1 in 3 on Disability Have Mental Disorder; 42.9% in D.C.
January 27, 2015 - 9:54 AM
(CNSNews.com) - One in three, or 35.2 percent, of people
getting federal disability insurance benefits have been diagnosed with a
mental disorder, according to the latest data from the Social Security Administration (SSA). Washington, D.C., the seat of the federal government, ranked in the top-ten list of states where disabled beneficiaries were diagnosed with mental problems.
In 2013, the latest data from SSA show there were 10,228,364 disabled beneficiaries, up 139,625 from 2012 when there were 10,088,739 disabled beneficiaries.
Disabled beneficiaries have increased 49.7 percent from a decade ago in 2003 when there were 6,830,714 beneficiaries; and the number is up 14.3 percent from the 8,945,376 beneficiaries in 2009, the year President Obama took office.
The largest "diagnostic group" for disabled beneficiaries was a mental disorder. Of the 10,228,364 disabled people receiving federal disability benefits in December 2013, according to the report, 3,599,417, or 35.2 percent, were diagnosed with a mental disorder.
"Musculoskeletal system and connective tissue” problems accounted for the second largest group of disabled beneficiaries. Of the 10,228,364 disabled people receiving federal disability benefits in December 2013, 2,829,808, or 27.7 percent, had been diagnosed with a musculoskeletal problem.
In Washington, D.C., according to the report, 42.9 percent of disabled beneficiaries as of December 2013 had been diagnosed with a mental disorder. Massachusetts and New Hampshire led the nation in this metric with 49.9 percent of disabled beneficiaries diagnosed with a mental disorder.
Within the mental disorders diagnostic group, the most common specific diagnosis for disabled beneficiaries was a “mood disorder.” According to the report, as of December 2013, 14 percent of all disabled beneficiaries in the United States had such a disorder.
A mood disorder, otherwise known as an affective disorder, says SSA, is “characterized by a disturbance of mood, accompanied by a full or partial manic or depressive syndrome. Mood refers to a prolonged emotion that colors the whole psychic life; it generally involves either depression or elation.”
To be determined to be suffering a disabling mood disorder, a person must exhibit a combination of factors, including such things as “appetite disturbance with change in weight; or sleep disturbance; or psychomotor agitation or retardation; or decreased energy; or feelings of guilt or worthlessness; or difficulty concentrating or thinking; or thoughts of suicide; or hallucinations, delusions, or paranoid thinking.”
Massachusetts led the nation in this category with 22.7 percent of those with mental disorders also diagnosed with a mood disorder. Washington, D.C., lagged slightly behind the national percentage, with 13.9 percent of its disabled beneficiaries having been diagnosed with a mood disorder.
The report also examines beneficiaries who have filed for workers’ compensation or public disability benefits. The report finds that the number one diagnosis for those who have filed are because of “musculoskeletal system and connective tissue,” with 59.8% of those who have filed having that diagnosis. The second highest group, or 10.6 percent of those who filed, were diagnosed with a “mood disorder.”
A disabled worker, according to the Social Security Administration (SSA), is a “beneficiary who worked in covered employment long enough to be insured and who had been working recently in covered employment prior to disability onset.”
“Individuals are considered to be disabled only if their physical or mental impairment(s) are of such severity that they are not only unable to do their previous work but cannot--because of their age, education, or work experience--engage in any other kind of substantial gainful activity that exists in the national economy,” says SSA.
I'm in a bad mood today, can I get some disability money?
ReplyDeleteYou'll have to relocate to a democrat controlled State Mick.
DeleteDarn!
DeleteNo Mick you can live where you want. ya just gotta be fat. the reason the southern states are at the bottom is cause everyone is crazy so it's hard to determine who really needs help.
DeleteBig government = Big scams
DeleteFolks in the south are generally pretty well adjusted... its just when those Yankee transplants decide that they have screwed up their part of the country so they will move down south and screw up the rest that people get a little twitchy...
DeleteWould be interesting to overlay the States with the highest per capita income with those with the most mental and mood disorders, no?
Delete(Hint: DC has the highest per capita income by miles, Connecticut in next, and Mass is in the top five)
Without Yankee transplants most of the south would still be a floundering backwater.... oh wait it still is anyway.
DeleteWilliam did you ever consider that maybe just maybe there are more of other types of disabilities in the south like shot off arms and legs, etc. that drive down the percentage of crazies getting help. But you bring up a valid point that money drives us and worries about it drives many insane or into depression.. Since the south has a bigger percent of government spending going into the states I guess big government actually solved the problem. Free handout no worries.
Deletehttp://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps
Deletehttp://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html
DeleteBy Michael Moran
DeleteThere are serious economists who study the difference between what our states pay in taxes and how much they get in return from the U.S. government. These people generally don’t draw political, let along moral, judgment, I’m under no such constraint. The numbers, for decades now, have been quite clear: With some exceptions, what we regard as red states are sent a whole lot more of your hard-earned tax dollars than the traditional blue states. In effect, supposedly indolent, “tax and spend” liberals actually subsidize the individualistic, pure, and hard-working lifestyle of our conservative countrymen.
