Disability backlog tops 1 million; thousands die on waitlist

Knight

Knight

Well-known Member
This was in current news so I don't know if this should be here in politics or health as a topic.


Intro to article
WASHINGTON (AP) — More than 1 million Americans await a hearing to see whether they qualify for disability benefits from Social Security, with the average wait nearly two years — longer than some of them will live.


All have been denied benefits at least once, as most applications are initially rejected. But in a system where the outcome of a case often depends on who decides it, most people who complete the appeals process will eventually win benefits. The numbers come from data compiled by the Social Security Administration.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/disability-backlog-tops-1-million-thousands-die-waitlist-122743401.html


As can easily be understood this as a issue for the Soc. Sec. Admin began long before Trump took office. So I think it's fair to rule this one out as Trump's fault.


I don't have a crystal ball to divine what will happen when employer paid insurance goes away & the addition of 28.5 million people are added to the system if Sander's bill is passed. I can however speculate that people like the crack whore Trade mentioned & the millions that choose self inflicted health care problems would apply for and get on the list for disability payments. I could be wrong but this backlog issue IMO should be considered another indication of what handling the entire population except for Vets & native American Indians might look like.
 

Knight said:
This was in current news so I don't know if this should be here in politics or health as a topic.


Intro to article
WASHINGTON (AP) — More than 1 million Americans await a hearing to see whether they qualify for disability benefits from Social Security, with the average wait nearly two years — longer than some of them will live.


All have been denied benefits at least once, as most applications are initially rejected. But in a system where the outcome of a case often depends on who decides it, most people who complete the appeals process will eventually win benefits. The numbers come from data compiled by the Social Security Administration.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/disability-backlog-tops-1-million-thousands-die-waitlist-122743401.html


As can easily be understood this as a issue for the Soc. Sec. Admin began long before Trump took office. So I think it's fair to rule this one out as Trump's fault.


I don't have a crystal ball to divine what will happen when employer paid insurance goes away & the addition of 28.5 million people are added to the system if Sander's bill is passed. I can however speculate that people like the crack whore Trade mentioned & the millions that choose self inflicted health care problems would apply for and get on the list for disability payments. I could be wrong but this backlog issue IMO should be considered another indication of what handling the entire population except for Vets & native American Indians might look like.
Click to expand...

In my current location this has been going on for a long time, probably longer than I've been here, and it's definitely worsening. The problem: substance abuse. For the longest time, health care providers (who benefit from both prescribing and can maintain longterm 'patients') had no trouble claiming the individuals had various mental health conditions that qualified them for SSDI; when the DSM decided to add 'substance abuse disorder' to their list of alleged disabilities, it made the process even easier. Not only SSDI and medicaid, but a whole range of other benefits- just because they 'choose' to engage in illegal drug use or alcohol abuse- and, with eligibility for all the benefits, they have no reason to get/stay clean/sober and do anything productive with their lives.
In my opinion, substance abuse should not make a person eligible for anything- except perhaps free treatment programs for those who really do want to change.
 
While there certainly are those people who are seemingly content living a substance abuse infused marginal lifestyle, most people are not. Wouldn't it be nice if it were appropriate to diagnose those affected as morally lax, weak, whiny losers looking to profit from a nanny state? I spent almost a decade heavily involved in treating clients with a variety of substance abuse

issues. They came from all strata of society, homeless to movers and shakers, and everything in between. Those without a financial cushion obviously experienced the most obvious harship, but I saw many affluent lives destroyed also. Some addicts came from multigenerational alcoholic families, others became hooked after suffering catastophic illness, or injury. Some self

medicated because of deep seated trauma/PTSD or mental illness. Yes, some others were hooked because of poor life choices, but these were the minority. I recently returned from a symposium dealing with just this topic. The consensus is, we have a

severe epidemic of opioid abuse, but to tar the majority of sufferers with that brush is unfair, and potentially deadly. All addicts are not the same. All treatement options are not the same either. Let us not forget that almost any of us could become

dependent under catastrophic circumstances, even if only as a temporary measure to assuage intense physical pain. Compassion is not the same as coddling. Either all of us matter, or none of us do. Some addicts recover and go on to lead productive and healthy, happy lives. How do I know? My name is Shalimar, and I am a recovering addict.
 

