic support system for people who had labored all their lives to support themselves and their families and paid into the national tax system.
If you lived long enough you would get your money back. It was basically a mandatory savings plan paid for by the workers and administered by the government.
One day someone asked what would happen if you were seriously injured on the job and were unable to work. Why should you have to live in poverty while your Social Security money sat in the government coffers waiting to see if you lived long enough to collect it? These are the sorts of things that prompted the establishment of SSD.
However, like any other government program it was born with the potential for fraud, abuse and waste. Not one of our elected officials thought to close the loopholes or, if they did, they failed to follow up.
Their carelessness or negligence ends up costing us all in the long run. One thing we know is if there is a way to exploit a system someone will find it. And if no one deals with them, more people will follow.
Events happen that prevent some people from ever being able to support themselves and their children. Accidents that cripple; diseases or genetic disorders that limit physical or mental development.
That has happened with SSD. I personally know a number of people who are collecting large monthly checks from SSD without actually working for it. One man I know had a rough childhood for certain. He never grew up into a confident, self-sufficient man.
Now he's in his mid-thirties, has never worked, has never pursued an education or skill. All he does is sit, eat and play video games. He doesn't need to work because he gets a big check every month; a check drawn from our savings. Several hundred pounds overweight, he sees no reason to change his lifestyle.
That's the problem with the way SSD is administered today. The money is given to the recipients without any effort made to try to restore the person.
The man I mentioned today could have benefitted from a few years of serious psychological treatment; perhaps in-house care. It would have been expensive but it still would be less than the cost of lifelong care.
The system needs to be changed to a restorative program. Instead of measuring success by the amount of money being doled out, they should make it their goal to minimize the number of non-working recipients.
Not everyone wants to go to work. It's easier to have it just handed to you. But those people can be weeded out, forced to work or left to their own devices.
Others can be retrained to do job unrelated to their previous experience and unaffected by their present state.
Those who remain will be those who truly need to be supported. As a working member of society I have no problem taking care of the weak and infirm. I have a problem with carrying the lazy.
America's working class deserves to be cared for by their government as well. It is they who do the work, make the products and keep the economy rolling. They have earned the money feeding the Social Security coffers.
They deserve to have the fruits of their labor protected for their future not squandered by the lazy and undeserving - in the community and on Capitol Hill.
Learn more about this author, Morgan Johnson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Retirement
- Will Social Security continue to be funded in the future?
- Is it wise to borrow from your 401(k) plan?
- Should United States corporations honor all prior commitments to employee pensions?
- To combat the coming crisis in Social Security, the federal government should raise the retirement age
- Does it really pay to save for retirement?
- Should Social Security benefits be abolished?
