|
wateroverfire posted:Sure. Might be a good thread to move to ask/tell after discussion here dies down.
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 01:10 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 01:10 |
|
|
euphronius posted:Binder and Binder is not going to take you case if there is a chance of losing. Which was toasticles point and he is right That's mostly true for any claim you'd take to a small-firm plaintiff's attorney.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 04:01
|
|