|
OctaviusBeaver posted:That's what made me interested enough to click on this thread. Anyone want to tell me if/why it is wrong or right? I listened to it and got distracted a few times, but these people are morons. Hale county, their poster child for "cheats" is also 12% more obese than the state average, in a state that is already top 10 or 5 in the nation. It also skews older. Older fat people are pretty much always going to have diabetes, heart problems, back problems, and weight bearing joint problems.
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
mugrim posted:I listened to it and got distracted a few times, but these people are morons. Hale county, their poster child for "cheats" is also 12% more obese than the state average, in a state that is already top 10 or 5 in the nation. It also skews older. Older fat people are pretty much always going to have diabetes, heart problems, back problems, and weight bearing joint problems. Being old and fat with diabetes, heart problems, back problems, and weight bearing joint problems typically does not permanently prevent you from performing the essential duties of your own occupation, let alone any occupation. One of the main points of the article is that many of the people on disability don't have any good alternatives to SSDI or any opportunities to go back to work. Not that they are completely unable to be productive workers. This IMO is one of the best explanations that I've heard of why private LTD insurance has a much higher return-to-work rate than SSDI.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Being old and fat with diabetes, heart problems, back problems, and weight bearing joint problems typically does not permanently prevent you from performing the essential duties of your own occupation, let alone any occupation. Sure it does. If you can't stand up for more than ten minutes at a time, for example, you can't do a lot of factory jobs. If you can't lift a hundred pounds, good luck working in construction. And if you don't have training for jobs that ARE doable with these kinds of limitations, then those jobs are not available to you. If you're going to go full-out with weird any occupation stuff, you're essentially saying that people with ALS should just get prestigious professorships in theoretical physics. It works GREAT for Stephen Hawking, after all. And the reason that I frame it that way is that the article is extremely slanted against the fact that without SSI or SSDI, people experience even more hardship than they already do. If you want to augment the program, sure. Go for it. But the problem isn't with SSDI or SSI, it's with the numerous factors in the US that have removed as many social safety nets as possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:Sure it does. If you can't stand up for more than ten minutes at a time, for example, you can't do a lot of factory jobs. If you can't lift a hundred pounds, good luck working in construction. And if you don't have training for jobs that ARE doable with these kinds of limitations, then those jobs are not available to you. Yeah. The "lack of good alternatives" argument seems like a strong argument for a GMI and a second New Deal, not for reductions in the SSDI program.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah. The "lack of good alternatives" argument seems like a strong argument for a GMI and a second New Deal, not for reductions in the SSDI program. I seriously think that we could sell the idea of a GMI to a certain category of libertarian conservatives by telling them "Think of the suckers you'll be able to scam!" The sad part is that a GMI is really only the start of what we need to give people to be financially okay in this crapsack world; we need to actually educate the populace, especially in science and statistics. Instead, the state runs a lottery, which is like literally taking advantage of how bad the citizenry is at really understanding probability. And yes, I know some people know the odds and play for 'fun'. The people who can afford it least, however, really believe in 'luck' and the government should be helping those people out, not taking their lunch money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:Sure it does. If you can't stand up for more than ten minutes at a time, for example, you can't do a lot of factory jobs. If you can't lift a hundred pounds, good luck working in construction. And if you don't have training for jobs that ARE doable with these kinds of limitations, then those jobs are not available to you. Any occupation (using the technical disability insurance definition) is the definition that SSDI actually literally uses. You are only supposed to be on SSDI if you are unable to perform the work in any occupation. If there are no jobs available in your area, you should be on welfare or unemployment, not SSDI. SSDI is not a replacement for those safety nets but is being used as such because of the reasons listed in the article. That's one of its main points, and seems a cogent one. What we do with the information that SSDI is being used as that kind of program is a political discussion and the correct response might be to beef up unemployment programs. What I can say is that the return to work programs have been expanded in the past decade (following the lead of private LTD) which helps solve that problem and others, and should continue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
I'm on SSDI for a disease with a clinical rather than a physical diagnosis: chronic migraine. I successfully fought to get my ex-employer's disability insurance to cover me, then they successfully dumped me based on a policy that they only covered "self-reported diseases" for 3 years. I live in fear that SSDI will dump me, too, on some other basis. I am 55 now, but I wasn't when I went on SSDI. I used my lawyers' briefs for the employer disability suit to get SSDI; the person who made the determination said it was the easiest case she'd ever decided. I still worry that somebody will come along later and say "Well, PROVE you're still sick."
