As long as we're talking about SSI, what about the companies who work for state governments

[Recursion]

... getting people off of TANF and onto SSI? This American Life did some reporting on this a few months ago (the part on the private companies and lawyers is in Act 2), and it's hard for me to think that's OK.

People need SSI. But as a program it's also got problems. It is possible for both of those statements to be true. People who worry about the problems with SSI (and SSDI, though that gets less coverage) aren't by that fact accusing people on it of being shirkers or whatever.

[leftstreet]

1. Maybe Clinton shouldn't have gutted AFDC

Remember Clinton gave us TANF under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act
He replaced an ASSISTANCE program with a Find Work or Starve program

Apples, oranges

[Warren Stupidity]

2. How about it?

What exactly is the problem with a state helping people with disabilities into the federally funded ssdi program and off of the state funded welfare system? The Feds left the states holding the bag with "the end of welfare as we know it", and they have cranked up the difficulty level for ssdi qualification at the same time. Your assumption, and TAL's, is that somehow there is fraud involved in states getting people into ssdi. They just couldn't back that up with any actual evidence.

[Recursion]

3. When they're a for-profit company the state is paying?

That's a problem

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Why is that a problem for ssdi?

I'm not a big fan of privatization, but advocacy for people getting on ssdi is not in itself, public or private, a problem. Perhaps you explain why it is.

[Recursion]

5. It's a problem for SSI, not SSDI particularly

The problem is the state sets targets and gives the companies bonuses based on how many people they put onto Federal rolls.