 |
 |
Hi Barbara, Barbara Mallut wrote: > > David.... You've sure got me thinking here! As I see it as you present it the > only criteria one needs to be assured of receiving their SSDI benefits is: > > 1. They've worked The requisite number of years required by the system and > paid into that system during that time. > > 2. Be legitimately disabled (certified as that by a coupla physicians?) > enough so that they're unable to earn a living, whether they receive treatment > of not for their disability. > Essentially yes. > Interesting. Social Security would have to stop taking it's usual > adversarial role if they adapted your suggestion. As it is, many applicants > (myself included) seem to immediately get their initial request for SSDI > denied, and then are forced to go thru a lengthy appeals process, eventually > ending up after a coupla-three years before a Social Security judge. > I sympathise with your experience and its that type of attitude by officials and the State that worry me. (I very much recognise and condemn the abuse of the system by claimants - it must also be a lousy job for the officials a lot of the time). Unfortunately, there is so much abuse that one can understand the need for checking, but I wonder how much over zealous action comes from the need to balance the budget. It would be interesting to know the statistics of won and failed appeals. The bottom line is that social security is a system for the people and paid for by the people. The reason for my strong response to the original question that started this discussion is a matter of principle. That principle is the use by the State of force (by economic sanction in this case) to compel the use of a medical treatment Where does that attitude stop? Regards David