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:Sure it does. If you can't stand up for more than ten minutes at a time, for example, you can't do a lot of factory jobs. If you can't lift a hundred pounds, good luck working in construction. And if you don't have training for jobs that ARE doable with these kinds of limitations, then those jobs are not available to you. You can be a cashier with any of those problems mentioned, and as esquilax points out you the very first thing is "they have a physical or mental condition that prevents them from engaging in any "substantial gainful activity" ("SGA")" which certainly includes jobs like cashiering among many other common jobs. Your ALS example is simply not very good, and is pretty much equivalent to saying 99.999% of americans are disabled because they don't qualify for the NBA. Basically you are arguing for increased welfare or GMI and things of that nature, which is perfectly reasonable. But you aren't disabled simply because you can't do some jobs, at least according to the stated rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Sure. Well that was a wonderful dream 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
tsa posted:You can be a cashier with any of those problems mentioned, and as esquilax points out you the very first thing is "they have a physical or mental condition that prevents them from engaging in any "substantial gainful activity" ("SGA")" which certainly includes jobs like cashiering among many other common jobs. Your ALS example is simply not very good, and is pretty much equivalent to saying 99.999% of americans are disabled because they don't qualify for the NBA. I'm arguing that if you're going to advocate changing SSDI to make it more restrictive, you should own the fact that you're going to make people less able to support themselves and cause a shitload of human misery for no particular reason. Comparisons to private LTD aren't very relevant since those programs can pick and choose who they let in, get WAY more expensive as you get older, and generally insure groups that aren't prone to long-term disability, such as white-collar workers. Edit: Re the ALS thing, there exists a single person with ALS who does that job, therefore it is possible to engage in SGA with that condition. The problem is that the statute is so narrowly written that if applied literally, it would disqualify anyone who could possibly hope to live on $1000/month with the level of medical assistance they need. Let alone live on less money. Lyesh fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Any occupation (using the technical disability insurance definition) is the definition that SSDI actually literally uses. You are only supposed to be on SSDI if you are unable to perform the work in any occupation. ...which exists in significant numbers in either the region where the person lives or in several other regions of the country. It's not literally any job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Also they take level of education and I think skills into account.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Any occupation (using the technical disability insurance definition) is the definition that SSDI actually literally uses. You are only supposed to be on SSDI if you are unable to perform the work in any occupation. If there are no jobs available in your area, you should be on welfare or unemployment, not SSDI. SSDI is not a replacement for those safety nets but is being used as such because of the reasons listed in the article. That's one of its main points, and seems a cogent one. Unemployment isn't really a safety net, considering it only lasts for 6 months in most cases, and that's assuming you were working before (i.e. people fresh out of school can't get it). Same with welfare - isn't that only available to single mothers at this point?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Remulak posted:Also they take level of education and I think skills into account. Yes, that's all part of the technical insurance definition of "any occupation". mastershakeman posted:Unemployment isn't really a safety net, considering it only lasts for 6 months in most cases, and that's assuming you were working before (i.e. people fresh out of school can't get it). Same with welfare - isn't that only available to single mothers at this point? I think so. The whole social welfare system has been eroded quite a bit, which means that people out-of-work have few alternatives other than SSDI.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Being old and fat with diabetes, heart problems, back problems, and weight bearing joint problems typically does not permanently prevent you from performing the essential duties of your own occupation, let alone any occupation. It 100% does for many cases, especially if you have all of those things at once. If your doctor assigns you a lifting limit of 10 pounds or under because of a prior heart attack or stent, you are not capable of even office jobs, assuming you have the education. Past 50 years of age (ie "Old" by SSDI since 62 is early retirement age) they no longer expect you to retrain for a new career, so it's not "Any job" it's "Any job you are have a strong enough experience/knowledge base for". The "Any job" thing is bullshit the way you are interpreting it. It's used as verbage, but technically no one, and I mean no one meets that qualification. Missing 4 limbs? Well you could work in the circus as a freak or for performance art. You could just be a lifeless body someone is paid to stare at as long as that has happened at least once ever. While some ALJ's use that verbiage, they're rare even for the assholes to interpret it harsh. I've only heard of one that has ever done that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
