Originally Posted by Janke

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.