>>to continue receiving monthly checks from the government.<<
>
>Can you specifically tell this readership how the claimant "can NOW work"? In
>the absence of specifics as to this case I would suggest to readers of this
>thread that you do not have any idea at all that the claimant is now qualified
>to return to the workforce as a working unit. It appears to be spiteful charges
>and those are not relevant to a SS claim. I don't believe that I have read that
>you are a vocational expert NOR do you know the claimant. I believe you are
>leveling baseless charges that if read out of contect hurt the entire process.
>You should be ashamed of yourself.

>>not qualify a person for social security disability - and neither

>>cancer.  Being unable to work as a result of cancer - now THAT
>>qualifies you for social security disability.  And being unable to
>>work as a result of Lyme Disease qualifies you as well.  At one

>>you were unable to work as a result of your Lyme Disease.  But now

>>can
>
>You really can't be let to get away with this. You have just stated "now you
>can [work]"
>
>I do not think that you know that at all. I suspect - strongly - that you
>really have no idea whatsoever and are harassing a disabled individual.

>>gravy train, hoping that the government doesn't decide to

>>you at some point. <<
>
>Again, I don't believe that you know this at all. I don't believe that you know
>that this individual "chooses" not to work when she can. And I don't believe
>that she is concerned about a re-evaluation. Nor should anyone who has
>legitimately been awarded benefits and I have no reason to suspect otherwise.
>Some evidence rather than spiteful rhetoric on your part would go a long way
>here. I don't see how you would have any evidence. Feel free to present
>evidence to the board.

>>dishonest.  It's ... our sweet Susan
>
>I think it is highly unethical for you to say the things about a disabled
>individual as you have. I suspect it is dishonest too. If you know that this
>claimant can work as stipulated by the Social Security Administration I think
>this would be moot as you seem to be an individual that would already have
>reported the claimant with hard evidence. Have you any hard evidence?
>
>>>You haven't answered the question completely.
>>................

>>get you to shut up (as if that would ever happen).  Hey, did you

>>think about devoting your considerable Internet ABILITIES

>>ad nauseaum on Usenet ... to getting an REAL job?  No, didn't think
>>so.  You prefer the free ride at taxpayer expense.
>
>First off, if the claimant paid into the system it is not  "free ride." It
>appears that besides spiteful words against  disabled claimant you also are
>considerably ignorant of the SS process. It is the reason I am adding to this
>thread.

>>was a "long term personal disability policy" that paid me (until

>>65 - or lifetime - I'd have to check my files) if I was unable to
>>perform my occupation.  After thee months of being unable to

>>as a doctor, I began receiving monthly checks from the insurance
>>carrier.  
><snip>
> I opened a clinic.  I notified my insurance carrier that I felt I

>return to work
>>as a doctor.  (There's that honesty thing again.)  And I no longer
>>receive disability checks.
>
>Well, I'm going to do you a favor here because you are either the first
>individual in the world to refuse money that is yours, or you made a mistake,
>or you are not being truthful.
>
>Policies that I have seen for physicians are uniformly written for occupation
>and it is for a specific occupation. My understanding is that you were a
>surgeon. It would have been foolish of you (and inconsistent with the detailed
>teps you took) to insure yourself widely as in any occupation that a physician
>could be expected to practice. If you were insured for what is termed "own
>occupation" your occupation should have been listed as "physician/surgeon."
>Having stated that you initially collected due to not being able to perform
>surgery, as many doctors do on their policies, there is little chance that
>opening a clinic would have provided your income as a surgeon - which is what
>you were trying to protect with your policy purchase.
>
>I think that from what you have stated that you were very, very foolish in not
>insuring your surgical abilities OR you are in fact still collecting benefits.
>I don't particularly care either way. But your chastizing  disabled individual
>making ends meet would be disgusting if you were collecting on your policy.  

>Well, if that is true it is the nicest part I have read in this thread that is
>replete with ignorance of the SS Code as well as caustic and threatening
>commentary aimed at a disabled person that could easily make someone applying
>for benefits feel uncomfortable to be researching and reading what you have
>been writing.

>>your ABILITIES to do something productive with your life.  You'll

>>better for it spiritually.  You'll feel better for it emotionally.
>>And you'll feel better for it physically.  Get off the government
>>gravy train.  
>
>Just who in the hell [readers, please pardon my French] are you to be saying
>such things to a legitimate claimant who has cleared a very difficult process
>and is disabled? I saew that you have used the word "unethical." I can think of
>nothing but words more severe to describe the harassment of a disabled
>individual when you know nothing of this person that is evidenciary.

>>benefits.  <<
>
>And they are there for those people also. Please do not infer otherwise. I was
>told there were some unbelievable comments being made. This is far beyond what I
>expected. I thought there would just be some incorrect interpretation of the SS
>Code. But what I'm reading is heinous.

>>one time, such is obviously no longer the case.<<
>
>How do you know this? Just how in the heck do you know that a person that you
>obviously disagree with is a capable of being a working unit? How? I'm reminded
>of the phrase "put up or shut up."

>>exist.  See if you can deal with that.
>
>I hope she deals with it well as you have been badgering the disabled and
>anyone who can feel the pain of disability and the long trip some have made to
>find doctors that don't use any phrase besides "anxiety probably."
>
>This has been one disgusting read for me. I'm sorry that I agreed to read this
>thread. But I am glad now that if anyone is reading this in a week, a month, a
>year, or 5 years will see that the comments you are making are your opinion and
>your opinion only. I do not expect that there will not be one shred of evidence
>posted to back up your accusations of a disabled person. You can be mad and
>mean all you like. It is you that suffers for it in the end.
>
>*** If anyone is reading this at any time and is seeking disability benefits -
>whether they be private or SS Disability benefits - go to see a disability
>lawyer. Please do not accept any of these words you see on the Internet in your
>search as having meaning. It is sad that a spiteful person would say what has
>been said. It does not apply to you. What matters to you is your health and
>what your doctors, your lawyer, and the system says. Surely not the words read
>prior to my message in this thread.
>
>RSSG