mugrim posted:It 100% does for many cases, especially if you have all of those things at once. I've been using the terms "own occupation" and "any occupation" in the way that they are used by normal professionals that work with disability insurance, and SSDI is based on the fairly standard "any occupation" definition. It's been other people using quadriplegics as an example, and I've clarified like 3 times now that I was using the technical disability insurance definition. I thought you worked with SSDI, are the terms "own occ" and "any occ" seriously unfamiliar to you? My original point, to restate, is that just because someone is old and fat with back problems and diabetes, even if they qualify as "disabled" under a medical or plain english meaning but that doesn't mean that they should qualify as disabled for SSDI purposes. "Any occ" is a much higher bar to reach, and 25% of working age adults being unable to perform work under the "any occ" definition is an insane amount at the county level. The article goes a long way towards explaining why the rate is so high. It had a secondary effect of explaining a separate issue - why LTD return-to-work rates are higher than SSDI return-to-work rates. People on normal long-term-disability insurance typically have a job that they can go back to, whereas people on SSDI may not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
esquilax posted:I've been using the terms "own occupation" and "any occupation" in the way that they are used by normal professionals that work with disability insurance, and SSDI is based on the fairly standard "any occupation" definition. It's been other people using quadriplegics as an example, and I've clarified like 3 times now that I was using the technical disability insurance definition. I thought you worked with SSDI, are the terms "own occ" and "any occ" seriously unfamiliar to you? I do work with it, and it's not unfamiliar to me at all. Your hilarious interpretation of it is though. Or maybe you were just exaggerating to make a point? If your doctor says you can't lift above 10 pounds (something that severe Orthopedic issues, heart issues, and diabetic neuropathy can require) and you have a sub high school grad education and are older than 50, that's pretty much a slam dunk with the SSA by most ALJs. By definition, it's not just that you can't work any occupation, but that you can't earn SGA from it. That SGA part is kind of key since pretty much anyone can do anything for a very short period of time. Yeah, maybe technically you can sit and answer a phone a couple of hours a week, but unless you can be expected to earn over 1070/mo from it then it's not truly employable. It is entirely not only possible, but probably that people with lovely educations, who are over 50, have diabetes, have heart issues, and weight bearing joint issues is not physically able to work 107 hours a month at 10 bucks an hour. When you live in a place where everyone is crazy obese and old and uneducated, the idea that a significant portion of the population is not capable of SGA is entirely possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Is it true that you are allowed unlimited income from renting your own property while on SSD? Like if you had another house that you rented. or 30 apartment buildings does rental income "count"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
mugrim posted:I do work with it, and it's not unfamiliar to me at all. Your hilarious interpretation of it is though. Or maybe you were just exaggerating to make a point? Again, I've used nothing except the technical definition of the term as I've said (for the 4th time now). You are just putting words in my mouth and it makes it even worse if you actually understood what I originally meant by those terms and aren't just covering for yourself now. Obviously being unable to lift 10 pounds is an actual disability that makes it easy to meet an any occ definition, I never said it didn't. Saying 25% of the working age population has disabilities that are that severe and long term however, is an really high number that deserves some investigation. The reporter does an investigation into why its a really high number, and handwaving her findings away with something like "their obesity rate is 40% instead of 30%, it's probably right" really doesn't do it justice at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Again, I've used nothing except the technical definition of the term as I've said (for the 4th time now). You are just putting words in my mouth and it makes it even worse if you actually understood what I originally meant by those terms and aren't just covering for yourself now. Obviously being unable to lift 10 pounds is an actual disability that makes it easy to meet an any occ definition, I never said it didn't. Saying 25% of the working age population has disabilities that are that severe and long term however, is an really high number that deserves some investigation. The reporter does an investigation into why its a really high number, and handwaving her findings away with something like "their obesity rate is 40% instead of 30%, it's probably right" really doesn't do it justice at all. Younger fitter people flee because there are no jobs, astronomical obesity rates, lovely rates of education and high school graduation, rural area with limited medical care, etc. I know a lot of places that go 15-20% that are similarly rural and have those confounding variables. A statistical outlier as a rate working adults is