Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Social Security Disability still under attack

This is what I suspected would eventually happen. Some members of Congress want to make it even tougher to win disability benefits. One obvious way to do that is to change the medical/vocational rules, or the grid, that direct decisions of "disabled" or "not disabled".

This proposal, therefore, by Orrin Hatch, republican Senator of Utah, is not really surprising. If this proposal, of the three that he is submitting, passes, getting disability could potentially become much harder in the future.

From the article: "The Guiding Responsible and Improved Disability Decisions (GRIDD) Act would require the Social Security Administration (SSA) to update the medical and vocational grids that are used by disability decision makers"

The current grids are already somewhat tough on individuals under age 50 and the Senator presumably wants them to be even tougher.

The Senator is quoted as saying “For far too long, the SSDI program has failed to keep up with the rapid changes in medicine, technology and education"

The only thing is, medicine hasn't really advanced much with regard to treating chronic pain issues, or mobility issues, or psychiatric issues.

Basically, you should call a spade a spade. This is an attack on the disability system.

#socialsecuritydisabilitycuts Here's the article: Social Security Disability still under attack

Return to My Disability Blog

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

The attack on Social Security Disability and, yes, Social Security as well.

I will continue to post articles on this situation as it develops over time. Gradually, a few more people are becoming aware of what the newly elected Congress is trying to do. However, I would say that many still don't realize what is happening. So let me recap:

People who receive SSD, Social Security Disability benefits, do so because they have worked X amount of years and have paid into the system. In return for those tax payments, they are covered for both Social Security retirement and for disability benefits should they become disabled and are forced to effectively draw their retirement benefits early on the basis of disabled status. It is a contract and a promise.

Now, certain politicians in Washington want to break that contract. By making it impossible to shore up the disability fund as has been done 11 times in the last 30 years, they would rather that individuals who receive disability benefits face a 20 percent monthly cut from their monthly check. I think its likely that these politicians did not expect much push back on this because, after all, disability benefits are welfare are they not? And they are too easy to get, correct?

In actuality, to collect SSD you have to have worked and earned sufficient work credits to be covered by the system. It is not any more welfare than is Social Security retirement. And as for the conception held by many conservative members of Congress, such as Senator Rand Paul, it is also not easy to get. Most claims are initially denied and often take up to three years. Even at the hearing level, the chances of winning are equivalent to a coin toss. And, as the news accurately reports, it is getting harder to win benefits, due in no small measure to the attempt by Congressional conservatives to intimidate federal disability judges into making fewer hearing approvals (and, in fact, for the last three or four years, approvals at hearings have been going down).

However, the major point I'm making is this: citizens pay into the system and expect the contract to be honored, not to be broken when politicians expect that they can easily roll over one group that they believe has no political clout. I, frankly, think they will find themselves mistaken, particularly when they begin to hear from disabled veterans who not only collect service-connected disability but also SSD.

As always, concerned citizens should contact their Senator or Congressman and express their outrage that members of Congress find it acceptable to take one's paycheck deductions and then fail to deliver what was promised, in this case cutting a monthly benefit check by 20 percent.

From the article linked below:

"Disability benefit recipients get about $1,200 a month and depend on it for paying rent, buying food and other necessities.

'You’re barely surviving,' she said. 'If you get a cut there, you’re not going to be able to survive.'

Republicans largely oppose keeping the disability fund afloat by reallocating revenue from the Social Security retirement fund to the disability fund. Colvin and many Democrats note Congress has previously approved 11 reallocations between the two funds on a bipartisan basis."

Disability cut would be 'death sentence,' says Social Security chief

Return to My Disability Blog

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Republicans attack SSD on basis of out of control claim growth...but claims are going down.

Certain members of Congress are setting the stage to attack the Social Security Disability program, based partly on the premise that claims are continuing to rise. However, this graphic provided by attorney Charles Hall shows that really isn't the case. The number of claims filed has been decreasing since 2011.

Why is this happening? It's impossible to know. However, its a well-known fact that in times of severe economic dislocation (such as the last stock market crash and the great recession that followed), a small percentage of people who lose employment and who have serious medical issues--which their past employer accommodated them on--seek disability benefits on a short-term basis.

SSA does not offer short-term disability, but quite a few people do not understand this (which is itself understandable since short-term disability plans do exist and are offered by some employers).

Lower claims being filed may point to a healthier economy. But it may also deflate the conservative argument that the disability program is growing too fast. In fact, many sources verify that changes in the nation's demographics (a larger percentage of people in their 50's and 60's) accounts for many of the claims that SSA should expect to see now and in the future.

