Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

A couple of thoughts:

(1) I have no doubt that there are dubious claims, but I also have seen people with clear issues struggle to get their claims recognized.

(2) This is anything but a third-rail issue. You are talking about people who don't have money and who aren't politically organized. Which Republican is going to lose his seat for trying to cut disability insurance?

(3) The reason the GOP is going after SSDI is not to reform SSDI (which would be a different conversation) but to engineer a crisis over SSDI's fiscal health to go after Social Security again.

And fuck the GOP.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

the response from the sociology community has been “it’s more complicated than that.”

That may bee the stupidest thing ever said. Check with Big Data.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I was finishing my masters in public health when the article came out two years ago. (Note: I am a health policy and administration concentrate, not an epidemiologist or community health person. I think it goes without saying that I am not a biostatistician.) And it was an exhibit in one of my ethics classes (the question was about lead abatement in Baltimore and a public health experiment with dubious attention to ethical implications). The Mother Jones article was brand new and just out to the general public, but it's a theory that's been floating around public health circles for decades. At the time, the two professors I talked to about it seemed pretty interested, but it wasn't in their area of research. I think that there's some research going on at Hopkins and Harvard on the causation/correlation issue. I think it'd be much too short sighted to say that lead had no influence, but yes, it is more complicated.

Also, the lead abatement study cited in the article above sort of shows why it's really, really hard to research these things.

But so is pretty much everything in public health.

My daughter just got he MPH in Community Health. Lead is responsible for a multitude of pathologies, and the persistence of lead paint residue in certain buildings has been linked irrefutably to both health and social problems. It isn't a question or an issue. It is.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

A colleague won “Trial Lawyer of the Year” from Public Justice for her work on a public nuisance lawsuit to get paint manufacturers to pay for abatement of lead paint in a lawsuit that went on for 10 years. But as RT said, public health folks have known of the neurological effects of environmental lead for a long time; connecting sub-par intellectual function with violence has also been known, but difficult to deal with from a policy perspective for a while. Personally I feel about this the way I felt when I read Freakanomics re: the crime drop due to the legalization of pregnancy termination because of an unborn generation of underclass, which is to say, queasy about the implications but not well-positioned to dispute the reasoning.

I am queasy about the implications, too, but not at all surprised.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

The difference between lead and your examples is we don't, and never did, need lead.

Okay, so could argue that's true of cats, but no one clung to lead because of they felt warm feelings about it.

If you're hungry enough, cat is tasty.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Rand Paul's assessment of disability claim abuse is off in terms of degree (it's not half of SS claimants). But the phenomenon he's describing is very real. Having seen this close up, and having known people with serious disability claims who had to fight to get and keep them because the system is clogged with fraudulent claims for dubious maladies (bipolar, fibromyalgia, anxiety disorder, etc.), it's pretty cool someone finally had the balls to touch this third rail issue: http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/14/politi...ul-disability/

In 2008-2010, when the safety net was needed, suddenly claims were all rubber stamped by the govt. Previous scrutiny was abandoned. Then in 2011, when the SS disability program was criticized for having been lenient, and acting as a stealth welfare/unemployment avoidance device, claims became difficult again. The problem, however, is those rubber stamped claimants didn't just go away. Once on SS disability usually means permanently on it.

I've seen guys with serious heart ailments held up in the claims process, simply because the backlog is so enormous. While people claiming depression and anxiety and amorphous "general pain disorder" have gotten benefits due to luck of timing. There ought to be an across the board audit and every claimant asserting anxiety or mild bipolar disorder (another favorite) be removed from the rolls. Docs backing up these dubious anxiety and bipolar claims ought to be subject to investigation by state medical boards. (It's always the same guys, giving these same diagnoses, with near identical language in each of their records.)

Of course, his comment appearing mean to perceived down on their luck sorts, Paul is being attacked for it.

End rant here.

"Off in terms of degree" is an attempted apology for the fact that this is just another fucking rich white dude finding an excuse to try to attack critical programs AND to attack all the people receiving those benefits. His comment WAS mean - and greedy - and intended to be so. When you charge half of people on a program are committing fraud, you are attacking those people - he is attacking your parents and mine, he is attacking our friends, he is attacking those individuals.

Off in terms of degree? What a motherlode of bullshit you are spreading. Enough to fertilize all the fields in Iowa. And that is not off in terms of degree.

Rant just beginning. Give me a fuckin' break.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

"Off in terms of degree" is an attempted apology for the fact that this is just another fucking rich white dude finding an excuse to try to attack critical programs AND to attack all the people receiving those benefits. His comment WAS mean - and greedy - and intended to be so. When you charge half of people on a program are committing fraud, you are attacking those people - he is attacking your parents and mine, he is attacking our friends, he is attacking those individuals.

