|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
THE WORLD HAS GONE MAD
(1/17/2007)
It is Time
The game at our expense is out-of-hand. Not like it hasn't been for a very long time, but the damages and mockery are becoming more and more obvious and not a bit acceptable by any means. A person applying for Social Security disability often gets put through the wringer. The disabled are usually denied benefits first time around and forced to go to an attorney. The attorney then gets paid if the case is won. This payment is made necessary, not by the disabled person, but a system that is hoping to win by default. After all, if the person dies, nothing becomes due the estate and therefore no monies are awarded for what is actually "rightfully" due in back benefits. Government wins. The game is so rigged -- and obviously so -- that one can only stand back in awe and disbelief at the boldness of it all. When did this wrongness become acceptable or at least accepted as simply how it is and how it works? In one case, a man was under the care of a specialist. Though he was, the Social Security representative insisted the disabled person go to numerous appointments for tests that at best duplicated ones already done and/or frequently were repeated as part of his care. Some tests were pre-school level in comparison to the sophisticated ones undergone as ordered by the specialist. What was the point? To wear him down? Someone in authority should have taken note when the man was required to go to a general practitioner for diagnosis and confirmation he had the disabilities claimed. I know when I learned of it, I said, "You have got to be kidding." The general practicioner had no training in the specialized field and could therefore only guess. She certainly had no training, skills or any other ability to challenge a specialist in this matter. Once again, what was the point? To wear him down? Additionally, what justification could there be for paying her? What services did she perform that were of any benefit to the government and/or the disabled man? More money blown for nothing, while trying to fight paying a legitimate claim! That is what happened. Only the "motive" is up for grabs. I still think it was to punish the man and try to wear him down so he would give up. Doesn't even matter if I am wrong about that. Whatever was going on -- it was wrong and remains wrong! At the hearing, the doctor for the government could not believe that the man's doctor had been challenged. He made it clear that this doctor, in question, was not only a well-known and highly respected specialist -- he was "the" expert in the field. How could anyone have insulted him by having a mere GP review the opinion of "the" expert? The judge wondered that, too. Regardless of the inappropriateness of events and actions thus far mentioned, there was more. The government doctor made it quite clear that the tests revealed this man had an illness that could not be faked. No amount of unqualified opinion, or waste of time attempts, was going to make his health issues go away. He was indeed ill and disabled. The judge agreed. One would think the decision should be cause to rejoice. In one sense, it should be and no doubt was. But that one sense does not erase the reality of the long battle and what transpired during those three years, as the man fought for mere survival and ended up without the medical care he so desperately needed during that period. What about all that? A win did not erase all the desperation and damage that had been inflicted for no other reason than to play the game of money at the expense of the vulnerable. The government gambled and lost. Well, not really. They only had to pay out the money they originally owed for that period of time anyway, with a portion of it going to the attorney that should never have been necessary in the first place. (What about all the needless payments for doctors, tests and sometimes transportation that was blown simply for the cause of wrongful denial?) They didn't have to pay any damages, penalties, or interest that should have been due as a direct result of their inappropriate actions/decision. So, they still won even when they lost. For three years, they had that money to use for other things or other peoples. Multiply that by even a thousand people wrongly rejected and we are talking into the millions of dollars. No wonder the government likes the "reject clause" and doesn't mind applying it so easily to so many! Reject and hope they go away one way or another! Death (or the giving up) being an absolute absolution of the due debt, of course! Now that seems to be an alleged win the rich and powerful, and/or government can easily relate to. Compassion and empathy be doomed! What does it matter what the little feller must (and does) endure for the entertainment, ego and financial benefit of those in power? What price do they ever pay for what they do to those who are vulnerable? What price? Do they ever truly pay at man's hands, unless they cross someone more powerful than they? To excuse the inappropriate behavior of the government (and it's agents), we are told about how so many attempt to abuse the system. How often are we told about how the government abuses the system in reverse? How about all the people that truly should have received services and were wrongly denied, but didn't have the means, knowledge, determination, courage or strength to fight back against the wrongful decision? A person on Social Security or disability benefits (or applying for same) must have a physical address (PO Boxes not allowed) or they get no benefits or the possibility of any. Can't live on the streets, even if one is living on the streets because he/she didn't receive their benefits and got kicked out (as a result thereof) and had no physical address to go to. Once again, the government has other people's money to utilize and to make money off of, and everyone thinks it is okay, because there is a "supposed" excuse that makes it right. With all this said... I wonder how many will consider how it is supposedly okay for senators/representatives (with all their monies and/or opportunities) to be sentenced to prison and yet to continue to receive their pension/benefits (or they think they should continue to receive them), while benefits immediately stop for the average citizen if they are even arrested for a suspected criminal act... or simply don't have an address? Something isn't right here! It's time for those responsible for inappropriate actions, and lack of compassion, to be held as accountable as they strive to make all others accountable under their momentary power. It is time to be right and to demand accountability even from the rich and our government officials! It's time to end game-rigging rather than the due benefits! Yes... it is time...
Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.
Purchase merchandise regarding this columnist
|
|
||
