The Republican Study Committee, which includes most Republican in the House of Representatives, has issued a report calling for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to end, with block grants to the states being substituted -- and the block grants would be at the 2007 spending level. The report also calls for a 25.6% reduction in discretionary spending, allowing Medicare beneficiaries to opt out, raising the Medicare age to 67, ending Medicaid and substituting block grants to the states, and raising full retirement age for Social Security to 70, with everyone who is currently under 60 being affected.
If this is the Republican platform for 2012, voters will definitely have a choice.
If this is the Republican platform for 2012, voters will definitely have a choice.
11 comments:
Sensible ideas are probably the last things you'd expect from Republicans, but ending SSI is one of them
I disagree, Mr. Herling. While the Repubs are certainly crazy with insanity, ending the SSI program is not sensible. I agree that it is rife with abuse and fraud, but for those who need it SSI is a critical safety net that means the difference between a meager existence and an uncertain future on the streets. We could do away with SSI for anyone under 18 and we could probably do a better job enforcing or explaining the non-medical rules, but for millions of people, eliminating SSI entirely is definitely NOT a sensible idea.
I agree with ANON 9:39, while SSI program is prone to fraud, it is also a means of life for many people (unfortunately). I also agree that eliminating SSI for those 18 would be great, especially since most people under 18 claim to need SSI solenly for medicaid purposes, so if that is the case, then grant medical assistance but do away with the money part. Many youngsters don't even know that they are getting SSI to begin with, and many of them wish to file once they turn 18not even knowing the disabilities that allowed to file to begin with. They just became accustomed to a system that sustained them, and wish to maintain themselves on that system instead of looking for means of life such as working.
SSI for kids is a vital program that helps low income families deal with the economic challenges of raising a child with serious disabilities. Allegation of fraud are often made but never proven,mostly by people that observe that the children "don't look disabled." Lots of children don't know the ins and outs of their family's finances. Ending the program has been high on some politicians lists ever since the Contract with America days. It was wrong then and is wrong today.
re: 1:09pm
That is your opinion, and as far as I am concerned it is total BS. SSI for kids is a useless program that benefits disabled children very little. Usually, the parents make little effort to get medical treatment for the children that would make a difference (absent CDR time, when they fall over themselves trying to get appointments), and the children see little benefit from the money (i.e. goes to mom and dad's cell phone bills, car payments, etc). Most of the parents of these children make few if any attempts to work -- their main focus in life seems to revolve around spending years and years and years filing endless series of claims and appeals and new claims followed by more appeals attempting to get as many of their children approved for SSI benefits as possible so they don't have to work. They basically live off these children like a pimp lives off prostitutes, and then abandon them when they turn age 18 and are of no further use to the parents (and by which time they are pretty much a lost cause).
In our area, we have multiple families with parents have between 7 and 10 kids getting SSI - in case you can't add, that is between $56,000 and $81,000 per year in tax free income. One of these families has 4th generation SSI recipients, where the parents and all of their brothers and sisters, their children, and their own parents are also getting SSI.
So far as I am concerned, the best thing that could be done for these children would be to end the cash benefits and convert the program to a good health insurance-only program with higher income limits that actually pays for quality medical treatment for these children. Take the cash out of the system, and you eliminate the dreck who sponge off the system and enable help to those who actually need the help.
I generally don't have a problem with the adult (and especially the aged entitlements) of SSI. However, as you can tell, I have major problems with the children's portion as it does nothing but ruin the lives of a lot of innocent kids.
I totally agree with getting rid of cash SSI benefits for children for all the reasons listed by previous posters. But I also recall Zebley and PL 104 from 1996 when the disability standard changed. This SSI system for children is so strongly entrenched, even a not-so-simple act of Congress may not force it loose. But, the mood of the country is changing. With the aftermath of the recession, fewer people will have their heartstrings tugged by the photo of the atypical SSI child which the media will parade around as the one being hurt by stopping SSI to children.
It is hard to believe the number of comments here from people who are ignorant about the important role that SSI plays in the little bit of a safety net that we have in the US. So what if you know someone with lots of children who don't appear to be disabled. All the children you know should be removed from SSI, and fraud should be eliminated, but don't punish the impoverished single mother of a child with severe autism or spina bifida who has to have money to provide care for the child while she tries to work.
Throwing out the entire SSI program because of your suspicions of abuse is like eliminating the NFL because there are so many offsides penalties.
Disabled kids need medical help, not cash payments. They should get Medicaid. I can go with keeping SSI for disabled adults, but for kids, no way. I don't think fraud is a huge issue, but if you want to help kids, turn SSI into a voucher program for them. What Medicaid won't cover, the voucher could handle the rest of the medical ONLY expenses.
For once I think the Repubs are mostly right about this but not for the reasons that some people will assume. I worked at SSA for 37 years—urban, rural, large, small and mid-sized offices.
Check the staffing at ANY SSA office in the country—half that staff is dedicated to handling the SSI workload. The SSI population is about 8,000,000; the Title 2 population is about 54,000,000. Title 2 beneficiaries outnumber SSI beneficiaries by a ratio of 6.8 to 1 yet half the field office staff is dedicated to the SSI population. Something is wrong with a program that serves relatively few but requires so much staff.
If SSI gradually returned to state control that would reduce the need for additional staff at SSA offices. Normal attrition over a period of years would reduce the agency’s size and its need for a presence in so many field offices. A smaller agency can survive on a smaller budget.
Losing SSI also would allow the agency to return to its original focus—benefits for working Americans. SSI is, after all, a welfare program.
Block grants might not be the best method for states to implement the SSI program but the idea certainly deserves a serious discussion. Of course the states might not want SSI back, given SSA’s bumbling attempts to administer the program for almost 40 years.
For once I think the Repubs are mostly right about this but not for the reasons that some people will assume. I worked at SSA for 37 years—urban, rural, large, small and mid-sized offices.
Check the staffing at ANY SSA office in the country—half that staff is dedicated to handling the SSI workload. The SSI population is about 8,000,000; the Title 2 population is about 54,000,000. Title 2 beneficiaries outnumber SSI beneficiaries by a ratio of 6.8 to 1 yet half the field office staff is dedicated to the SSI population. Something is wrong with a program that serves relatively few but requires so much staff.
If SSI gradually returned to state control that would reduce the need for additional staff at SSA offices. Normal attrition over a period of years would reduce the agency’s size and its need for a presence in so many field offices. A smaller agency can survive on a smaller budget.
Losing SSI also would allow the agency to return to its original focus—benefits for working Americans. SSI is, after all, a welfare program.
Block grants might not be the best method for states to implement the SSI program but the idea certainly deserves a serious discussion. Of course the states might not want SSI back, given SSA’s bumbling attempts to administer the program for almost 40 years.
All the Anons,
It seems to me that the healthcare provider industry standard of routinely padding costs, expenses, and performing unecessary tests, along with defensive medical decisions that result in redundant, excessive testing and proceedures, results in an accepted culture of fraud to service the medical needs of the smuggly comfortable few here. This practice of billing a lot in order to get a portion paid far exceeds the amount of stealing alleged here in the SSI program.
If you know of abuse, report it; everybody benefits. But you guys, make sure your doctor is playing by the rules before you pick on poor folks.
Post a Comment