So, do you think many people end up on disability because they can't afford to see a good doctor?

Yes.

An old saying comes to mind.

" An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

It's odd how something that makes sense to you

and I, is beyond the understanding of Capitol Hill.

The last three individuals I know that got SSD can be found daily at one of the three taverns downtown.

If the people on YA is any measure of intent, people go on disabiity when they have been out of work for a long time and get depressed from that and get pills and cant work, or their unemployment benefits ran out and they have no income. It is a scam.

The lack of financial ability to get prompt and preventive health care is probably a big cause of people going on disability. I've seen coworkers misdiagnosed and and even undergo surgery that wasn't necessary. Over medication and it's side effects are a cause too. I have arthritis in my hands and shoulders. It makes a lot of normal activities difficult and painful. I can work around this pain and even take an occasional pain pill. The medical profession wanted to "fuse" the joints several times. What the hell! If it came out as one coworkers hands did, I'd not even be able to feed myself!! Instead of discomfort I'd be disabled! They are happy to write me prescriptions for powerful narcotic pain medication, without restrictions. Addictions here we come! I'm sure doctors are responsible for a large number of people being on disability that don't need to be. We need a medical system that is NOT for profit. One that makes GOOD medicine available to all.

In your country , I'd believe it. In mine, that is not a problem since we have universal health care and it doesn't cost a cent to see the doctor. It always makes me sad when I'm in other YA categories and someone says that they can't afford a doctor, so they are asking YA what is wrong with them. That is a bad situation in a first-world country like yours.

Yes, that is a good percentage of the problem in a nutshell.

Duane sees another message in your question that isn't there. There are some people like that....I know.

No having adjudicated Social Security Disability clams, My experience has been that the "Quality" of the doctor, may have nothing to do with the Disability because it means no able to perform any work activity for a sustained period, meaning 8 hours a day 5 days a week. So it you have a disabling condition, it would be disabling with or without a doctor. Doctors are attempting to treat and manage medical problems, conditions, and diseases. Although many people feel free clinics do not provide good care, the truth of the matter is that treatment at a clinic is better than no treatment at all.

I have paid several thousand dollars attempting to deal with a similar condition to the one you mentioned only to have if finally go away then the neighbors dog stopped barking all the time, it was stress, but the wonderful doctors I way never even considered that although I did tell them about being tired because of that dog. But it is know to that I have no major medical problems except for degenerative Arthritis, Cataracts and a loss of hearing at high tones.

Not sure, to qualify for disability one must show a long history of being ill.

If you can't afford to seek medical treatments, there will not be a record of your doctors visits.

I knew a women who wanted disability from our casino job, she had asthma.

She had full medical coverage from our job and went to great lengthes to see the doctor every week.

She recieved FMLA so she could call in sick anytime.

She got doctors notes to be able to use the elevator instead of the stairs as we all had to use the stairs and save the elevator for customers.

She never walked up any stairs and just sat evey break time talking about how sick she was.

My sister died from an asthma attack and I know my sister would never of lasted one day working in a smoke filled casino.

The women was making her case seem strong to get disability but told me she would go out on her days off in the dusty desert and ride motorbikes with her husband and talk walks outside in the hills.

Didn't sound like her asthma was very bad doing all of those things.

I never saw her bring out her breather at work in over 2 years of working with her.

She just kept going to the doctor and telling him how ill she felt.

She got her disability but I don't think she was really all that ill if she was ill at all.

If you can't see the doctor all the time, then you can't build up a case for the government.

No insurance then you just wind up dead or lying on the side of the road. You can't recover if you are ill too long without medical aid.

Seems some who really need help just don't get any.

It is questions like these that make me very happy I am British.............. we moan about our health system, about the waiting lists, however I know if I feel unwell , am in an accident, if I fell, cut myself , have tummy ache, find a lump or anything I am just concerned about I visit the doctor, if it is an emergency I go to A&E or call the ambulance and I will get very good medical treatment and it will be free at point of use..... my concern is they tend to hang on to you once they get you....a concern about feeling dizzy turns into a blood test, hospital visit, stay, surgery, return to doctors and a lifetime supply of pills................... and the dreaded regular blood tests...............

Yes, probably because they can't afford to see any doctor.

I think it's noteworthy that when Barack Obama was trying to explain this well known argument--the one about "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"--he had one of those moments that are rare for him, and screwed up his words. "A kid with asthma wouldn't have to go to the emergency room if she just had a breath-a-lyzer," he said. (I'm quoting from memory.) I believe it was a Freudian slip, because I believe at some level he was aware that this argument has actually been demonstrated to be specious.

I don't quarrel with his motives. Or yours. I believe in universal access to health care too. It's only the truthfulness of this particular claim that concerns me.

And according to what I've read, so-called "preventive care" does not really pay off the way it is supposed to according to conventional wisdom. Neither in economic terms, nor in health outcomes.

Even in cases where you might think it would obviously be better to intervene sooner rather than later--such as with cancers--it turns out that lots of early screening and aggressive searching for cancer actually leads to lots of "false positive" diagnoses and lots of unnecessary surgeries and other treatments. In other words, more expense and less health.