Why You Never Benefit From "Public Exposure"

[BabyFergstar]

I'm not trying to say that he should or shouldn't be on disability, but neither do I think the government EVIL for wanting an investigation on the matter. You're right, we don't have all the facts so we shouldn't judge...so why be opposed to officials wanting all the facts to determine whether his benefits are deserved?

[LBG]

I'm not trying to say that he should or shouldn't be on disability, but neither do I think the government EVIL for wanting an investigation on the matter. You're right, we don't have all the facts so we shouldn't judge...so why be opposed to officials wanting all the facts to determine whether his benefits are deserved?

Amen! If he has no reason to be worried that his medical reasons for disability are nothing but real then he should have no fears on being re-evaluated. Someone pointed out-either here or on another thread-that Stanley's case would be reviewed every 3-5 years anyways. I also think that if he is receiving benefits for something that might not always be a factor in leaving him unable to work- such as depression and PTSD- there should be some kind of records showing that he is receiving therapy and treatments in attempts to improve his situation.

If Stanley can prove all of this then he has nothing to worry about. Also his social security being stopped for a few months shouldn't immediately put him in the poorhouse either. He probably received some form of payment for appearing on television and should have some kind of savings built up in case something like this did happen that he could live off of.

I think he is freaking out because he is worried that maybe he CAN'T prove his medical necessity for the disability. But we will just have to wait and see.

[anned]

i just want to add this point about the disabled working with out bringing in Stanley's situation.

I am disabled and have seen the system from the disabled side.

The disabled are abused by employers when they try to work.

Work in a sheltered workshop and in many cases you do not even make minimum wage.

Many sheltered workshops are set up by people looking to make money from both the government and the disabled working for them.

http://www.disablednyc.com/showthread.php?t=1484

Other jobs for the disabled are not much better even.

Employers see them as a way to get cheap labor(one level above hiring illegals) for jobs. Even if they can perform a job at the same level as a worker without a disability.

http://www.disablednyc.com/showthread.php?t=1484

http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/docs/sec14.asp

When i became disabled i tried to find work through the state department of rehabilitation.

boy was that a joke.

One of the trades i had worked before i became disabled was as a industrial electrician.(up to Foreman level)

I did a lot of wiring control systems. and made $15 to $30 with benefits a hour doing this.(and i was underpaid as non union)

The state department of rehabilitation found me a job doing the exactly the same job where my disability was not a factor.(i have problems walking a lot.)

The job only payed minimum wage with no benefits at all. This was doing the same workbench job and just as fast as i did before becoming disabled.

My disability was very likely job caused.

I have sarcoidosis and neurosarcoidosis + co-morbid disorders.

The three top occupational field with high numbers of workers disabled with sarcoidosis are medical field and i worked as a EMT, Firefighters and i was a volunteer firefighter for years, And service in the US navy and i did 6 years navy.

Proving which caused my sarcoidosis is imposable.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2600123/

http://www.inspire.com/groups/stop-sarcoidosis/discussion/occupational-clustering-of-cases/

And since it took 3 years for the doctor just to find out what was wrong after i became disabled did not help me at all.

Since i was all ready 10% service connect disability and already going to the VA for medical treatment i filed for a veterans non service disability pension. as it paid more then SSD/SSDI.

[diapered charles]

There seems to be enough support here on this site to fund Stanley's exploits. I suggest that every supporter pitches in and funds Stanley for the rest of his life. I would have no problems with that and this way, my Social Security might actually help someone that needs it.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about it.

"If they want to die they may as well do it now and cut down the surplus population."

[LilJennie]

I think he is freaking out because he is worried that maybe he CAN'T prove his medical necessity for the disability. But we will just have to wait and see.

Prefacing this with the disclaimer that of course I don't know Stanley Thornton and can't read his mind ... I think he's freaking out because he's worried that Senator Coburn will use political pressure to make sure his disability payments are cut off. We're not talking about one of the regular evaluations that happen every 3-5 years; we're talking about an extra, outside-the-norm evaluation that a US Senator has requested, mentioning Stanley specifically by name, as a political move. If Stanley's disability gets cut off as a result of this reevaluation, the Senator can claim victory against "wasted taxpayer money," so the only question is how many strings Coburn will pull to make sure that happens. I think Stanley's fears are justified.

I'd be pretty nervous if a US Senator, or anybody else with that degree of political power, targeted me specifically by name. Wouldn't you?

