NPR Attacks Disabled Workers

[jimells]

The report on their website is called "Unfit For Work"

It is not news to Americans that Uncle Sam, led by the Obama Administration, is determined to wreck what little remains of the so-called "social safety net". National Public Propaganda Radio has joined the fray, which is of course their duty, as their role is to inform the establishment elite what they are supposed to think.

I haven't actually read the entire report yet. I'm too upset from hearing the radio reports. And my fingers are tired from holding my nose: this garbage really stinks...

 

[Valentijn]

It's actually a pretty good article, discussing a lot of problems with the system - that people without an education have a much harder time finding work that they're qualified for and capable of doing. And that they end up labeled as "disabled" when the real problem (arguably) is a lack of jobs which are suitable for people without an advanced education who can't do physically demanding work. And then they end up not being included in unemployment numbers, when the article suggests that they should be.

Also the inherent conflict in parents having a financial incentive to having minor children that are somehow "disabled" - they need to stay disabled and unemployed if the family is to survive financially, meaning the money that should be used to get the help that the kids need to deal with the (often learning) disability is instead being used to feed them, and the disability is not treated, and the child has less chance of becoming independent. The article suggests fixing this by giving proper support to children living in poverty.

The only thing I strongly disagree with is how the article seems to say that it's too easy to get on disability. Maybe that's true in the one county he checked out, but seems far from typical.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

Considering the bastards here in the UK are now claiming even those who've lost both legs to booby traps, or are dying from cancer, are "fit to work"...my only answer is that a lot of politicians, and elite and tax evading/war-profiteering corporation execs need *HANGED*!

 

[August59]

It's actually a pretty good article, discussing a lot of problems with the system - that people without an education have a much harder time finding work that they're qualified for and capable of doing. And that they end up labeled as "disabled" when the real problem (arguably) is a lack of jobs which are suitable for people without an advanced education who can't do physically demanding work. And then they end up not being included in unemployment numbers, when the article suggests that they should be.

Also the inherent conflict in parents having a financial incentive to having minor children that are somehow "disabled" - they need to stay disabled and unemployed if the family is to survive financially, meaning the money that should be used to get the help that the kids need to deal with the (often learning) disability is instead being used to feed them, and the disability is not treated, and the child has less chance of becoming independent. The article suggests fixing this by giving proper support to children living in poverty.

The only thing I strongly disagree with is how the article seems to say that it's too easy to get on disability. Maybe that's true in the one county he checked out, but seems far from typical.

I'll be more than happy to talk to them about how easy they think it is to get in disability!

 

[*GG*]

I don't know if it's just hyperbole/scare tactics, but I see headlines of the increasing demand, without an increase of funds, so things could go bust. I know it's not easy for people with our conditions to get disability, but perhaps with this bad economy, and if you have some diagnosis that can help you get disability, more people are applying and getting money. People need money to survive! So they apply for disability and get it.

I think we all want it to go to people who are deserving/really need it, otherwise it's just another system that might go bust?

GG

 

[Valentijn]

I don't know if it's just hyperbole/scare tactics, but I see headlines of the increasing demand, without an increase of funds, so things could go bust. I know it's not easy for people with our conditions to get disability, but perhaps with this bad economy, and if you have some diagnosis that can help you get disability, more people are applying and getting money. People need money to survive! So they apply for disability and get it.

I think we all want it to go to people who are deserving/really need it, otherwise it's just another system that might go bust?

Yeah, I think a lot of people in the US avoid signing up for government money that they're qualified for, so long as they can survive somehow. So in a bad economy, their family members that help support them are more likely to be struggling, running a small business where their partial disability doesn't matter is going to be harder, job opportunities for the mildly disabled are going to disappear ... and due to genuine disability (combined with bad economy), there's no job for them. And when unemployment runs out or isn't an option to start with, getting aid based on the disability is really the only option.

Obviously the solution is to raise taxes

 

[Little Bluestem]

It seems to me that a person who can do only a desk job is not 'fully abled'. If they can find a job that fits their level of ability, that is good. If they cannot, I do not see why they do not deserve disability payment.

 

[WillowJ]

It's actually a pretty good article, discussing a lot of problems with the system - that people without an education have a much harder time finding work that they're qualified for and capable of doing. And that they end up labeled as "disabled" when the real problem (arguably) is a lack of jobs which are suitable for people without an advanced education who can't do physically demanding work. And then they end up not being included in unemployment numbers, when the article suggests that they should be.

Also the inherent conflict in parents having a financial incentive to having minor children that are somehow "disabled" - they need to stay disabled and unemployed if the family is to survive financially, meaning the money that should be used to get the help that the kids need to deal with the (often learning) disability is instead being used to feed them, and the disability is not treated, and the child has less chance of becoming independent. The article suggests fixing this by giving proper support to children living in poverty.

The only thing I strongly disagree with is how the article seems to say that it's too easy to get on disability. Maybe that's true in the one county he checked out, but seems far from typical.

I agree with all that. The article did do a good job talking about the side of the story which is about inherent problems in the economy which causes people to apply for disability who might have other options if the economy and aid programs were somehow better.