going to happen in both directions in an area with less people. Hell, in a rural area that small it could be something as simple as a singular generous ALJ combined with all the other lovely confounding variables. The area has had an almost completely consistent population count for 140 years and a 10% unemployment rate. Acceptance rates overall are actually lower than they were prior, but more people are applying by rather large numbers. More people are maintaining unemployment and not getting a technical denial for working over SGA because of the economy. This means edge cases are more likely to stay in the hopper long enough to be evaluated. But here's a better question: What would you do with Hale County? btw, do you crack down on Utah and it's super low disability rates, wondering how evil their judges are? Shocker I know but rural areas are easy to get high percentages on many different stats because of their low density. What is your theory here? mugrim fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Same with welfare - isn't that only available to single mothers at this point? No, it's any parents with a child who meet the income requirements, but there is a 4-5 year lifetime time limit on it. There's also great leeway by states though in terms of policy since TANF was block granted to the states and 1. the amount of the block grant has been raised in like 14 years, and 2. a lot of states prefer to spend the money on tax cuts and ect. Just go TANF recipient data and the numbers are shocking. The average monthly payouts between states range from like $120 to $600 on the high end, then you have states like Florida, which has a substantially higher population and poverty rate than CT yet less recipients on TANF.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Hey, a thread about my area of work! So I work with people who have mental illnesses in an outpatient setting as a social worker and nearly all of them have disability, or are in the process of trying to get it. I think this is a greatly neglected area of law, and one that most people from middle income brackets don't know a lot about. Some of the issues that I have seen: SSA is slow as all hell, it's kind of expected, but if I try to call the local office during some times of the months their automated phone system will just tell me to call later and hang up on me. Causing me to call the national office which increases the wait times. The wait to get on Disability is brutal for the poor people and I see a lot of suffering caused by it. Regarding speaking to SSA over the phone: there should be some type of system where I can enter in a verification ID number that states that I am a government worker speaking on behalf of my clients. Because as it is now, the worker at the Social Security Office has to verify the name, SS# date of birth, address and some other identifying information to confirm that I'm with the person and that I have their permission to talk to them. Which for some people isn't an issue. The problem becomes when you are representing people who are mentally ill/mentally retarded they have a hard time just giving this basic info, or speaking coherently at all for that matter. I've had SSA employees get indignant with me at first only to be totally perplexed that the client can barely speak. Any type of system that would keep track of a database of employees that already had permission to speak with them would save everyone involved a lot of time and effort. The post earlier about representative payee abuse was spot on. I see it so often, and there's not a lot that can be done about it, because it can be hard to prove. I had a client who's payee was locked in jail for cocaine possession, getting it changed over was impossible over the phone. Which required a half day visit to the local office to address. Another issue that I've seen is that when a person is committed for a longer term stay in the hospital (doesn't happen that much anymore, was more common years ago) if the payee doesn't tell the office that the disabled person has been institutionalized the. They will apply an overpayment. Also appealing an overpayment decision has been like pissing into the wind so far. Even when it was easily provable that the person in question had no control over it, or wasn't responsible for it to begin with. The SSA has never taken it off their account that I've seen. A recent change made that has irked the poo poo out of me: they moved away from paper checks to Direct Deposit or Direct Express cards. I can understand why, it makes a lot of things easier. But, the problem comes when you have people with little to no financial education using ATMs that charge huge fees for taking their money out the way that many spend, a little at a time. You have people spending a portion of their tiny incomes on service fees to banks and financial service companies, it's sick. Anyone who claims that it's easy to stay on disability has never spent much time around those who get it. People are reevaluated all the time, especially if you're young. Then there's the fact that there's simply no way to live independently on that income solely. Even where I work in Mississippi where the cost of living is very low compared to other places. Most everyone lives with at least 3-4 family members or roommates. The lucky ones have a supportive family that doesn't just take their entire check at the beginning of every month, but there's plenty in that situation. Also the group homes and personal care homes for people with mental disabilities are quite limited, and the ones that are worth a drat are often full. Regarding the debate being had regarding incentives