Shalimar said:
While there certainly are those people who are seemingly content living a substance abuse infused marginal lifestyle, most people are not. Wouldn't it be nice if it were appropriate to diagnose those affected as morally lax, weak, whiny losers looking to profit from a nanny state? I spent almost a decade heavily involved in treating clients with a variety of substance abuse

issues. They came from all strata of society, homeless to movers and shakers, and everything in between. Those without a financial cushion obviously experienced the most obvious harship, but I saw many affluent lives destroyed also. Some addicts came from multigenerational alcoholic families, others became hooked after suffering catastophic illness, or injury. Some self

medicated because of deep seated trauma/PTSD or mental illness. Yes, some others were hooked because of poor life choices, but these were the minority. I recently returned from a symposium dealing with just this topic. The consensus is, we have a

severe epidemic of opioid abuse, but to tar the majority of sufferers with that brush is unfair, and potentially deadly. All addicts are not the same. All treatement options are not the same either. Let us not forget that almost any of us could become

dependent under catastrophic circumstances, even if only as a temporary measure to assuage intense physical pain. Compassion is not the same as coddling. Either all of us matter, or none of us do. Some addicts recover and go on to lead productive and healthy, happy lives. How do I know? My name is Shalimar, and I am a recovering addict.
Click to expand...

I think the word 'most' would depend on where a person is and the population they're in- I have known individuals like yourself who, when presented with the facts and genuine help, make the most of those opportunities. But they've been the tiniest minority; and, in current environment, I only knew one who truly wanted to improve her situation. All the others are perfectly o.k. with the way they are. However, I do not believe the addicts/alcoholics themselves are entirely at fault- when a person goes to a health care provider and the provider tells them they don't have to work for the rest of their lives, not many are going to argue, especially when they believe 'doctors are always right, never question a doctor, always follow your health care provider's advice.' So on one side of it, my concern is watching human beings' health and lives go down the drain, many who would have had a chance if providers hadn't pushed them in the wrong direction; and on the other side, one local was an example- a middle-aged guy in otherwise good health, solid education, etc., remarked "All I had to do was tell them I'm an alcoholic and I'm depressed, and I get everything for free!" Edited to add: shortly before then, he'd been grumbling that he 'didn't know what he wanted to do with his life.' So my viewpoint: any person who truly wants a chance should be given every possible chance- but those who truly want to make a lifestyle of substance abuse should not be given a lifetime of freebies to do it with.
 
In our part of the country...and in the past 3 or 4 years, I've noticed several large billboards, and an increasing number of TV ads, for Lawyers specializing in SSDI. I'm wondering how many people who use these lawyers wind up giving most of their benefits to these lawyers....IF they win their case. Given the number of these ads and billboards, there must be some serious money flowing to the lawyers.
 
JaniceM said:
I think the word 'most' would depend on where a person is and the population they're in- I have known individuals like yourself who, when presented with the facts and genuine help, make the most of those opportunities. But they've been the tiniest minority; and, in current environment, I only knew one who truly wanted to improve her situation. All the others are perfectly o.k. with the way they are. However, I do not believe the addicts/alcoholics themselves are entirely at fault- when a person goes to a health care provider and the provider tells them they don't have to work for the rest of their lives, not many are going to argue, especially when they believe 'doctors are always right, never question a doctor, always follow your health care provider's advice.' So on one side of it, my concern is watching human beings' health and lives go down the drain, many who would have had a chance if providers hadn't pushed them in the wrong direction; and on the other side, one local was an example- a middle-aged guy in otherwise good health, solid education, etc., remarked "All I had to do was tell them I'm an alcoholic and I'm depressed, and I get everything for free!" Edited to add: shortly before then, he'd been grumbling that he 'didn't know what he wanted to do with his life.' So my viewpoint: any person who truly wants a chance should be given every possible chance- but those who truly want to make a lifestyle of substance abuse should not be given a lifetime of freebies to do it with.
Click to expand...
A lifetime of substance abuse is not a pretty thing. Most end up in the mental institution, dead or incarcerated sooner or later. There is no luxurious lifestyle of being on disability and substance abusing and having a good old time for the rest of one's life. It is often not the person's choice any longer once addicted. The addiction is in control; not the person and not a desirable state.
 
