Former Obama advisor thinks disabled Americans should work more

[Bluebear]

via Americablog: Is there really any surprise that this was one of Obama's leading economic advisers? While it's certainly fashionable in right wing circles to kick those in the weakest situation, most Americans care a lot more about the spoiled Wall Street types getting away with crashing a global economy without punishment. Unfortunately Orszag and fellow conservative economists never add up those numbers and talk about those costs. How about we stop beating the most vulnerable in society and start getting back to the system that used to produce a growing middle class?

Maybe the pampered class like Orszag could tally up the costs of the poor and disabled and compare it to what Wall Street receives every year. Let's include tax breaks, sub-inflation government lending, lost pension fund and 401K income from the crisis, increased unemployment costs because of Wall Street, lost tax dollars since there are fewer Americans working, as well as lost jobs because of Wall Street's actions. If the number doesn't equal the $9 trillion lent to the industry during the crisis, plus the hundreds of billions from TARP then Wall Street types should quit this constant bashing of the poor. Nobody likes bullies that pick on the weak. Bullshit from people like this is getting old:

The spike in disability insurance applications (and awards) does not reflect a less healthy population. The fraction of working-age adults who report a disability, about one in 10, has remained roughly constant for the past 20 years. (Indeed, it would be surprising if the number of workers with disabilities had risen by 50 percent over the past four years.) Rather, the weak labor market has driven more people to apply for disability benefits that they qualify for but wouldn’t need if they could find work.

When Congress created the disability insurance program in 1956, it required that recipients be unable to “engage in substantial gainful activity in the U.S. economy.” In other words, they had to be unable to work. That was sensible at the time, when more jobs involved physical labor and technologies to assist people with disabilities were not widely available.

Today, however, many people with disabilities are able to engage in some form of work — even if they can’t admit that and still keep their insurance benefits. Cutting off access to the workplace in this way is both unfortunate and unnecessary — and reinforces the threat that the current downturn could cause a long-term reduction in the share of people who work.

http://www.americablog.com/2010/12/citibanks-peter-orszag-thinks-disabled.html

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. I don't know if it's splitting hairs or not

but I believe that Orszag is a (former) Obama advisor now. I don't necessarily think that there's anything necessarily bad about what he's saying. He's not saying to throw people off of Disability if they don't have a job, is he? I've known people who are on Disability whom could probably be working at least a part-time job or something if they wanted to. Being disabled doesn't mean totally incapable of working some kind of job although I don't believe in tying Disability to work. I'm not sure I see where Orszag does either.

[Bluebear]

2. Absolutely. He's with Citibank now. (Shock, I know :)

[Renew Deal]

5. Americablog doesn't do the truth

Just portions of it.

[bobbolink]

20. Of course he "believes" in throwing people off.. that's why there is a purge on NOW.

[WinkyDink]

37. Only R-W'ers twist Liberal help into "Don't STOP them from (fill in the blank)." LET the mentally-

ill out on their own; LET the very elderly work until they drop; LET the disabled work, even if part-time.
AS IF aid and support are NEGATIVES.

"I've known people who are on Disability whom (sic) could probably be working....."
Really? You were privy to the state of their health, heart, BP, eyesight, musculature, nervous system, etc.?

".... at least a part-time job or something if they wanted to."
Ah, yes; the old "they could work IF THEY WANTED TO" crap.

[CTyankee]

39. OTOH, I once worked in the community of folks with developmental disabilities.

They WANT to work, but there was a lot of prejudice against hiring them. However, my Stop and Shop has several people with DD working in their stores and have done so for years. I have been told by the store managers that they are the best employees they have! They are eager to be helpful and love the camaraderie of the workplace.

It's funny, but I bet many people don't think of these individuals when they think of "diversity" in the workplace...

[aquart]

3. Gosh, so do they.

What an idiotic comment to make with this level of unemployment.

[somone]

4. Compassion from this White House is for the haves and have-mores

plain and simple

[jtown1123]

6. I read this flaming pile of poo this a.m. Just disgusting.

[Swede]

7. Actually it sounds like a workable plan.

If it worked in the Netherlands,then they expanded it,it's worth looking into.

[Bluebear]

9. Where did you see a "plan" in that statement?

[Swede]

11. Page 2

A better approach has been suggested by David Autor of M.I.T. and Mark Duggan of the University of Maryland. In a paper released last week from the Center for American Progress and the Hamilton Project, these economists argue that employers should be required to offer their workers private disability insurance. Such coverage would provide people who have a work-limiting disability with vocational assistance, workplace accommodation and limited wage replacement. All of these benefits would kick in within 90 days of the onset of disability, to avoid the problems with delayed assistance that have plagued efforts to reform public disability insurance. Private employers would have an incentive to prevent their workers from having to file disability applications, because their insurance premiums would rise in response to higher disability rates.

Disabled workers could remain on this privately financed insurance for two years, and then be eligible for the existing public program. The goal would be to minimize long-term dependency, and re-orient the federal disability insurance program toward assisting those who are truly unable to work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/opinion/10orszag.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

[Bluebear]

14. "failing to act would result in millions of Americans needlessly dropping out of the work force" lol

[Swede]

15. Your quote is not from the link I posted. lol

:shrug:

[Bluebear]

24. Shrug all you want. Then check again. It certainly is.

[Swede]

25. nope

[Bluebear]

29. Nope what??

[BuelahWitch]

27. I see it too, second sentence of the last paragraph

[Better Believe It]

8. Perhap Orszag can find them do-nothing jobs making millions on Wall Street just like himself!

[Scurrilous]

10. That would rock!

:thumbsup:

[siligut]

12. This is just more of the same old, you are poor because....

Putting disability caused impoverishment back onto the shoulders of the impoverished.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Is that Osrzag of Citibank, who got bailed out while he was

working for Obama? Perhaps the disabled could be paid for teaching ethics classes to the likes of Orszag and his peers? Does he think the world is made of revolving doors like the one between the WH and Wall Street?