to work/treating disability as unemployment. It's so hosed, the people who try to work their way off of disability are not encouraged by SSA nearly enough. And with wages at low skill jobs being so low in rural high poverty areas with lots of people on disability it's easy to see why. Yes, there are free riders in the system but look at it from their perspective, They could get at most 35 hours a week at most big chains who do part time employment only. That works out to like $800 a month after taxes with no health insurance. Whereas, staying on disability you get nearly that much, the lowest cost health insurance in the country, and access to other benefits like food stamps or HUD if they're really patient. So which is the better deal? Until you can make working low skilled service sector jobs more profitable by raising the minimum wage, universal health insurance, and providing child care expenses you'll continue to see free riders because it makes economic sense to do it. (I say all that not to denigrate all people on disability, simply to address the overhyped free rider problem from their perspective) There's lots more I could talk about but I'm getting tired. I hope this actually generates some interest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
I'm confused on the direct deposit issue. What is the difference between cashing a monthly check for three bucks at a check cashing location, or withdrawing it from an ATM for three bucks?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
mugrim posted:I'm confused on the direct deposit issue. What is the difference between cashing a monthly check for three bucks at a check cashing location, or withdrawing it from an ATM for three bucks? Banks love to gently caress people with overdraft fees.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
This thread's OP is fantastic. I study American social policy academically and I think mugrim describes what the dealio is in a very nice way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
mugrim posted:I'm confused on the direct deposit issue. What is the difference between cashing a monthly check for three bucks at a check cashing location, or withdrawing it from an ATM for three bucks?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 12:14
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Younger fitter people flee because there are no jobs, astronomical obesity rates, lovely rates of education and high school graduation, rural area with limited medical care, etc. I know a lot of places that go 15-20% that are similarly rural and have those confounding variables. A statistical outlier as a rate working adults is going to happen in both directions in an area with less people. Hell, in a rural area that small it could be something as simple as a singular generous ALJ combined with all the other lovely confounding variables. The area has had an almost completely consistent population count for 140 years and a 10% unemployment rate. My theory, which is the one supported by the TAL report, is that many people are using SSDI as an unemployment program, so that areas that are in worse economic shape have higher SSDI enrollment. Compare your SSDI enrollment map to a map of unemployment by county. Keep in mind that people on SSDI generally are not counted as unemployed so high SSDI enrollment wouldn't drive the unemployment rate. Utah is in good economic shape, so SSDI enrollment is low. Rural counties in the midwest are also in good economic shape, so enrollment is low. Rural counties in the south, and in northern MI, are in bad economic shape, so enrollment is high. The trend that you've noticed, that applications increase and acceptance rates decrease during bad economic times further support the theory. More people apply during downturns because fewer alternatives are available. Fewer applications are accepted because the government is doing its job, and many of these "new" disabilities were not severe enough to prevent people from working when jobs were available. If the theory is true, than an effective way to "treat disability" is to improve the underlying economic conditions in an area, as opposed to attempting to improve the clinical health of the population. Reopening the mill so that people can go back to work might reduce the SSDI rolls more than starting a county weight loss program. High SSDI enrollment reflects local economic problems as well as a local clinical ones. From your focus on the economic situation of the county in your last post it seems like you would agree with that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
esquilax posted:My theory, which is the one supported by the TAL report, is that many people are using SSDI as an unemployment program, so that areas that are in worse economic shape have higher SSDI enrollment.. . . I'm not really sure that this is a substantive difference. If someone loses the job they have or is no longer able to perform available jobs due to a disability, and there are no other jobs in their area for which they are qualified, then they are in fact unable to work because of their disability. A general drying-up of job options might therefore result in more people being on the disability rolls, but if all of those people are in fact disabled and can't work, why is their presence on the disability rolls a problem? If the only employer in an area is wal-mart, and wal-mart requires you to be able to lift 10 pound weights for the job, everyone who can't lift ten pound weights is in fact unable to find work due to their disability, even if Wal-Mart would only hire ten more people anyway at most and you have 1,000 people who can't lift ten