Ruthanne said:
A lifetime of substance abuse is not a pretty thing. Most end up in the mental institution, dead or incarcerated sooner or later. There is no luxurious lifestyle of being on disability and substance abusing and having a good old time for the rest of one's life. It is often not the person's choice any longer once addicted. The addiction is in control; not the person and not a desirable state.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
This morphed into drug addiction which is OK if that were the only reason for applying for benefits.


Some numbers later in the article


"About 10.5 million people get disability benefits from Social Security. An additional 8 million get disability benefits from Supplemental Security Income, the disability program for poor people who don't qualify for Social Security. The disability programs are much smaller than Social Security's giant retirement program. Still, the agency paid out $197 billion in disability payments last year.


Recipients won't get rich as the average benefit is $1,037 a month — too small to lift a family of two out of poverty."




The statement recipients won't get rich is true considering the cost of living. I was thinking more long term.






The organization estimates that 3/4 of the American population will likely be overweight or obese by 2020. The latest figures from the CDC as of 2014 show that more than one-third (36.5%) of U.S. adults age 20 and older and 17% of children and adolescents aged 2–19 years were obese.
Obesity in the United States - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_States






Causes. Long-term exposure to lung irritants that damage the lungs and the airways usually is the cause of COPD. In the United States, the most common irritant that causes COPD is cigarette smoke. Pipe, cigar, and other types of tobacco smoke also can cause COPD, especially if the smoke is inhaled.
Causes - NHLBI, NIH
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/copd/causes




The Invisible Revolution: How Aging Is Quietly Changing America


A rapidly growing elderly population might be the most important yet inevitable feature of the country’s economic future. Why aren’t voters hearing more about it?
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/aging-america/503177/


I'll repeat


Quote
"I don't have a crystal ball to divine what will happen when employer paid insurance goes away & the addition of 28.5 million people are added to the system if Sander's bill is passed. I can however speculate that people like the crack whore Trade mentioned & the millions that choose self inflicted health care problems would apply for and get on the list for disability payments. I could be wrong but this backlog issue IMO should be considered another indication of what handling the entire population except for Vets & native American Indians might look like."


I should have made it clear that was about the "what if" of Sanders health care bill passing. I don't think most of the people posting here would be affected. BUT long term with the population aging it isn't rocket science to figure out the burden to pay is going to fall on a smaller younger workforce. That workforce typically earns less so all in all it will be interesting to watch how this unfolds.
 
Shalimar said:
I agree.
Click to expand...

And here's Canada under our new government pushing to legalize marijuana.

I am so against that concept. It's just going to make it easier to get and people are going to try it because it's now legal.

It's like gambling. I never gambled before but now that it's legal I'm hooked.

I don't get it. We have to hide cigarettes behind the counter.

And if you want to justify it by collecting taxes on it.? They will come nowhere close to solving the abuse problems.
 
@Knight: I do apologize for thread going off-course, it wasn't intentional though.
But if it's o.k. to further address some of the topics you brought up- too much is related to too many people these days not taking responsibility for what they choose to do. I'll quickly state that if it were up to me- which it isn't- I'd never deny anyone medical care or other necessary assistance; but I do believe if things aren't to become even worse, the trend of "I'll do whatever I want, and then somebody else can be responsible for the consequences" has to stop.

One example from your post: years ago, a woman who smoked cigarettes developed lung cancer- and sued the tobacco company.

Another: regardless of the known health risks associated with obesity, you'll hear 'don't judge!' or you're 'body-shaming.' I've even run into websites claiming obesity is the new normal- 'This is what real women look like!'

And awhile back I noticed a poster at a bus stop:
One in three first-graders will develop diabetes during their lifetimes. While this is an alarming thought, the second part was equally alarming: Ask the presidential candidates what THEY intend to do about this. And the word 'they' was in capital letters and underlined.
 
JaniceM said:
too much is related to too many people these days not taking responsibility for what they choose to do. I'll quickly state that if it were up to me- which it isn't- I'd never deny anyone medical care or other necessary assistance; but I do believe if things aren't to become even worse, the trend of "I'll do whatever I want, and then somebody else can be responsible for the consequences" has to stop.
Click to expand...