Off in terms of degree? What a motherlode of bullshit you are spreading. Enough to fertilize all the fields in Iowa. And that is not off in terms of degree.

Rant just beginning. Give me a fuckin' break.

The problem with people like Rand is these histrionics. Okay, one of many of the problems, but still.

Fraudulent or highly questionable disability claims are an issue, on a much more significant level than, say, the GOP bugaboo of voting fraud. By that, I mean it actually exists, and it would make sense to look at the issue and try to address it, to save money and help ensure that people with real health issues get better taken care of.

But that's an incrementalist, bureaucratic, cautious approach. Can't score points with that, so Rand throws the red meat "50%!!!" bullshit out there, which draws a predictable reaction (the criticism that Sebby talked about were all about his gross exaggeration), and no one talks about whether there is actually a real problem that costs real money that can be addressed without wrecking the system.

Because wrecking the system is what Rand really wants, isn't it?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

The problem with people like Rand is these histrionics. Okay, one of many of the problems, but still.

Fraudulent or highly questionable disability claims are an issue, on a much more significant level than, say, the GOP bugaboo of voting fraud. By that, I mean it actually exists, and it would make sense to look at the issue and try to address it, to save money and help ensure that people with real health issues get better taken care of.

But that's an incrementalist, bureaucratic, cautious approach. Can't score points with that, so Rand throws the red meat "50%!!!" bullshit out there, which draws a predictable reaction (the criticism that Sebby talked about were all about his gross exaggeration), and no one talks about whether there is actually a real problem that costs real money that can be addressed without wrecking the system.

Because wrecking the system is what Rand really wants, isn't it?

Of course it exists, and good administration is needed to minimize it. Which is why it would be nice if we could get the nomination for head of the SSA approved rather than deal with the sleazy tactics that have been used to stall it.

The hellish confirmation process, and the fact that Republicans are ready to do anything possible to get in the way of any nominee for social security at all, led a couple of really great SSA candidates to pull their names.

Rand Paul is part of the problem. He's getting in the way of trying to fix these things. New kind of politician my ass. Does that mean he has three faces instead of two?

[Icky Thump]

This thread is giving me a bad headache. Can I go on disability because of it?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

So, Californians, is it going to be Kemala Harris? I haven't seen this intent a solicitation pitch for someone just out of the gate since Gillibrand (who, yes, is pitching Harris).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

This thread is giving me a bad headache. Can I go on disability because of it?

Is Rand Paul your doctor?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

“The real American Sniper was a hate-filled killer. Why are simplistic patriots treating him as a hero?” One answer to that question: Because many Americans are unable to accept that nothing was won in Iraq, and that the sacrifices Kyle and others made were not worth it. More fundamentally, treating Kyle as a patriot and ignoring any other possibility allows Americans to ignore the consequences of invading a country that had no weapons of mass destruction, had nothing to do with 9/11, and had no meaningful ties to Al Qaeda (our invasion, of course, changed that).

A recent study estimates there were 461,000 war-related "excess" deaths in Iraq between 2003 and mid-2011. If true, President George W. Bush may be responsible for the deaths of more Iraqi civilians than Saddam Hussein was. But Bush is not solely culpable. We live in a democracy where the people elect the government, and therefore citizens cannot escape the blame for what it does. In that sense, it is not just Kyle who pulled the trigger. We all did.

link

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I grew up in the relevant period. Who knows what potential I’ve lost? {Cue Hank joke}

Neurological public health has an interesting set of special implications. According to one theory, we might be able to reduce or eliminate the incidence of schizophrenia by banning cats. Will we? We can better optimize for cognitive potential by banning alcohol. Will we? The idea of suboptimal is a very tricky business, policy-wise.

The cat thing is a link to toxo, and cats have been "banned" for years for pregnant women. It's just research that suggests that latent toxo isn't quite as latent as previously understood. It's not exactly being ignored.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So, Californians, is it going to be Kemala Harris? I haven't seen this intent a solicitation pitch for someone just out of the gate since Gillibrand (who, yes, is pitching Harris).

Personally, I'd like to see Gavin Newsom take a shot. There are many things I can't stand about him, but having the balls to authorize gay marriage when he did means a lot.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

link

There are undoubtedly a number of things about that guy that are ugly. I don't know how they are addressed in the movie -- Clint Eastwood seems to have moved well past his Dirty Harry days and may actually bring some nuance and tension, but Hollywood is Hollywood....

But, seriously -- is anyone surprised that a sniper who killed 160 people is a "killer"? Or that he is "hate-filled," in that he is convinced everyone he killed was bad?* Or that he has no remorse for his killings? If the latter were not true he'd have lost his mind completely.



*I understand there are some uglier hates he had, about Iraqis in general, and I'm not talking about that.