While it’s true the American taxpayers shouldn’t pay for disability claims which are not necessary, there is a system of checks and balances to prevent payment of such claims over a claimant’s lifetime if, and only if, they are approved. Some former medical consultants at the Alabama agency deciding thousands of Social Security disability claims each year say they were pressured to approve more applications, an assertion backed by e-mails obtained by the Press-Register. read article: www.al.com/news/press-register/metro.ssf
In a state that already has one of the highest ratios of disability recipients in the country, that could have tipped the balance in favor of applicants who otherwise would not have qualified for a monthly check and government-paid medical care.
With a budget of almost $160 billion this year, Social Security’s disability programs — known as Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income — are a lifeline for millions of Americans unable to work. They have historically seen soaring costs, creaky customer service and mounting claims backlogs. At the same time, Social Security bureaucrats have been accused of hard-heartedness in evaluating claims, and Alabama’s disability agency has long been part of a program "aimed at approving applications that might later succeed on appeal if they were denied." (emphasis added) My thought is, if the claims have a strong chance of succeeding on the appeal level, why shouldn’t they be approved to begin with?