Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickey
This one statement that is 100% true but makes no sense what so ever. I mean about SSA rules for employment. If a person becomes disabled and can no longer perform their old job and SSA agrees with this.
Q. Is SSA going to pay for this person to be retrained? A. NO.
Q. This person is disabled, is anyone going to hire them? A. Very Doubtful.
Q. With the job market as is, is this person going to be able to find a job? A. Very Doubtful.
Q. If a job were open 3 counties away, is SSA going to relocate this person? A. NO.
If a persons doctor tells them that they can no longer perform work because of medical problems, then SSA should have to evaluate the employment or job status where this person lives. They should consider if there is a job nearby that this person could possibly do with their limitations. They should consider that if there was a job 25 or 50 miles away paying $8.00 an hour, would this be feasible for this person to travel this far. It would take most of the paycheck just to pay for gas. If there was a job in the next state, SSA should consider if the person is financially able to make the move. I know that SSA will never consider any of this in a claim decision. I think instead of just having a SSA claim worker and a medical examiner deciding claims, there should also be a human relations or resources worker involved.
|
So your point is that place of residence should be a factor in determining whether or not a person was disabled. A a person who
chose to reside in or move to a remote rural area would be approved but a person who
chose to live near employment opportunities would be denied. Deciding where to live is a choice. Americans have always had the right and ability to relocate if there was more opportunity somewhere else. They can also choose to live in a depressed area if that is what they want. Using this as criteria, if someone were entitled to SSDI or SSI, they could lose those benefits if a new company opened up in their commute area because then there is a possible job that they could do. SSA should keep track of businesses opening and closing in every city and town and county in America.
A person who chooses to learn and work at a trade that is becoming obsolete (buggy repair for instance) should have an advantage in a disability finding over a person who chose to learn a skill like office machine repair?
Many disabled people go to work every day. Many disabled people find jobs every day. Many companies hire disabled people every day. Sheltered workshops hire the mentally challenged, the federal government gives precedence to disabled veterans, other employers get tax credits if they hire someone who meets some disability standard.
Also, if the economy is bad (based on some economic statistic) a person could be entitled but if the economy picks up, the benefits should stop? Or that people who are file a claim when the economy is bad get a different set of criteria than people who file a claim when the economy is booming (assuming the same medical condition)?
Adding this layer of bureaucracy and regulation to an already bloated system does not sound like a good idea to me at all. Also makes the decision based less on objective medical criteria and more on choices made by the claimant.