Comments on: Disability Rolls and the Makers/Takers/Fakers Nonsense

By: Colin

Colin — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 01:50:20 +0000

When there are (even just potential) confounds, no conclusions can be drawn from simple correlation. Agreed! But isn't it fair to say that these graphs also don't disprove the hypothesis that abuse of the program is growing? Further, no mechanism has even been suggested. What about just a simple numbers game? If, say, 5% of all fraudulent claims make it through the safeguards, and the number of fraudulent claims rises as a result of people looking for an income stream given the tough economy, won't the number of fraudulent claims making it through necessarily rise?

By: Ken Schulz

Ken Schulz — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:48:24 +0000

Yes, Colin, you missed the confounding demographic factors mentioned by Dr. Bernstein and those suggested by several commentors. When there are (even just potential) confounds, no conclusions can be drawn from simple correlation.

Further, no mechanism has even been suggested. SSDI has extensive rules and procedures to qualify applicants; absent extensive changes in these, or in the population’s skills at deception, one would expect the rate of successful deceivers to be approximately constant.

I have one more potential confound to suggest: aging population + increasing life expectancy = more persons in long-term care + increasing obesity = more opportunities for back injuries among caregivers; see http://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2008/09/lifting/ Back injuries are a large category of disabling injury.

By: Roger D Raybuck

Roger D Raybuck — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:54:25 +0000

Agreeded in spades ! Corporate welfare recepients are self labeled makers with pockets wide open. Plutocrats taking, wall street booming, corporate profits and cash bloated more than Christy! Meanwhile, those who continue to have lost the class-fare shuffle continue to suffer without jobs, homes and prospects. Adding insult to injury the GOP lifts the limp bodies to find the real target those disabled American “takers”. A deversion or just plain sick, let’s get the hugh benefits being shovled out to SSDI participation. Exxon needs new cigar trimmers for the corporate xmas party.

By: JohnR

JohnR — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 06:14:31 +0000

“..basic human nature would indicate that there are always going to be some free riders on programs.”

I agree completely. So, why is the sadly sincere and deeply concerned concern limited to the small-timers on the ‘social welfare’ rolls, rather than the high rollers on the ‘government gravy train’ rolls (farm and corporate subsidies and the like)? That is, of course, purely a rhetorical question – as always the Golden Rule applies (“Whoever has the gold, makes the rules”).

By: Colin

Colin — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 06:13:18 +0000

So both of your charts show that the percentage of workers and the percentage of awards indicate that the use of disability is increasing. Both of these seem consistent with the idea that disability abuse is growing, and that the only uncertainty is the scale. Am I missing something?

By: JohnR

JohnR — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 06:09:08 +0000

That’s an excellent point, by the way. My wife has been on SSDI for over 25 years now, but has been willing and eager to get a job for a decade. She’s still physically impaired, but is more than able to do what she has the training and experience to do. Unfortunately, she finished bringing her skills up to date and certified in the spring of 2008, and nobody is interested in hiring anyone who’s been out of work for 20 years and partially disabled to boot, no matter what degrees and certifications she may have. Not as long as there are qualified youngsters willing to eat each other to get the job, anyway. Her friends in what I might call the “lightly disabled” community have been going through exactly what Tom describes; even good workers are getting “early retirement” against their will, because ‘better workers’ are available and often for less. That puts them right back on SSDI, at least until the benevolent VSPs and GOPs chop it to the ground because, after all, they’re not disabled and consequently see no use for it. Nowadays, all that EEOC stuff borders on a cruel sham; it’s just for show, more often than not, and in any event, who’s going to enforce it?

By: Richard Grelber

Richard Grelber — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 05:39:37 +0000

Look more carefully at the graph of applications for disability coverage, and acceptances.

Yes, the acceptances rise less than applications in absolute terms during the recession, as you would expect, because the acceptance rate of claims is less than 100%.

But in proportionate terms, looking at the graph of applications and acceptances, both rose roughly the same amount as a % of their prior levels.

So no, it is not just more people applying unsuccessfully. It is also more people applying successfully during the recession.

By: ottovbvs

ottovbvs — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 05:16:34 +0000

While Jimmy P is not to be taken seriously for a moment it’s hard to escape the conclusion that there has been quite a substantial increase in the rolls even when weighted for age/gender. It does merit some closer examination surely?

By: Garry

Garry — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 00:34:19 +0000

I think one poster who commented on a potential link between States with low wages and DI being a more attractive option might have some validity. However, as someone who was on SS DI following a liver transplant for 4 years when I used State Vocational Rehab benefits to finish school and then go back to work the people I know personally are like me and want to work and be productive citizens. However, I also know how hard it is to get approved for DI as you do NOT just decide you do not want to work and go get on DI. However, I guarantee that health insurance (Medicare) which goes along with DI is the driving reason why most people apply and once on DI do not use the Ticket to Work which allows a trial period to transition back to the work force. Most people are afraid they will lose their health insurance.

By: rajatuta

rajatuta — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:19:33 +0000

Hi Jared,
I think there should also be some upward adjustment in the data to account for a decrease in manufacturing employment over the last 30 years. Ms Ruffing notes in her blog that the manufacturing sector reports a higher percentage of disabled workers. There should also be some upward adjustment due to improvement in medical care but that would be tough to quantify.