[no snark intended on my part]

you did not define what your friend's "partial disability" was, but if you read or listened to the NPR material on this issue you would have seen the definition of disability has been expanded to absurdity.  Being that depression and back pain are considered "disabled," it is not hard to say we all have "partial disabilities."  Under a rational definition I would say no such thing, but we are not operating under a rational definition--though I am open to any suggestions of a rational definition.

As for the "substantial gainful activity" issue, you said your friend signed up for a disability program to help her attend college; once again, you did not specify another program so I was operating as if it was similar to the program in the post.

Joseph, should a program geared toward discouraging "substantially gainful activity" be provided to those "partially disabled?" First, we all have some "disabilities" so maybe we should not subsidize each other's "partial disabilities." Second, to the extent we do want that subsidy, the incentives for benificiaries of this program are not the incentives we want.

A few solutions: (1) hearings should be adversarial, (2) payments should be made only to those "disabled" for life--temporary disabilitites should be on a program that encourages "substantial gainful activity," (3) incentives for States and attorneys to place people on the program should be curtailed (e.g., States should pay 50% of costs of people within their State), and as I suggested in my post on the member feed we need a new definition of "disability." http://ricochet.com/member-feed/How-Do-You-Define-Disability/(comment)/654397#comment-654397

Bluebottle, I think this kind of episode is rare. I have listened to Planet Money for a couple years and this is the first time they have exposed this degree of government waste. Does This American Life do this more often?

Ryan and Lynne, thank you for your sharing your stories. This program is broken. How do you propose we restrict this program to "those who truly need it?"

When the definition of disability was expanded to include depression and back pain we had exactly zero votes in the Senate against it, this is a bipartisan atrocity. If Obama ran on promoting this kind of dependancy and Romney ran on cutting this I might believe you. But that was not the case, the last election was anything but substantive. Last election was nothing but attacking the other person for being evil.

Brent, but the only way this spending is paid for is through taxes or borrowing (future taxes). Under the same principle, wouldn't taxpayers be incenrivized to cut wasteful spending? Redneck, the rampant "abuse" isn't through cheating. It is through our ridiculously liberal definition of "disability." Do you have any recommendations for how we can help those who truly need it (i.e., how do you recommend we define disability). Joseph, the 2012 election disheartened me too, but I refuse to believe the majority of voters are ok with this government largesse!

Joseph, how does it work when you say we should "collapse" the federal system? We are already at $16 trillion in debt and we are better off than a lot of European countries, how do you "collapse" our federal system? Wouldn't it be more responsible (and easier) to reverse the decline?

Stark numbers from the NPR podcast: for the last year while we averaged 150,000 jobs/month, we also averaged 250,000 diaability applications/month.

The administration's argument is this: We want you to purchase ABC insurance, the cost is $20. You object to being forced to purchase C? Don't worry you only have to pay for AB, C is free. The cost is $20.

Creating state exchanges will give the HHS a tool with which to regulate states as it pleases. While leaving that to the feds may save a lot in subsidies - currently being fought out is whether the law permits the federal exchanges to provide subsidies (as the IRS maintains that it does). You may be willing to Obamacare as the solution - or as the sad reality - but I am neither willing to accept increased government control of healthcare nor accept the reality that is Obamacare.

Mollie, I just wanted to point out Volokh Conspiracy has updated their posts, and after further research they conclude the questioner is more likely than not the code pink member.

I had tax classes last night and was unable to watch the debate, but it sounds like Romney won. First, my girlfriend who voted for Obama last election said after watching the debate, and I quote, "I'm actually kind of excited about Romney." Now, this incredibly detailed takedown of the president's record. I'm pleasantly surprised.

I am not particularly impressed, but the punch line is at the end. Joe (the tea partiers are terrotists) Nocera is off today, implying this was

In his latest work on man-made climate change, the former vice president claims he has sucessfully created a hurricane to interrupt the GOP convention; when asked whether this was just hurricane season, the vice president said he doesn't respond to "climate deniers."

As an agnostic about this treaty but a proponent of a clear delineation of property rights, what do you propose in the alternative? This treaty would give the 5 arctic nations - including the U.S. - increased territory (past 200 nautical miles and up to 350 nautical miles), and decrease uncertainty about ownership in the arctic. Being that other countries, including China, have a large interest in shipping through the Arctic, what alternative do we have that can increase certainty to ownership in the Arctic?