Don’t believe me? Well, there’s plenty of room for quibbling about what constitutes a tax payment vs. a federal benefit. Let’s hash that out below in the comments section. But for simplicity's sake (and to account for the fact that it’s hard to label some states as purely red or blue, I’ve taken the most recent Electoral College Map from RealClearPolitics—which shows how these states would likely vote if the presidential election were today—and cross-referenced it with numbers from one of those places peopled by serious economists: the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.
The results will stun many people, though not me: I’ve been telling my Tea Party relatives this for years. Here’s a list of the top 10 states that got the most back in terms of federal benefits, followed by the bottom 10. I’ve added the reasons why, when they’re obvious, in the space to the right.
To save space below, “pension benefits” include both Medicare and Social Security; “anti-poverty aid” includes Head Start, Low Income Home Energy Assistance, Food Stamp and nutrition programs for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), and several school-lunch-style benefits.
Top Ten (Source: Tax Foundation):
ReplyDeleteNew Mexico Indian reservations, military bases, federal research labs, farm subsidies, retirement programs
2. Mississippi Farm subsidies, military spending, nutrition and anti-poverty aid, retirement program
3. Alaska Per capita No 1 recipient of federal benefits; infrastructure projects, DOT and pork projects.
4. Louisiana Disaster relief, farm subsidies, anti-poverty and nutrition aid, military spending.
5. W. Virginia Farm subsidies, anti-poverty and nutrition aid.
6. N. Dakota Farm subsidies, energy subsidies, retirement and anti-poverty programs, Indian reservations.
7. Alabama Retirement programs, anti-poverty and nutrition aid, federal space/military spending, farm subsidies.
8. S. Dakota Retirement programs, nutrition aid, farm subsidies, military spending, Indian reservations.
9. Virginia Civil service pensions, military spending, veterans benefits, retirement, anti-poverty aid.
10. Kentucky Retirement programs, nutritional and anti-poverty aid, farm subsidies.
Now consider the bottom 10, i.e., the ones that give more to the federal government in taxes than they get in return. From 1 to 10, they are:
New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, California, New York, Colorado.
Anything strange about that list? Yes, they are all blue states (or the deepest of purple).
Adding to this fallacy are the assumptions surrounding Mitt Romney’s now infamous comments about the indolent “47 percent” of Americans who regard themselves as victims and therefore pay no taxes. As the American Conservative magazine (no less) pointed out recently, nine of those 10 states are in the red-as-ruby Old Confederacy.
Put another way, again by the American Conservative, “On the other hand, eight of the ten states with the highest non-payment rates are solidly Republican. The exceptions are New Mexico and Florida.”
Is your mouth agape?
Now, one more cross-reference: these facts compared with the know-nothing rhetoric of the Tea Party. There are only two ways to parse that result: one is ignorance—which we should be willing to forgive in anyone as long as they revise their views when faced with reality.
And the second? Selfish hypocrisy. How else can you explain the fact that the denizens of the most welfare dependent states in the country—dare we say, those who enjoy the most benefits from socialism—profess to abhor welfare?
This is a far cry from what most people think. My sense is that, if you asked the average American, they would assume that states benefiting most from federal spending are exactly the opposite—you know, those populated with Ronald Reagan’s “welfare queens” and lazy unionized auto workers.
I’ll be the first to admit this isn’t a black-and-white exercise. Plenty of questions need to be settled before clear judgments can be made. For instance, does an Army base and the federal money that goes into keeping it running and paying its troops count as a benefit? (It does in my book.) What about a federal prison? (Yeah, jobs and the tax revenues they generate should count there, too.) A private university that is showered with federal research dollars? (Again, yes, those funds count, too.)
DeleteBut those questions get harder.
Agricultural subsidies? How do we count them—and do we subtract the tax revenues generated by the jobs the farm creates or the export earnings it provides?
And what about defense contractors? Connecticut, Washington state, and California are chock full of weapons merchants. They provide jobs, export income, and many other benefits. Should we count as a federal inflow to those states the money spent, say, on Sikorsky aircraft contracts in Connecticut? And how do we factor in the taxes those companies paid (assuming, unlike nearby General Electric, they actually paid taxes)?
And I admit, maybe we should dock Connecticut and New Jersey for the remaining outstanding balance of the TARP program?
And what about defense contractors? Connecticut, Washington state, and California are chock full of weapons merchants. They provide jobs, export income, and many other benefits. Should we count as a federal inflow to those states the money spent, say, on Sikorsky aircraft contracts in Connecticut? And how do we factor in the taxes those companies paid (assuming, unlike nearby General Electric, they actually paid taxes)?
And I admit, maybe we should dock Connecticut and New Jersey for the remaining outstanding balance of the TARP program?
All these accounting issues are over my head, I’ll freely admit. But I trust the figures above, compiled by the rock solid economists at the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan research group—as a good indicator of the general state of our fiscal reality. When the reality has veered so far from the prevailing political bullshit, it’s time for someone to point it out.
So spare me all that red state angst about the federal deficits and national debt. When you stop spending New Jersey’s money, Tex, and produce a plan to replace it with your own revenue stream, then you've earned an opinion in the matter.
Your preaching from my chior ric. I would give each program a haircut until the budget was balanced. Red or blue state would not matter.
DeleteBut what do your comments have to do with the abuse of the government's disability system?