[sarah_ab]

course the senator clearly has NO IDEA how the disability process works... because you can't just cut someone off..... you have to have medical and non medical evidence that the person is capable of working a 40 hour work week at a competitive pace....

if the evidence points to this person being unable to do this.... then they cannot take their disability away.

heres the thing.... stanley states he had back problems (in another post by him) and coupled with his BMI he would be considered disabled just on that.... a person who is that large, with back problems physically COULD NOT sustain a 40 hour work week... Yes if he lost weight he could... but social security does not tell someone what treatment to get.... they look at their current functioning and decide if they have been or will be at that level for 12 or more months.....

all of this information is available to the public by social security on their website.... the senator clearly has no idea how the process works, and no amount of 'string pulling' can get one person cut off...... besides even if stanley were cut off, he could file a reconsideration, and then if wanted take it to the judge, and then to the ninth circuit court if he wanted! its not just a one step process....

[LBG]

Prefacing this with the disclaimer that of course I don't know Stanley Thornton and can't read his mind ... I think he's freaking out because he's worried that Senator Coburn will use political pressure to make sure his disability payments are cut off. We're not talking about one of the regular evaluations that happen every 3-5 years; we're talking about an extra, outside-the-norm evaluation that a US Senator has requested, mentioning Stanley specifically by name, as a political move. If Stanley's disability gets cut off as a result of this reevaluation, the Senator can claim victory against "wasted taxpayer money," so the only question is how many strings Coburn will pull to make sure that happens. I think Stanley's fears are justified.

I'd be pretty nervous if a US Senator, or anybody else with that degree of political power, targeted me specifically by name. Wouldn't you?

This Senator is just running his mouth like most politicians. I don't even think he is a representative from the state in which Stanley lives. Who knows why this guy is attacking out at Stanley, most likely his own personal vendetta against something that disgusted him. However the system will prevail if Stanley truly does have factors that would render him unable to work and therefore disabled. They won't just totally remove a man who can prove he is disabled from SSI just because some senator says so. Think of the lawsuits that could come from that.

[diapered charles]

most likely his own personal vendetta against something that disgusted him

I think the fact that the guy seems capable of supporting himself but is choosing to live off of others is what's disgusting the senator. I don't really think that our senator should be spending his time on individual cases, but Stanely did put himself out there and told his story. He reaps what he sows.

However the system will prevail

Systems never prevail. Have you heard about the Social Security "system" lately. It's in such fine shape because of people like Stanley.

[sarah_ab]

well im so glad people are actually reading what i write about how social security disability system works and determines if a person is disabled or not...

cause its not like i know or anything.....

[diapered charles]

Don't be upset Sarah. I don't know anything either.

[Diapered Jason]

I agree with you Sarah. This thread has been brought down to Glenn Beck's level. People are making judgements on a subject without the required information.

Ignorance is the root of all evil. If you don't know anything, then you better not say anything definitively.

[diapered charles]

I agree with you Sarah. This thread has been brought down to Glenn Beck's level. People are making judgements on a subject without the required information.

Ignorance is the root of all evil. If you don't know anything, then you better not say anything definitively.

Kind of a passive aggressive shot at me don't you think? Why don't you point out my ignorance and this way I can hopefully educate you. By the way, let us hope this conversation never stoops to Glenn Beck's level. I can't stand that scumbag. I happen to be a Libertarian, but nice try. If it would help you to feel more comfortable, you may label me a right-wing extremist even though I am not. The ideas behind Social Security are very noble and everyone enjoys a feel-good story. However, there are people that must pay for these feel-good stories and I'm afraid the feel-good stories are starting to outnumber the payers.

If you don't know anything, then you better not say anything definitively.

Ahhh! But what if you do know something? Would you not try to tell people?

Don't be upset Sarah. I don't know anything either.

Check this out! I already predicted the shots that were going to be taken against me. Thank you for helping to prove my vision, Jason. It's much easier to call someone ignorant than it is to prove them as such.

[Diapered Jason]

By the way, let us hope this conversation never stoops to Glenn Beck's level.

It is too late for that I am afraid.

[sarah_ab]

you wanna know the funny thing?

i still have NO IDEA who glenn beck is!

[Leilin]

I think the fact that the guy seems capable of supporting himself but is choosing to live off of others is what's disgusting the senator. I don't really think that our senator should be spending his time on individual cases, but Stanely did put himself out there and told his story. He reaps what he sows.

What that Stanley does would you define as "capable of supporting himself," exactly?

