What makes disability a problematic concept for Jasbir Puar is not only its relation with capitalism but with nations’ attempts to distinguish themselves from others and valorize their past. Which impairments are deemed worthy of entitlements depends on the state’s pursuit of political legitimacy. To determine who is recognized as disabled is to ask who is entitled to resources. As such, disabled bodies can be capitalized because disability entitlement guarantees economic and social inclusion. In other words, disability determination demonstrates both how a state simultaneously legitimizes some bodies and delegitimizes others, and what the consequence is of making such a distinction. Throughout the twentieth century, the distinction between the deserving and undeserving guided U.S. disability policy. The government did not cover those in need, but those who “deserved,” mainly maimed veterans and maimed workers (Scotch 2001; Adams, Reiss and Berlin, 2016). Other people with disabilities fell into the category of the undeserving, who were thought to incur impairments through self-destructive habits such as alcoholism.
(I think the author should also consider that even people who are universally recognized as disabled are often neglected access to resources according to different circumstances. There's no actual guarantee of economic and social inclusion most of the time, it's usually is only present in the politician's discourse but not in material reality.)