If we could put "political correctness" aside, and take an objective look at the root causes of health problems, it would quickly become apparent that as much as Half of the nations health problems are self-induced. Smoking, excess use of alcohol, drug addictions, AND Obesity Probably cause more trips to the doctor and hospitals than all other causes combined. Most of this is preventable, and if eliminated, would reduce our costs, etc., to half what they currently are.

But since many people cannot recognize the problems, even when staring at them in the mirror, perhaps we need to offer them some incentives. Smokers, for example, are already charged more for their insurance premiums...and others with bad habits should also be required to "pre-pay" for the problems they will surely have. Maybe if people had to devote more of their income to health care insurance, they might not have quite as much to blow on beer, Crack or Meth, and junk food. And for those who can't afford health insurance, yet refuse to participate in their own well being, their medical treatment should consist of a free prescription for generic pain pills...and little else....IMO.
 
Shalimar said:
Hmmmm. Many people who take medications for a variety of mental health concerns, experience severe weight gain as a side effect. Hardly self induced, as the alternatives are bleak.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there is a small....very small...portion of the population who has to take medications to combat their mental problems...and every one of these medications has potentially dire side effects, but the vast majority of people who have self induced health problems allow their "excuses" to override their responsibilities, and common sense. Excuses are like Rectums...Everybody Has One.
 
Don M. said:
I'm sure there is a small....very small...portion of the population who has to take medications to combat their mental problems...and every one of these medications has potentially dire side effects, but the vast majority of people who have self induced health problems allow their "excuses" to override their responsibilities, and common sense. Excuses are like Rectums...Everybody Has One.
Click to expand...

I suspect you and I inhabit quite different worlds Don. To each their own.
 
I don't think anyone condemns ill health for people that have issues due to circumstances beyond their control. The moral and right thing to do is help those individuals.


As JaniceM points out the differance lies in the choices made by those that could exercize control and don't. As I've posted society has a responsibility to those that are mentally or physically handicapped and unable to support or care for themselves


I don't think society has a responsibility to those that make conscious choices to become dependent on society. I don't understand why society should have a responsibily to them and they don't have a responsibility to society. Statistics by the soc sec admin & center for disease control are good sources to get an understanding of the impact of poor choices.
 
I will make one small point, and then it is time for bed. A full day of clients awaits. Yes, obesity is damaging to one's health, but here's the thing. For some, poverty precludes them having the ability to buy wholesome food. Carbs are cheap. For

example, a poor working single mother will feed her kids first with whatever healthy food she can manage to afford. She will fill herself up on bread etc. Over time she may well become obese. Should she be blamed for that? I think not. Many seniors are

also too poor to eat properly, are they at fault? Not in my book. IMHO, the situation is not cut and dried. Many shades of grey exist. Bonne nuit!
 
Shalimar said:
I will make one small point, and then it is time for bed. A full day of clients awaits. Yes, obesity is damaging to one's health, but here's the thing. For some, poverty precludes them having the ability to buy wholesome food. Carbs are cheap. For

example, a poor working single mother will feed her kids first with whatever healthy food she can manage to afford. She will fill herself up on bread etc. Over time she may well become obese. Should she be blamed for that? I think not. Many seniors are

also too poor to eat properly, are they at fault? Not in my book. IMHO, the situation is not cut and dried. Many shades of grey exist. Bonne nuit!
Click to expand...

Shalimar. Obesity means you eat more calories than your body needs. It doesn't matter if it's carbs or not.
 
List of 80+ Federal Welfare Programs
Updated September 17, 2017 by Dawn Lee




Welfare programs are government subsidies to the poor. The programs represent “entitlements” to all Americans but benefits are only paid to those who work, but earn too little.


These means-tested welfare system consists of 80+ low-income programs providing cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services to poor and lower income Americans.
https://singlemotherguide.com/federal-welfare-programs/


Now if only there was some source of information about the cause of excessive weight & obesity or the harmful effects of smoking and drug abuse maybe the millions that choose those negative impacts on their health would choose differantly.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top