The Oregonian reports:

“Sue Sherman of Southwest Portland lived a peaceful, healthy life until she was dealt an ugly card last year: a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

“From the whirl of appointments, tests and drugs arose an enduring irony of any serious illness: too many moments surrendered just to the act of waiting, for doctors, for results, for help.

“Sherman, 57, believed she had bought some time when she qualified for Social Security disability income. But that only brought on the worst wait of all.

“How do people survive this?” she said. “The ripple effect of this is tsunami-huge.”

“She joined nearly 2 million disabled Americans — at least 15,000 in Oregon — who fall into a twilight with the first monthly Social Security disability payment, for they then must wait two years to become eligible for Medicare.”
See story here:

Share this article with

Chicago attorney Jeff Rabin has developed an expertise in Fibromyalgia disability cases, and wrote an article detailing the process of winning a case:

…In Fibromyalgia claims the clinical notes and a report of the treating rheumatologist are most important. A 1996 decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals established that a rheumatologist is the primary source for proof of this disease. Office notes from the rheumatologist should consistently document the positive findings for the tender points which are diagnostic for this disease. In addition, the patient should be complaining at each office visit of the fatigue and pain that are consistent with this condition. A report that establishes that all other causes for the symptoms have been ruled out helps establish the existence of the disease.

Since the extent of fatigue and pain can not be measured, consistency of complaints in the various medical records will be important. The use of pain medications, even if just for trial periods is an important consideration in evaluating the severity of pain. Use of mild analgesics indicates less severe symptoms; prescription of stronger narcotics indicates that the treating specialist felt the pain problems more severe. Also, documentation by the physicians of concentration impairments, and the inability to perform routine daily activities such as housework… See Jeff’s full article here:

Share this article with

Social Security (SSA) has released statistics which track, by state, the numbers of recipients of Disability payments as well as showing other SSA beneficiaries of our important social insurance program. These federal funds support widows, children whose parents have died, retirees and the disabled. For many, this is the only possible access to health insurance thru Medicare.

Share this article with

From Ted Marmor in today’s Huffington Post:

What we have is a case of ideology masked as fiscal prudence. There is every reason to believe that Peter Peterson and the personnel of his foundation believe profoundly in the virtues of a smaller public sector, a robust means-tested conception of social welfare policy, and the importance of not providing most citizens with a collectively financed system of income protection against major losses in family income from recognized and understood risks. So they are advancing their cause as prudent, fiscal watchdogs.

But the distortion of this longstanding approach is evident in the concentration on Social Security rather than the most important threat to America’s fiscal future, the continuing, disproportionate rates of increase in medical care spending, both private and public. The health reform legislation of 2010 was celebrated as insurance expansion for millions of uninsured Americans, but it did not seriously take on medical inflation. There is a big problem in this policy space, but the Fiscal Commission meetings of late June 2010 are not focused there. Instead, they are locked on the one sphere of American domestic policy that has been a substantial success over its history since 1935.

It is ironic — and infuriating — to have a debate in 2010 about Social Security when that program had nothing to do with the transformation of the nation’s fiscal policy from surplus to deficit since 2000. Two wars, Bush tax cuts, and the fiscal consequences of the economic crash of 2008-9 explain the size of the deficit. Why are we even talking about reducing Social Security at this time? It is not because there is a good rationale, but because of the money behind the rationalizers of a smaller government. See full column here:

Share this article with

From columnist Michael Hiltzik in the Los Angeles Times today:

“Social Security’s curse is that its amazing simplicity from the standpoint of its beneficiaries — those checks keep coming regardless of the state of the economy or the federal budget — masks the complexity of its inner workings.

“This is what allows the program’s antagonists to disguise their efforts to destroy it as merely minor tweaks — requiring from the rest of us never-ending vigilance. That’s because some seemingly “minor” fixes can have consequences great enough to wreck the entire edifice, the way a tiny water leak can eat away a foundation and bring down a house…” :
See full column here:

Share this article with