| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| How Keisha retired at age 27 |
| 2011-09-20 |
A reader sent me a link to an article written by psychiatrist Steve Balt, How To Retire At Age 27, in which he describes a typical patient in his practice, a 27 year old named Keisha:During the interview, she told me, "I just got my SSDI so I'm retired now." I asked her to elaborate. "I'm retired now," she said [boldface in the original]. "I get my check every month, I just have to keep seeing a doctor." When I asked why she's on disability, she replied, "I don't know, whatever they wrote, bipolar, mood swings, panic attacks, stuff like that." She had been off medications for over two months (with no apparent symptoms); she said she really "didn't notice" any effect of the drugs, except the Valium 20 mg per day, which "helped me settle down and relax."I misspoke when I said "typical patient." She's slightly unusual for his inner city population, because she actually graduated high school and even took nursing assistant classes. She dropped out, however, because "I got stressed out." She tried looking for other work but then found out from a family member that she could "apply for disability."A psychiatrist and a lawyer later and she's awarded a pension of $700 a month. No retirement party, though. And she'll have to buy her own watch. The rest of his post is a thoughtful back and forth about what constitutes disability, and whether a) giving them this easy way out isn't actually doing a disservice to the human being in front of you; b) whether these false diagnoses aren't artificially inflating disease prevalence estimates; c) the extent to which it contributes to bureaucracy (and cost.) II. So when he emailed me the link to the article, How To Retire At Age 27," the reader asked me a tongue-in-cheek question: "Now why didn't I think of that twenty years ago?" Thing is, he probably did think of that, or some brief fantasy of something like it, but figured he could make much more money doing something else. Therein we have the problem: Evidently, this woman Keisha doesn't think she could make substantially more than $700/month doing something else, so regardless of whether she is truly disabled or not, her conception of her opportunities is seriously limited. That's social policy problemo numero uno. Note that she even took classes to be a certified nursing assistant, and still doesn't think it's worth it. So either CNAs don't get paid enough (over SSI) to merit giving up all your free time to work with the belligerent poop machines at the hospital, or else SSI pays too much to make that decision even worth considering. There are no other possibilities. Choosing between those without sparking riots is social policy problemo numero dos. Then there's a subtle semiotic issue. She calls it "retired." Not disabled, but retired, which means in the language of social policy she has understood that she has somehow "worked"/contributed to society to merit some retirement benefits, and also tacitly accepts she's not unable to work, rather that she's done working. So what could she have done to merit retirement? The answer probably is nothing. Right? But no one has tried to correct her thinking about this because, well, it just isn't worth arguing with some unemployed black woman at a sychiatrist's office because you'll be branded uncaring and racist, not just by her but by some other busybody with a progressive agenda, free time, and a government/media job. You will also likely get punched. Besides, you and anyone who values work as a moral good and an end in itself don't have time to explain it to an unwilling Keisha, you actually have to get back to work. So she's left with her comforting lies that go unchallenged-- bellay that: they are encouraged. That's social policy problemo numero tres. |
| Posted by:gromky |