Your source for news affecting the U.S. Social Security Administration/© Charles T. Hall
The Senator has a marvelous mind. He has the ability to say things that sound vague that are in reality meaningless.He reminds me of Yale Sampson...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-RUCasghSw
Or even of Homer Simpson...
He doesn't know what He is talking about, but then He has never been disabled in the least, except maybe Mentally... 'Truly Disabled' is a far right talking point. What is 'Truly Disabled' to some Repubs/baggers? Someone who is unable to use their limbs. Even if a Disabled Person has not had a lawyer/attorney to get them benefits, some will still say, they want the nitty gritty details, otherwise you are still able bodied. I mean come on their taxes would not come down by even 1 penny, yet they whine about taxes being too high, it's called making one group a scapegoat, Coburn didn't mention that as people age, their bodies can get broken, by age, accidents and surgery. Last I heard the SSA doesn't just evaluate just a persons disability to give them benefits, otherwise there would be a lot more people getting benefits. There is ones age, the shape their body is in, their education(or the lack), their skills, can they compete against younger people for a job, job hiring practices of employers(the older one gets, the more likely one will not be hired, age 50 seems to be a cutoff, laws are tailored to make it so the job seeker has to file suit for age discrimination, results in a useless and toothless law), how recently one was employed plays a part(another reason why the long term unemployed are being actively passed over for job openings, especially when there are more job seekers than there are available jobs, that's supply and demand's invisible hand at work in the market), etc, etc, etc... I know I haven't hit on everything, but it is something to ponder and I don't work in the SSA(I've never worked for the SSA at all), so I can't and won't claim anything like that.
The biggest problem with a program like SSA Disability, is that there is never a definitive way to decide who is and isn't disabled. The points of contention never center around people who pass the "eye" test. It's the ones that claim conditions that can't be proven. The left would rather everyone in that situation qualify, the right would prefer none of them get benefits.
@ 7:54pm To get Disability one needs solid medical proof(evidence like x-rays, MRI, cat scan, though I've never had a cat scan, I've had x-rays and 1 MRI), yes I speak from experience, I had that proof, though some of it was too late for Me to get SSDI, so I get SSI instead, oh and I had no lawyer or attorney, I was told 'if you don't have proof of your condition that your claim was not valid'. I get enough to survive on, but not enough to replace a car or to do more than put a small down payment on something and My income is so low that if I wanted to buy a house w/a mortgage(cheaper than rent in a some areas) I'd only qualify for a $49,618.00 30 year fixed mortgage, I was judged to be permanently disabled, cause of numerous problems, both physical and two mental problems that are most likely related to a thyroid problem that I have which doesn't respond to pills. And yes I hate having to explain My disability, it's like some think I'm a thief, taxes would not go down by even 1 cent, Congress would just put the money elsewhere. Some don't like that I'm online or that I vote or that I own anything, including a car, a car is seen as a necessity, a house/mobile home/manufactured home is also allowed as long as one lives in it, other possessions are also allowed. I live alone w/one pet for company, 4 blank walls could drive someone insane, a cut in SSI benefits would be punitive and insane and yes someone wants a 31% cut(out of a roughly $44 Billion Dollar SSI program budget or $13.64 Billion), not in future benefits, but in current benefits, that person is Rep Paul Ryan and the 2015 budget bill is mentions making SSI a block grant(unsecured), capping SSI and expecting the states to run whats left of SSI like was done before 1972(Pres Richard M Nixon signed SSI into law then), some states I think could, others would just spend the money on tax cuts to balance a state budget. Ryan doesn't want facts about how people live, His mind is made up as to how much someone needs, but then He has never been forced to try and cope with a low income like I have, He's a rich person, as My mother said 'a know it all', He knows nothing of how someone who gets SSI lives, nor does He care to know.
That's tax cuts for corporations and for the rich, like was done in Kansas or some in Kansas call the state: 'Brownbeckistan'...
I was referring to SSA Disability and people's "right" to receive it as they have paid in. SSI is what it is and probably should just be labeled as welfare because it has no connection to insurance.
Both SSDI and SSI share the same Medical Requirements to qualify for benefits, regardless if one is insurance or not.
10:18 is incorrect. The medical requirements can differ...
actually, 10:18 is correct.There are special rules about continued eligibility, how much one can work and earn, etc. that differ between Title II and Title XVI, but as far as the decision of whether one is disabled or not, I can't think of any differences. Same Listings, same sequential evaluation, same grid rules, etc. etc.
Agree with 11:46 AM, November 24, 2014Justin
nice article...Obat Bius | Obat Bius Wanita | Jual Obat Biusthank you for the information regards success only father / mother
Post a Comment