2013: 99 weeks of vacation pay runs out. Getting on disability is the cure. Psst...can still work under the table!

Now obsolete: Patient...heal thyself.

Monique, you are a heartless person. How dare you question anyone on disability. In fact, I'm sure that's illegal in some way.

/s

Good luck to the 1,700,000 people in finding a job, with Britain's 13% "real" unemployment rate, it's 23% unemployment rate for folks between 18 and 25 years old including college graduates, 40% for those 18 to 25 with no college degrees. Since disability benefits in the UK are less than most folks earn, it could be that these folks were on the dole, because they could not find a job, not that I am OK with that

The government in the UK must be flush with cash, since they wasted hundreds of billions of dollars on Cheney's foolish and totally unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And still spend hundreds of millions annually on the Royal Family who are among the wealthiest people in the world LOL

I think Monique's post assumes a desire on the part of the governors to rectify the problem. I do not think that exists, although hard times may force it on them. Just as they are prepared to throw money at inner cities to "keep them quiet", I think they are prepared to throw money at the unemployment problem. I doubt that it matter to them whether support is provided by "general relief" or S.S.D.I. It is probably of some concern to them whether the funds are provided by the states or the federal government. I imagine there is a lot of infighting over that one.

- Government-appointed three-doctor panels for all new applications.
- Tougher standards for what constitutes disability.
- Disability benefits scaled by percentage functionality.
- Appeals actively defended by government-contracted attorneys.

All basic and reasonable safeguards that should have been in place since day one of SSDI. None will see the light of day.

The Rhode Island answer to this? "The test is flawed. Eliminate the whole program. Status quo."

Dan:
"- Government-appointed three-doctor panels for all new applications.

Presently, the determination is made by a single physician.

- Tougher standards for what constitutes disability.

At the "initial stage" the restrictions are fairly tight. It is in the "appeal process" where the restrictions become easier.

- Disability benefits scaled by percentage functionality.

That is fairly common in many disability programs, Worker's Comp, etc.

- Appeals actively defended by government-contracted attorneys.

Not a bad idea, it should be remembered that the Administrative Law Judges might not even recognize the rules of evidence. As with all ALJ's, there is a high percentage of political hacks who "needed a job".

As I think I have mentioned, my former wife worked in disability some years ago. The initial standards are quite high, about 80% of claimants were denied. On appeal, the numbers are almost reversed with about 80% of the appellants being granted disability.

Finally, incentivize people to inform on the cheats--perhaps bored private investigators can make some extra cash by seeking out the cheats who are working "on the side."

"Presently, the determination is made by a single physician."

Yes, selected by the patient. And if you are refused by one, you can select another and another until you get the answer you want. No potential for abuse there.

"At the 'initial stage' the restrictions are fairly tight. It is in the "appeal process" where the restrictions become easier."

The eligibility requirements have been relaxed by Congress over time. A significant number of people do get denied the first time, but you are correct that the badly broken appeals process is what allows many of them a second grab at the ring. A multi-billion-dollar cottage industry has sprung up to get people accepted in the program in exchange for a percentage of backpayments awarded.

"Not a bad idea, it should be remembered that the Administrative Law Judges might not even recognize the rules of evidence. As with all ALJ's, there is a high percentage of political hacks who "needed a job"."

Aside from those issues, the format of the hearing is almost unrecognizable from the viewpoint of the traditional judicial process. At the hearing, you have the applicant, the applicant's attorney, the judge, and nobody defending the case for government/taxpayers. It's no wonder, as you point out, that well over half of appeals succeed. There is literally nobody at the hearing to defend a piece of paper and explain why the rejection should be upheld.

Mike: "perhaps bored private investigators can make some extra cash by seeking out the cheats who are working "on the side".

This is regularly done by worker's comp insurers, isn't it?

Some friends of mine are diggers, who employ about 6 of their sons. One of the sons was injured on the job and "went out on comp". That son stopped by the yard to visit and helped someone move a barrel. His comp was immediately cancelled on the strengh of a photo of him helping to move the barel.

A bit of humor here. Several years ago I hired a digger to remove an underground oil tank. He had formerly taught Fine Arts at Harvard, but returned to the family business for the money. His basement walls were poured with bas reliefs of Roman gladiators.

Appreciate the humor, Warrington. Why was the investigator (if it was an investigator) there taking pictures? Could be the whole story isn't being told. And if the guy could move a barrel, perhaps he shouldn't be on...

Agreed--workers comp does pay investigators. But adding a few more eyes to the system hurts how?

Mike, there was a time when I hired a few investigators and got to know one fairly well. Most of his work was for insurance companies in various capacities. Little of it is "cloak and dagger". He got a lot of work pretending to be an employee in "inventory shrinkage" matters. More humor, I hired him at the request of a French woman. She was having an affair with one of her married professors at MIT. She was concerned that he might be having an affair with another student and would hide in dumpster's to spy on him. Although I never had cause to use the service, investigators would offer copies of telephone bills (back when long distance calls were itemized) and bank statements. That was pre-Internet. This must not have been difficult, the costs were nominal. I recall 35, or 45, dollars. Now they offer "background reports" at a fairly low rate. I did order one of those on an appointed official. While it did offer some interesting info on his former "roommates" it was simply pulled down from one of those Internet services that offer background info.

The incident I referred to took place in the early 90's, I am of the impression that insurers spent more time investigating claims then. It is also possible that they were "profiled". The company was doing fairly well and could have afforded "to carry" the injured son. And, of course, he was a relative, not a "regular" employee. I know the son was legitimately injured and was only "helping" to move a 55 gallon drum. Perhaps he was only supplying balance. Had the family's financial situation been otherwise, they might have chosen to litigate it. Why was he photographed? Insurance companies certainly "profile". They regularly pull a credit report when a substantial claim is made on "Homeowner's" or property damage (usually fire) claims. They also pull credit reports when application is made for a policy. A certain amount of claims are the result of "lightening" when funds are needed for other obligations.

If I was misunderstood, I have no problem with insurance companies investigating claims. Insurance is a plan to "share the costs". I have no desire to see the costs I am "sharing" rise. I do have a concern about "rate setting" by the government. If the companies can get high enough rates approved, why should they spend money on investigating claims? I once had some dealings with the Massachusetts commission which regulated auto insurance rates, they had been "working together" with the insurers since about 1920. I had a definite feeling that they were in bed together, much like the relationship between the FDA and food producers. Certain companies which would offer lower rates were not allowed to do business in Massachusetts, you may remember that from the "footnotes" in broadcast and print ads by "State Farm" and other insurers.