Jul 12, 2013

Unemployment And Social Security Disability; Also, What Are The Chances Of Chained CPI Being Adopted If The Chairman Of The House Ways And Means Committee Is Afraid To Even Use The Term "Chained CPI"?

     From a press release issued by the Chairman of the House Social Security Subcommittee:
Yesterday, Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security Chairman Sam Johnson (R-TX) introduced H.R. 1502, “The Social Security Disability Insurance and Unemployment Benefits Double Dip Elimination Act of 2013.”  The legislation would keep people from receiving both Social Security disability benefits and unemployment benefits at the same time.  A similar proposal was included in the President’s FY2014 budget with estimated savings of $1 billion over 10 years.
     In addition, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare is reporting that the House Social Security Subcommittee has introduced legislation to switch Social Security to the Chained CPI method of computing the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). There is a press release from the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee obliquely suggesting that this is under consideration. The word "bipartisan" is used over and over in this press release but the term "Chained CPI" is never mentioned.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good call on the "double dipping".

Anonymous said...

As an ALJ, I have no problems with this. Many of my colleagues expect a claimant to amend their onset date after their last unemplyment check, unless something like the grid applies (they're 50+ and they may be looking for sedentary work), I often find that the individual receiving unemployment is disabled, but they've got a mortgage/rent, utilities, medical bills, if uninsured, etc. and they need this to survive while they wait for their ALJ hearing, the Decision. I don't want to see the claimant double dip, but I also do want to see an individual with severe impairments qualify for medicare sooner, rather than later, if they've been disabled for more than, or close to, 29 months. This new law, if pased will make it easier for an ALJ find an earlier onset date with medicare kicking in sooner, than some have previously been comfortable with, due to the double dipping.

Anonymous said...

To Anon 5:31 and many commenters like him, thank you for providing an interesting perspective into these issues; I feel that the comments of late have been terrific and engaging, adding a new dimension to the stories and posts. This past week alone we've had ALJs and former Binder employees add their insight to these stories and they're much appreciated.

Anonymous said...

One concern to be considered is a claimant receiving unemployment for a long time, may have a strong claim, but diificulties obtaining representation, since there will be litttle to no backpay, similar to an overpayment claim, with the claimant currently in pay status.

Anonymous said...

So you're saying the advocates are only in it for the fee and only taking cases they can win AND get paid?

Anonymous said...

Pers already work on a contingency basis and this is another factor to take into consideration. Some will take these cases and consider them pro bono work, others will work out a fee arrangement, whicha an ALJ will approve and others won't take these cases. BTW, do you work for free?

Anonymous said...

I do, but I don't have the interest of the claimant in mind. I'm not a social worker, I'm a CR. it's not the same, I get paid no matter the outcome so I have reason to take sides. I apply the law as it written and allow the chips to fall where they may.

If I was paid by the # of claims I take, I'd take as many as I could. If I got paid by the number approved, I'd still take as many as I could because it would strengthen the possibility of a bigger pay day. That's more in line with the reps POV I would assume, which means people shouldn't have any problems finding a rep.

I would certainly help the backlog if SSA would not allow people without disabilities to file. I take quite a few from people with broken fingers or toes, pregnant women who list the pregnancy as the disability ( yes really ), people who can't read ( I think there are free programs to help with that ), torn ACL's, depression ( I'm on meds for that myself ), etc, etc. SSA allows ANYONE to file regardless of the facts, then they appeal and so forth and so on. These cases I'm sure add to the backlog.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:31

I must disagree. The way the so-called double-dip legislation is written will actually hurt people with disabilities who are working or who are considering work. If you work enough to financially qualify for UI (lets say in a trial work period or even during unsuccessful work attempts) and get laid off, you are "entitled" to UI (regardless of whether you collect) and your SSD benefits are cut off. It could punish beneficiaries for trying to work, even if they try and fail to keep a job.

Also, our taxpaying workforce pays separate insurance premiums out of their own pockets for both UI and SSD. If those workers meet the legal qualifications for UI, SSD, or both, they should get them. The only real "dipping" this legislation does is into the pocket of American workers, by making them pay premiums for two types of insurance and then denying them the right to fully collect if they meet the benefit criteria.

This legislation also puts SSA into the business of adjudicating entitlement to UI under 50 different state laws for all of those extra SSD claims (at least if they want to enforce it). You ALJs and the local office staff are already very busy. This legislation will just make it worse. If the politicians absolutely must pick the American worker's pocket on this issue, a straight dollar for dollar offset without a presumption of non-disability (e.g. if the UI totally offset the SSD benefit) would be the humane and efficient way to handle it.

Anonymous said...

"our taxpaying workforce pays separate insurance premiums out of their own pockets for both UI and SSD"

That's rich. Have you ever actually reviewed your statement for SSD payments? I have made approximately $750,000 in my career yet have only paid about $37k in SSD "insurance premiums". However, if I were to become disabled I would be eligible for monthly benefits totaling around $2,300....until I reach retirement, which is in 33 years based on my age.

If you really think that the small amount you pay into SSD is a true premium, you are delusional. SSD is supplemented by taxpayers and provides benefits that are far in excess what you can find on the open market.

Anonymous said...

Now stop the VA and SSDI double dipping.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:18

Private disability insurance premiums are typically about 3% of income. If you paid $37K in SSD contributions on lifetime income of $750K that is right about in line.

Even granting for arguments sake your point that taxpayers are adding to the pot because SSD is a richer benefit, you overlook the fact that any person who qualified for SSD worked at least five years (assuming age 31+) and maybe alot more, during which time they contributed substantial other tax revenue (income tax, etc.) to the public fisc. Thus, they also paid into any extra government funds from which any "supplemental" money came from to pay for their SSD.

This legislation reduces benefits to people in need and discourages people with disabilities from working. It's a bad idea.

Anonymous said...

Here is the text of the bill:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr1502ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr1502ih.pdf