However it wasn't a good article because it didn't touch on the other side of the story. We all know that the disability program is there for a reason, but it's not often we see stories about why, and who it is helping. With all these personal stories about people who might need a different program, it's not really a balanced article without also having stories about:

* people who need actual disability programs and are on such programs (various combinations of SDI, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid) and how well they are working or what problems they are having with the programs (probably both pros and cons)

* people who need disability and have trouble getting approved

Alternatively this could be presented in a companion or follow-up article, to keep the other article focused. But the dialog is incomplete without these kinds of issues, which are just as real and compelling as the others.

Additionally, it would be good to cover research of medical conditions, adaptive equipment, and so forth. This costs money in the sort run but will save money in the long run.

We cannot continue hoping all our nations' problems will be ok with minimal attention.

 

[Little Bluestem]

I heard some of these programs and I think that one of them did say that Disability just paid a minimal amount of money to live on; but did not provide treatment, therapy, or adaptive equipment which might allow a person to get off of disability.

 

[Merry]

Media Matters challenges some of the claims in Chana Joffe-Walt's report:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/03/22/this-american-life-features-error-riddled-story/193215

In a follow-up article Media Matters responds to This American Life host Ira Glass's defense of the report, which aired on his show:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/27/this-american-life-criticized-for-defending-mis/193303

 

[Parismountain]

Here's a paste on Media Matters from Wiki

"Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a politically progressive[1] media watchdog group that says it is "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media"."

It's fine to link articles from them but for some of us it would be like the reaction progressives would get from a conservative linking Rush Limbaugh links.

 

[Merry]

Once again I'm reminded why I shouldn't post at PR. Not good for my health.

Ok, Parismountain, from the right, at breibart.com, an article by Wynton Hall attacking Media Matters for attacking NPR:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journa...ters-Attacks-NPR-For-Disability-Program-Expos

 

[Ema]

I listened to this program while taking a walk this afternoon and am confused on one basic point - are they referring to SSDI which is a disability insurance program that workers pay into and then can receive benefits from if they become disabled or SSI which is a form of welfare for the very poor and disabled? These are two completely separate and different programs yet they seem to have been bundled together for the purposes of this program. I found it hard to tell which program was being referred to at any one point in time.

I also had a big problem with the emphasis the reporter put on applying for disability as a choice to enter and forever remain in poverty. I don't know very many people that had a choice in their illness or disability. To suggest that someone would chose poverty over health is insane and propagates the "lazy" myth that needs to be destroyed.

Ema

 

[Little Bluestem]

I did not hear the This American Life version. I heard a couple of shorter pieces on Talk of the Nation, Afternoon Edition, and/or All Things Considered.

 

[overtrain]

I'm in the U.S., & personally know a number of men in the town where I live who have zero higher ed- no degree(s)/diplomas, & they've won SSI/SSDI first time around, yet those- like myself- at least as messed up physically- much less fogbrainally- DENIED SSDI. Oh, whups.... those degrees. My bad! I'm female. I wonder how gender plays in, too. I paid into SSDI my entire working life. I learned yesterday it takes, on average, someone with CFS/ME SEVEN years to get SSDI. It's called lose-even-more-sanity-with-each-reapp. & appeal.... Good luck out there. There are unaccounted for/uncounted millions of us is my guess, relying on alternate incomes as diverse as fill in the blank & more.... even those ON SSI or SSDI or both need to do underground work for cash. In my neigh, dealing is the mainstay, babysitting, or theft. Yeah, I carry a weapon 24/7, & lock my door tight....after returning to the ghetto with my roach-infested food bank bags of cans of outdated.... oh, never mind. One minute at a time.

 

[Xandoff]

In my current condition I could not mount the energy it took to get SSDI. I was fortunate enough to get it back in the earlier stages of the illness and was turned down the first time. Standard operating procedure for SSDI. I hired a lawyer (who by federal law get paid a separate fee from the Govt. for representing you. I didn't even have to attend court. These Lawyers want your business because the lawyers always get the money. Good luck overtrain and hire a disability lawyer. They will take your case and they will win it.

 

[overtrain]

Thank you..... "I hired a lawyer (who by federal law get paid a separate fee from the Govt. for representing you." ?? How does that work? I never heard of an SSDI atty. not getting a cut from the client... or maybe you're saying in addition to client cut? Yay for you you got it. Some states are easier re SSDI; I heard MN often approves claims, but who knows.

 

[Xandoff]

Thank you..... "I hired a lawyer (who by federal law get paid a separate fee from the Govt. for representing you." ?? How does that work? I never heard of an SSDI atty. not getting a cut from the client... or maybe you're saying in addition to client cut? Yay for you you got it. Some states are easier re SSDI; I heard MN often approves claims, but who knows.

Overtrain,

Just do a search for disability lawyers, I live in Northern new England (USA) and there are always commercials on TV for disability lawyers. I hired one out of Georgia (Brain Fog!) who did it all by phone and would have a representative in State for a court appearance. The Lawyer is guaranteed the money and it does not come out of your pocket. Good Luck Overtrain, I know it is overwhelming, but Lawyers can do it for you. I pray you get it the SSDI you deserve!

 

[Little Bluestem]

Are you sure the money paid to the lawyer didn't come out of your SSDI award? That is sometimes done. In that case the lawyer only gets paid if you win.

 

[overtrain]

"The Lawyer is guaranteed the money and it does not come out of your pocket."

This is contrary to the exp. of anyone I have met who ever got SSDI. I did have an atty., & signed an agreement she'd get a cut if I won. It works that way for worker's comp., too. I'm not sure what to say... & you had a private atty, right?