Disability claims decreasing

Return to My Disability Blog

Labels: ,

There are days when everyone thinks they have it rough. And perhaps they really do. But, then, you read a story like this and you feel thankful what you do have.

From the article:

"Martin Pistorius spent more than a decade unable to move or communicate, fearing he would be alone, trapped, forever."

Trapped In His Body For 12 Years, A Man Breaks Free

Return to My Disability Blog

Better ways of tracking glucose levels for type II diabetics

If you have type II diabetes, this tattoo seen in the article linked below--and the technology that it signals might possibly be around the corner--is a potential game changer. Perhaps in the near future, type II diabetics will have no further need of test strips, lancets, and tiny pinprick holes in their fingers.

Diabetes Monitoring Tattoo Developed to Provide Relief from Needle Pricks

Return to My Disability Blog

Labels: , ,

Monday, October 20, 2014

Social Security Disability Beneficiaries facing potential 20 percent cuts in monthly benefits

The Social Security Disability Trust fund is expected to run short of its ability to meet its obligations in 2016. If Congress doesn't address the problem, individuals who currently receive Social Security Disability benefits may face a 20 percent cut in their monthly benefits.

So far, there's hardly a peep out of Congress about this rapidly approaching issue. And, increasingly, it looks like this may be another round of political hardball between republicans and the current White House administration.

What members of Congress should keep in mind, however, is that, unlike SSI, Social Security Disability is a program for which recipients have paid into the system through deductions taken out of their paychecks. From the point of view of disability beneficiaries, and rightly so, they are receiving an earned benefit. They worked, paid their taxes, and are now receiving benefits to which they are entitled as a result of becoming disabled.

Congressional Republicans who choose to take advantage of the impending situation as a virtual hostage (i.e. letting SSD beneficiaries face a drastic 20 percent cut in monthly benefits unless unless certain political demands are not met) may find themselves making a terrible calculation for several reasons:

1. Even the appearance of choosing political maneuvering over people's financial stability and well-being just doesn't sit well with most Americans.

2. SSD benefits are not welfare; they are an earned entitlement. They were paid for.

3. If SSD beneficiaries have their benefits cut, it will negatively affect not only them, but their families as well.

For quite a few years now, Congressional Republicans have pointed t to the increase in disability claims as proof that something is wrong with the program. They insinuate that the process is too easy, that judges are too lenient, and that the system over-awards benefits. However, if you were to survey a thousand people who had actually gone through the process of applying for disability, they would tell you that the process is long and difficult, their claims were routinely denied despite solid medical evidence, and that judges are typically anything but rubber stampers.

With all this in mind, I have wondered when it was that AARP would choose to get involved. Their membership is comprised of retired Americans; however, some of those individuals have physical and mental impairments that are disabling and many recognize that based on their age and limitations, becoming disabled as a result of an injury or illness is not an improbable scenario.

Recently, AARP sent a letter to Senators Ron Wyden and Orrin Hatch, respectively the Chairman and Ranking member of the Senate Committee on Finance. Here are two excerpts:

"...the highest priority in the near term is to ensure that SSDI beneficiaries -- most of whom are older Americans -- are not at risk of a 20% benefit cut in the very near future."

"...interest income specified for the DI program is sufficient to support 80 percent of program cost after trust fund depletion in 2016, increasing slightly to 81% of program cost in 2087." CBO maintains similar projections."

"Many experts, including the Congressional Budget Office, have estimated the shortfall is largely due to: 1) general population growth, 2) women’s entrance into the labor force and consequent eligibility for SSDI benefits, 3) the increase in the Social Security normal retirement age from 65 to 67, and 4) the aging of the Baby Boom population leading to a higher percentage of older people vulnerable to illness and disability. All of these factors also contribute to other challenges in the SSDI program."

In other words, the Social Security Disability program is facing a shortfall due largely to demographic changes. In addition to the workforce getting wider, America is getting older and grayer. And people, as they get older, tend to have a higher chance of becoming sick or injured. It is a simple fact of life. The program is not facing shortfalls, as the Republicans have falsely impugned, because large numbers of Americans are choosing to pursue disability benefits versus seeking employment.

I don't know what the effect of this letter may be. And I don't what else we may hear from AARP on this issue as we draw nearer to 2016. However, I think certain members of Congress should choose to do what is right and guarantee that Americans who have paid into the system and are now collecting the disability benefits that they have earned continue to receive them in full. I certainly don't recall members of Congress volunteering any cuts in their own extensive package of benefits, which are cadillac-level by anyone's estimation.

Return to My Disability Blog