Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 493136)

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.

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 493156)

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

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 493161)

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.

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 493166)

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.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 493176)

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.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 493130)

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.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493189)

"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.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 493190)

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?

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 493192)

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

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 493175)

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.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493193)

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).

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 493195)