User profile: BOB

Joined: Jan. 12, 2008

Contact BOB (log-in required)

Recent Comments

Total Comments: 2 (view all)

OK, one more comment: Folowing the Reagan OMB/SSA fiasco in the early 80s which made States cease or deny benefits to those who should have received them, Congress and the courts inundated the States with a massive amount of red tape that only raised costs and slowed processing time.
The second thing that happened was that the public discovered the ALJs. Because ALJs know little about medicine, which leads them to reverse huge numbers of claims that should not be reversed, appeals to ALJs have climbed from 72,000 in 1974 to 750,000 currently. Of course, this clogs the system and slows processing time at all levels. (Studies show that at least 50% of ALJs' favorable decisions are unwarranted.)

Bob Burgess

(Suggest removal) 1/13/08 at 2:39 p.m.

Posted on: Lack of planning

The press nationwide recognizes the SS disability mess, but their analysis--too little funding--is too superficial.

But the biggest problem lies in the decisionmaking process and the schizophrenic nature of the program. Ideally, unbiased medical experts should guide the assessment of what a claimant can and cannot do. (Such an assessment is necessary in 66% of all claims.) The problem for the States began with the Nixon Administration; without going into detail for lack of space, the NA policies took the decisionmaking guidance from unbiased physicians. The Reagan Administration took it further by making physicians conform to a fiscal policy, which destroyed good decisionmaking at the State level. Added to that, every Legislature since 1980 (PL 96-265) has added to the problem by focusing Federal reviews on the States' allowances, which creates an institutional bias to deny claims.

The Administrative Law Judges, on the other hand, have horribly inadequate medical training. Most of their decisions, therefore, rest on personal bias and the subjective impressions of the claimant gained at an evidentiary hearing. The ALJs are so subjective that 10% of them uphold States in 90% of their decisions and 10% of them reverse the States 90% of the time.

What this means: Despite the fact that the Statute, Regulations, and Rulings that guide the program apply equally to the States and the ALJs (de jure), markedly differing judgments of what a claimant can or cannot do apply at both levels. SSA is in essence running two separate programs (de facto).

I have, of course, left out many details, but this is the root problem in a nutshell and no amount of funding can fix it.

Bob Burgess

(Suggest removal) 1/12/08 at 5:12 p.m.

(view all 2)