The mere fact of a diagnosis is not sufficient to demonstrate disability. The fuzzy thinking is that diagnosis
. It does not. The disability
has to be demonstrated.
: "On the other hand, one of the most common errors in attempting to prove a disability is to mistake diagnosis for disability. At most, a diagnosis merely shows an impairment. But a diagnosis, even a “serious” one, does not reflect whether that impairment substantially limits a major life activity."
When President Clinton tightened the welfare rules, it appears (based on the NPR article) many of those people suddenly became "disabled" where they were not previously disabled. This also shifted costs from the States to the Federal level.
Nobody is addressing my question, however, and are quibbling over definitions with snarky comments. Rather than being fraudulently on "disability," should those persons who were previously on welfare be put on a public works jobs program instead?