Critics of the 'strong social model' of disability developed in the U.K. commonly claim that it focuses too one-sidedly on social oppression, thereby neglecting the role of individual impairment. In this theoretical article, we contrast that model with what we call the 'pathic model' of disability, which we characterise through the case of people living with chronic pain in the U.S.A. We argue that the difference between these two models is due to differing socio-political contexts and national policies concerning welfare and addiction as well as normative assumptions regarding the moral force of focusing on individual pain. We conclude that the political goals of proponents of the 'pathic model' present a challenge to the presumption that the 'strong social model' is the most or only politically effective way to rectify disability-related social oppression.