pound weights. In that case you've got 1,000 people who are disqualified from working based on disability, and 990 who are also shut out of the job market due to simple lack of jobs, and both sets overlap to the point of functional indistinguishability. As I said above, it sounds like the argument you're making is in favor of a new Works Project Administration. But it doesn't seem to be one against SSDI, except insofar as with the advent of a new WPA in this county a lot of people would suddenly become eligible for the newly available jobs and possibly then lose their SSDI benefits. Said another way: why do you, or do you, consider the operation of SSDI as a backstop to the unemployment system to be a problem? To my mind having some such backstop system is a moral imperative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm not really sure that this is a substantive difference. If someone loses the job they have or is no longer able to perform available jobs due to a disability, and there are no other jobs in their area for which they are qualified, then they are in fact unable to work because of their disability. A general drying-up of job options might therefore result in more people being on the disability rolls, but if all of those people are in fact disabled and can't work, why is their presence on the disability rolls a problem? I don't have problems with having a good unemployment system, and I don't have problems with the government providing disability insurance. Many of the people on the SSDI rolls are actually unable to work and require the disability income. What I do have problems with the practice of using the government disability insurance program as an unemployment system. Commingling the two means we are misclassifying people and misdiagnosing local problems. The best known problem is that people on SSDI they aren't counted in unemployment statistics, even though many of these people probably should be counted as part of the labor force. They aren't discouraged workers, since they would take a job if one was available. Here's an old op-ed by one of Obama's former cabinet members that criticized Bush for this exact issue in 2003. quote:The reality is that we didn't have a mild recession. Jobs-wise, we had a deep one. We don't necessarily need public works projects, but economic revitalization (however that actually happens) is a good way to reduce people from the SSDI rolls. How we economically revitalize areas is a political discussion that's way too broad for this thread. High rates of SSDI enrollment is indicative of economic problems in an area as much as it is indicative of clinical problems in the area. The TAL report was panned for pointing this out, but I think it's a decent thing to keep in mind. esquilax fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
esquilax posted:What I do have problems with the practice of using the government disability insurance program as an unemployment system. Commingling the two means we are misclassifying people and misdiagnosing local problems. The best known problem is that people on SSDI they aren't counted in unemployment statistics, even though many of these people probably should be counted as part of the labor force. They aren't discouraged workers, since they would take a job if one was available. Here's an old op-ed by one of Obama's former cabinet members that criticized Bush for this exact issue in 2003. So your objection is purely technical, then, not substantive? You're not opposed to these people getting public assistance, just the label that assistance gets, for reporting purposes? The part you seem to be missing is that articles like the Joffe-Walt "expose" are not written to encourage expansion of the unemployment program or technocratic labeling reforms; they're written to encourage the dismantling of the social security system and while replacing it with nothing. The political fight we're having in this country isn't over how to reform the public assistance system, it's over whether we should have one or not (and I'm not exaggerating in that; look at the details of any of Paul Ryan's budget proposals). So in light of that, I don't have a problem with "using the government disability insurance program as an unemployment system. " These people are in fact sick and cannot in fact find work and we have a moral imperative as a nation to help them. End of the day, a certain amount of overlap between the SSDI system and unemployment is inevitable -- as was pointed out above, you can always argue that all of them could theoretically learn theoretical physics and be Stephen Hawking and hence are only unemployed, not disabled.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:So your objection is purely technical, then, not substantive? You're not opposed to these people getting public assistance, just the label that assistance gets, for reporting purposes? It's mostly technical and somewhat substantive, but the substance isn't along the traditional battle lines. In general I don't believe in ignoring facts just because they don't support our political views. The facts should inform our opinions, not the other way around. One of the facts that her story illustrates is that SSDI isn't just working like normal private long-term disability insurance except provided by the government, it is additionally working as a kind of unemployment program. It's really easy to twist that facts into "a lot of people on SSDI aren't really disabled", but it also supports points like "the republican president is understating the unemployment rate" and "our unemployment programs are not equipped to handle the evolving needs of our aging population."