Systems never prevail. Have you heard about the Social Security "system" lately. It's in such fine shape because of people like Stanley.

Okay. Now you have a burden of proof:

1: Prove that Stanley is of a given type of people who are somehow the cause of the problems with Social Security.

This means proving fully one of three things, or a subcombination of the three:

A. Prove that Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is not a valid reason for Social Security benefits.

B. Prove tat Stanley doesn't have PTSD.

C. Prove that all psychiatric/psychological disabilities are invalid reasons for SS benefits to be paid.

2. If you can prove 1, which I highly doubt, but am willing to hear you out, you then have a second burden based on your statements:

A. Prove that people who are being given SS benefits for invalid reasons are the ones causing the problems with the system.

AND

B. Prove that the Social Security system is "in trouble." HARD PART: Use an unbiased source. This means no CATO, or anybody that sources them, or George W Bush, as both are possessed of significant ulterior motive, or were at the time of their statements. This is actually pretty easy, as the 2018 mark is pretty much undisputed, as far as I know, at least.

Here's a current picture of the SS system funds' income vs. outgo. Note that the income currently outstrips, however, that is slated to change when the boomers really start to retire.

You're passing Sarah's notes off and essentially acting as jury for Stanley without rightly knowing his situation. Without providing evidence for your own assertions, your statements are worth precisely the paper that they're printed on. Since this is the internet, that's not much. Since you have yet to fullfil your own burden of proof, it's hardly right that you're attacking others for not addressing the content of your posts when you've provided no evidence for them whatsoever.

I look forward to your evidence.

[BabyFergstar]

Okay, I'll try one more time with this...THE...SENATOR...IS...TALKING...ABOUT...INVESTIGATING...THE...CIRCUMSTANCES...BEHIND...STANLEY... COLLECTING...SSI...BENEFITS. INVESTIGATING. That would be having a case REVIEWED. Nobody can prove anything about Stanley or his circumstances on this site, so don't open doors that aren't even accessible. Why is it so hard to accept that the government is within their rights to review cases and get to the bottom of things like this? If Stanley truly does have PTSD, then yes, I hope he keeps his benefits. However, based on the 12 or 15 minutes that I know of him from the TV show, he seemed pretty "normal" (whatever that means) to me, and I must confess, I'm curious about his circumstances. I feel for the abuse he's endured in his life, but when you go on a TV show and you allow them to mention you rely on SSI benefits, prepare to be investigated by somebody. I believe that if his case is legit, he'll keep his benefits, and the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma who started this whole mess can go f*ck himself.

[sarah_ab]

I SAY AGAIN.... STANLEYS BACK INJURY COUPLED WITH HIS BMI WOULD POTENTIALLY QUALIFY HIM ALONE FOR SSI BENEFITS, REGARDLESS OF THE PTSD......

so lets pretend he didn't have ptsd.. he would still potentially qualify based on his physical medical conditions alone.

why is THAT so hard for people to understand? he may not even be on it because of his PTSD? he may just think thats why he got it,

i've had people call me and say "i applied because of my depression, but you said its my back that allows me" or "i applied because of my back, why does it say depression"

[drynot]

I SAY AGAIN.... STANLEYS BACK INJURY COUPLED WITH HIS BMI WOULD POTENTIALLY QUALIFY HIM ALONE FOR SSI BENEFITS, REGARDLESS OF THE PTSD......

Damn Sarah....you might`ve just opened up that 'fat and lazy' can of worms again....

Stanleys case is way to complex for us 'armchair' quaterbacks to solve. Given how difficult it seems to be to get SSI benefits to begin with there must be some legitimacy there somewhere.... I know first hand how debilitating a back injury can be as well....

Do we know for certain that Stanleys benefits stem from PTSD or is it a combination of back injury,BMI, and PTSD??

I will say this and put this out there.....I have suffered a back injury in the past. Got into physio therapy and overcame that. I suffered from depression. Got help from my doctor and am working to over come that. I am considered morbily obese by any chart out there....and still hold down a high paying job. However....what worked for me won't necessarily work for everyone or even anyone for that matter..... What's my point? Stanley is someone that is going through a tough time and needs some help. I'd hope there would be someone here willing to help me out if I was in similar circumstances....

[DailyDi]

Political crap getting out of hand. No one on this forum is qualified to judge Stanleys medical/mental conditions and whether they qualify him for benefits or not.

Closing topic.

[Repaid1]

Ummm, Actually Sarah is...Just saying ...okay sorry, topic closed.