Thread: The definition of injured
March 15th, 2006, 03:06 PM #1
The definition of injured
I think that a uniform defintion of pain needs to be established.
I injured my back (walked like a little old man for 3 weeks) and showed up for work every day.
My co-worker injured his back in the same area and he stayed home.
Another co-worker injured his back you could see the change in his posture with one hip higher than the other and his back looked like an S he took off 2 days.
How can you tell whether the one who stayed home did so for reasonable levels of pain?
I see disabled SSI recipients receiving my money and still going to the store and working around the yard.
My dad having had 1 back operation that ultimately failed is in pain 24 7 and he still does more in an afternoon then most would do in a week. Crippled up with pain he suffers but continues on with his life.
Why should a person receive benefits when another person with same or worse pain continues to struggle through life?
War and the definition of injury
I hear of military injury and I wonder what it really means.
Personally I think injury should not only come in 2 flavors (death and injured) but rather something on the order of 4 or more levels.
level 1 injury (Death pretty tangible)
level 2 Injury (still alive but quality of life severly impacted permenant 20% reduction in quality of life or abilities)
level 3 injury (where 80% to functionality is expected)
Level 4 injury (full recovery expected)
When I hear injury statistics associated with war or any accident like a terrorist attack I wonder how bad it really was. I.E. 1 dead and 47 injured. What the hell does that mean. If I cut my lip I am injured. Wouldn't it be more informative to say 1 dead 43 critically/likely disabled and 4 minor injuries.
March 15th, 2006, 03:43 PM #2
Lets try to stick to injury and disability. (PS I agree)
March 15th, 2006, 07:07 PM #3
I suppose it's all circumstantial when it comes to work.
It depends what you do for a job, and how much the injury would affect said job.
For example, you wouldn't expect a postman to walk his route with a bad leg. Or would you?
I rarely take time off for injury.
I had a mirror fall off a high shelf at work and land on me. I had 13 stitches in my forehead and a major headache for about a fortnight, but I only took one day off, and that was the rest of the day when it happened, because by the time I got away from the hospital it was about 4:30 and I finish at 5.
Yet someone else has a cold and they're away all week?
Give me a break."If you are first you are first. If you are second, you are nothing."
- Bill Shankly
March 15th, 2006, 07:13 PM #4
Well if its their sick/vacation days, what do you care how they use it?
March 15th, 2006, 07:13 PM #5
Your scale include traumatic injury?
pyschological trauma affects different people in utterly different ways
March 15th, 2006, 07:16 PM #6
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
people cheat the govn. in so many ways
March 15th, 2006, 07:19 PM #7
I took 2 days off sick, both occasions I attended work....
1st was a 2 hour train journey...I was throwing up blood I was so sick...I got criticised by the asshole Judge for going home on a doctors say so ...grrrr
2nd time I turned up for work after spending the night in hospital after being mugged and getting my arm broken in 2 places....Judge gave me the day off even though I was quite happy to carry on (heck I'd turned up...was ready to go)
March 15th, 2006, 07:58 PM #8Originally Posted by caro
All of these combined keep her from being able to hold a full time job.
Last edited by Detritus; March 15th, 2006 at 08:02 PM.
March 15th, 2006, 08:01 PM #9
Sorry to hear Tricia has MS, one of my closest friends has it too
March 15th, 2006, 08:19 PM #10Originally Posted by caro
March 16th, 2006, 04:00 PM #11
Not to pick on Tricia, Seriously I am sorry for her. However I just wonder if there is a way to categorize problems uniformly. Lets just say person A is having real problems with MS while person B has only minor inconvenience from the same dissease and person B goes on disability years before Person A gave up working. Should Person B receive benefits before all options are exhausted including lower paying jobs and all reasonable efforts to function have been exhausted.
and again not picking on tricia because such a standard evaluation of injury and disease does not exist. I ask several of the following questions:
If there were no SSI or disability insurance could the person function longer than they chose to. In other words would you have been willing to die rather than go to work in any field.
Personally I believe that you are truely disabled when all options have been exhausted and death is the only choice. That is when I feel aid should be given. When no other alternatives still remain including family support (because I feel family should and does have the most vested interest in your well being).
In that situation Is when I belive charity should be explored and finally if charity does not cut it perhaps government assistance explored as an option. I would be proud to have my tax dollars sent to the above person when every, totally all other alternatives have been exhausted.
I have seen too many people who work through insurmountable obstacles and then others who give up when inconvenience became a burden. I am jaded by the brave person who grins and bears it while another decides to become a burden on society.
Finally I am really sorry for Tricia's and all MS sufferers lot in life. It should not be anyones cross to bear.
Last edited by Epidemic; March 16th, 2006 at 04:07 PM.
March 16th, 2006, 04:50 PM #12
Oh, I understand what you are saying Epi and I agree 100 percent. That's why there is a rigorous screening process (multitudes of doctors, a board of review, etc.). Most people are refused benefits after that process, then the remaining option are the courts. That is where we are now, after a year or so wait you get a court hearing and then a judge decides whether you receive benefits or not...
This is also a plan that people pay into through their tax dollars and have to work a minumum number of years to receive disability.
March 16th, 2006, 05:49 PM #13
I guess I always feel as if the doctors are payed for. If you do not pay enough you end up screwed even though you are far worse than the guy soaking up benefits.
But who else besides the doctors could be the people who determine ones true disability. My co worker has a friend who was injured, claims fatigue, headaches and a host of other problems. Yet he still works on his car and goes to the races with it. all while on full disability. Doctors cleared him to receive benefits. Yet he uses his skills to fix up his car rather than earn a living. (side note on this jerk. he has a corvette, crashed it into some kids parked car while out driving on oxycodone. Apparently he got off because he was on a script for pain. Kid had minimum insurance and he refused to make the kid whole even though it was his fault. PS the kid can't afford to sue him. this is all hearsay but it pissed me off when I heard about it.)
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By Epidemic in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 0Last Post: November 2nd, 2004, 09:44 AM
By Sweeper in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 12Last Post: December 10th, 2003, 09:24 PM
By daveleau in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 5Last Post: September 5th, 2003, 11:19 PM
By OuTpaTienT in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 10Last Post: July 9th, 2002, 05:44 PM
By Mortis in forum Distributed ComputingReplies: 7Last Post: March 25th, 2002, 06:07 PM