[Bluebear]

16. The same. nt

[Kennah]

17. It's true

"... many people with disabilities are able to engage in some form of work — even if they can't admit that and still keep their insurance benefits."

I mean how much effort does it take to just stand there and get fucked. The vast majority of the American people do it every day and don't even get paid for it.

[Hannah Bell]

18. unemployment is currently near 10%. what is the point of focusing on the fact that

some disabled people "could" work (if there were jobs, if there were jobs they could do, with schedules they could do, with transportation they could do, with wages higher than disability)?

[bobbolink]

19. And this is why OBAMA is purging the disability rolls.

The death toll will be at least as great as it was under Raygun, but there won't be a peep out of Dems.... including the sainted Bernie Sanders. He is only interested in the muddleclass.

Ah well, life under the bus is good.

[xchrom]

21. Can we haz jobs now?

Kthxbai.

[bobbolink]

22. "Nobody likes bullies that pick on the weak. "

Except, that is, the current administration.

[Warpy]

23. Let me get this straight

Instead of praising the work ethic of people who could have been collecting all along, he's got his panties in a wad because now that the jobs aren't there, they're applying for the benefits that have been due them for months or even years.

What an asshole!

[upi402]

26. What do you call something that is surrounded by asshole

I mean every cabinet member and most appointees seems to be 100% asshole meat.

[Odin2005]

28. FUCK HIM five ways to next Tuesday.

[Fruittree]

30. I don't see that it says anything that awful...

It seems to be saying that people who are on disability are applying for benefits but might be able to work if the jobs were available to them - Making the point that not all jobs require hard physical labor now. I think people sometimes over-react here..

[Bluebear]

31. 'I think people sometimes over-react here..' - well, you know us hysterical liberals.

:eyes:

[Fruittree]

32. Hysterical liberals and hysterical republicans -

Neither is ultimately helpful...

[Bluebear]

42. Neither is your smugness and apathy

[Fruittree]

43. Neither is your presumption to know anything about

someone based on an internet posting.

[Bluebear]

44. i've seen quite enough

/ignore

[cornermouse]

33. They call them disabled for a reason.

Meals on wheels with a nondisabled adult accompanying them at all times to keep them from getting lost or just wandering off without delivering the meals is about the most you can expect. Maybe you and whatsisname should brush up on what it takes to be considered disabled by the government.

[Fruittree]

34. Granted, I'm not an expert on what it takes to be on disability and

am basing it on people I know and it's more a case of they can't do what they've been doing and they really had no other option but to go on disability but they certainly could make a better income if a job were available that they could do. Whether that's possible in this economy is doubtful but of course the whole idea of a job would work for some people and not for others.

[Shandris]

36. You don't just waltz in, drop off an application, and get disability.

It's almost always a multi-year struggle, no matter HOW obvious the case is. They schedule meeting after meeting after meeting, ask the same fucking questions over and over, and then come up with some unbelievably asinine 'recommendations' just to prolong it even more. In my case, I was actually told 'Well, you can sell things on Ebay'. Well stop the fucking presses, let me pull this wad of cash out of my ass and purchase a bunch of things that I just KNOW people somewhere want, and then coordinate shipping it to them with a company on the far side of town. Perhaps I should take the non-existant public transportation there? Pay for a cab every time I need to send one box? Or do you prefer that I just drive while on my 4 'DO NOT OPERATE MACHINERY ON THIS MEDICATION' medications? Should I make sure I'm in a lucid state first, or is drugged out of my mind okay also?

After 4 YEARS of this, constantly, over 16,000 in hospital/doctor bills, all with receipts, recommendations from every doctor, I went for a hearing and was...summarily rejected because I could 'live on Ebay'. I finally had to get a lawyer who spent another year getting me in front of a judge who spent about 6 minutes looking at my papers, 3 minutes talking to me, and ruled in my favor. She said it was an obvious case, and I should have been on it 8 years previously when my problems first started arising. The lawyer himself told me that even when a case goes to court, there's about a 30% chance it'll get approved.

This jackass has no idea what he's talking about. "Oh hey, I think I'll just go on disability, that should take about a week!" Fucking moron.

[Fruittree]

38. this just shows how each person's experience influences

their opinion. He obviously did not go through what you did so his comment would seem stupid in that light. The person I know best had a problem with blood clots in her legs and got the disability fairly easily. Your experience sounds ludicrous and I don't even know what to say --- E-Bay??! What were they thinking?

[undeterred]

35. Maybe there's more discrimination against people with disabilities.

If there is open discrimination against people just for being unemployed, then anything goes.

[Nikia]

41. I agree

If you have dozens of applicants without disabilities, it would easy to discriminate without causing much suspicion. Health insurance costs might give a business further incentives not to hire people with disabilities.

[mdmc]

40. Problem: Single Payer HC is 100% better then for profit HC

If you have single payer, then you really don't want to lose it to employer funded health care.