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
This is going to sound extremely stupid and missing the point but... What does the SSA expect you to do with the SSI/SSDI you receive? Save it? Spend it on food/rent/neccessaties? Spend it on other things?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Spend it on necessities. In fact if you're getting SSI and they find out that (for example) you're living free with relatives instead of spending your SSI on rent, you can end up being charged an overpayment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Being old and fat with diabetes, heart problems, back problems, and weight bearing joint problems typically does not permanently prevent you from performing the essential duties of your own occupation, let alone any occupation. Man, you must live in a sheltered set of occupations. Tell that to guys like my dad, a trucker with 3 and a half million miles on his logs who spent the last ten years of his life working the door at walmart because diabetes meant he couldn't pass a DOT physical anymore, and injuries sustained over decades of trucking (and at least one rollover wreck) meant doing physical work on his feet all day just plain wasn't possible. Or any of the people in my old industry, where cooks burn out by 40 because their back, knees, and ankles are too wrecked to be able to stand 10 hours at a stretch while twisting and lifting. Hell, I'm in IT now, and the datacenter work I do would be impossible if I had any kind of further long-term joint injury beyond what I've got. There are a ton of occupations that aren't sitting at a desk pretending to code while you jam cheetos into your face and drink cases of mountain dew.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Man, you must live in a sheltered set of occupations. Tell that to guys like my dad, a trucker with 3 and a half million miles on his logs who spent the last ten years of his life working the door at walmart because diabetes meant he couldn't pass a DOT physical anymore, and injuries sustained over decades of trucking (and at least one rollover wreck) meant doing physical work on his feet all day just plain wasn't possible. Or any of the people in my old industry, where cooks burn out by 40 because their back, knees, and ankles are too wrecked to be able to stand 10 hours at a stretch while twisting and lifting. Hell, I'm in IT now, and the datacenter work I do would be impossible if I had any kind of further long-term joint injury beyond what I've got. Half of the at-work construction workers I know are old and fat with back problems, and most private companies that employ blue collar workers go to great lengths to manage their diabetics and heart patient employees to keep them well enough to stay at work. Being old and fat doesn't prevent you from working under "any occupation" like SSDI requires, although people may additionally have disabilities that do actually prevent them from working. But thanks for ignoring the entire page and posting personal attacks
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Spend it on necessities. In fact if you're getting SSI and they find out that (for example) you're living free with relatives instead of spending your SSI on rent, you can end up being charged an overpayment. So, if your an adult child living with parents then your poo poo out of luck applying for SSI? (We really need a ask /tell thread for this)
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Nckdictator posted:So, if your an adult child living with parents then your poo poo out of luck applying for SSI? (We really need a ask /tell thread for this) You can still apply but they'll impute a certain amount of rent to you and adjust your payment accordingly. I'm not sure off the top of my head if you can get around that by paying rent to your parents or not or how that works. Basically, if you're applying for SSI or SSDI, GET PROFESSIONAL HELP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Half of the at-work construction workers I know are old and fat with back problems, and most private companies that employ blue collar workers go to great lengths to manage their diabetics and heart patient employees to keep them well enough to stay at work. Being old and fat doesn't prevent you from working under "any occupation" like SSDI requires, although people may additionally have disabilities that do actually prevent them from working. I ignored the entire page because, as Hieronymous Alloy and Mugrim have both pointed out, the definition of 'any occupation' you're using in no way matches the interpretation actually implemented by SSDI, and does not address the very point you tried to make. I was responding to the post I quoted, because things like diabetes (which invalidates a DOT physical even if manageable by drugs), and mobility/lifting restrictions can and do prevent people from "performing the essential duties of <their> own occupation." Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I ignored the entire page because, as Hieronymous Alloy and Mugrim have both pointed out, the definition of 'any occupation' you're using in no way matches the interpretation actually implemented by SSDI, and does not address the very point you tried to make. I was responding to very post I quoted, because things like diabetes (which invalidates a DOT physical even if manageable by drugs), and mobility/lifting restrictions can and do prevent people from "performing the essential duties of <their> own occupation." If you are able to hold a job at Wal-mart or you have the necessary background and ability to work in IT, you generally do not qualify for SSDI. Because, after considering medical conditions age, education, past work experience and any transferable skills, you are able to adjust to other work (which is basically the "any occupation" standard used in private disability insurance). I said they "typically" didn't prevent someone performing their duties because I was afraid of pedants posting edge cases like "well diabetes means you can't be a trucker!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:You can still apply but they'll impute a certain amount of rent to you and adjust your payment accordingly. I'm not sure off the top of my head if you can get around that by paying rent to your parents or not or how that works. Basically, if you're applying for SSI or SSDI, GET PROFESSIONAL HELP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 18:29
|
|
