From a
piece in U.S. News & World Report (they're still in business?) by Chad Stone:
The other major policy issue that derailed the emergency [unemployment] benefits
program was a proposal to curtail the joint receipt of unemployment
insurance and disability benefits. Reid included a proposal from
President Obama's budget to do that. Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, had his
own proposal, which he said would
merely "[end] double-dipping between unemployment and disability
benefits," and that it's "in the president's budget." As my CBPP [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities]
colleague Paul Van de Water points out,
however, the Portman proposal would go well beyond merely ending
"double-dipping" and is far different from the president's proposal.
To receive disability benefits,
an applicant must have a severe impairment that has prevented him or
her from engaging in "substantial gainful activity," defined as
earning more than $1,070 a month,
for at least five months. In other words, it allows a recipient to
work a modest amount, and thus be exposed to a job loss that would
legitimately qualify the recipient for unemployment insurance.
The Portman proposal would define receiving unemployment insurance
as a substantial gainful activity that, as Van de Water explains,
would not only prevent people from receiving both benefits
simultaneously – what Portman calls "double-dipping" – but would
also delay eligibility for both disability and Medicare for some people with serious disabilities and hasten benefit losses for others.
The Reid/Obama proposal is quite different from Portman's – and far
preferable. It would eliminate "double-dipping" by reducing disability
benefits dollar-for-dollar by the amount a person receives in
unemployment benefits. In effect, a person who was legitimately eligible
for both sets of benefits could receive the higher of the two – but
not both.
Missing from all the discussion so far on what I've read about any of these proposals is what's usually missing in proposals such as this:
ReplyDelete-- Administrative costs to SSA for either option, including systems reprogramming.
-- Administrative costs to each of the States and territories.
-- Impact on other mission activities at SSA.
-- Amount of savings to governments (both Federal and State)
Until those things are detailed, it's just red-meat stuff.
It's actually the government that is double-dipping if they change the current system. Workers pay social security tax and unemployment insurance tax in the same ways that premiums are paid on insurance policies. Each program has different requirements. If you meet both program requirements and paid your premiums (taxes) on both, you should get both benefits.
ReplyDeleteThe proposals to change the system basically rob the working taxpayer of the benefit of all the premiums (or taxes) they paid into one of those systems. It's wrong to fund such projects on the backs of vulnerable people with disabilities who need help instead of having the government pick their pockets.
How can you meet the Unemployment requirements if you are saying you are too dsabled to work? I thought it was univeral policy that an individual had to be actively seeking employment in order to receive unemployment benefits? You cant tell one part of the government you are looking and then another part that you cant work.
ReplyDelete4:52, It happens to many workers. I've had several clients who were fired from jobs because their performance was no longer satisfactory to their employer, so they got unemployment benefits while they were looking for another job. After several months to a year, they finally had to admit that they no longer had the ability to work, so they filed for SSDI, alleging disability as of the date when they were fired. There is a difference between SSI and SSDI. Under SSDI, one can receive benefits for up to one year prior to the date of application, if found disabled as of an earlier date. SSI pays only as of the date of application.
ReplyDelete@4:52 - Yes, you can, and there's a Chief ALJ memo on this. Applying for unemployment doesn't mean you could do any job, or that you have to be able to do all jobs. If you're 60, have performed heavy worked in a textile mill for the last 25 years, can't read, and have a stroke that prevents you from standing more than 2 hours a day so that you can't do the mill work, it would be perfectly consistent to both be looking for work you could do (maybe one of those famous security monitor jobs) and also meet a grid rule.
ReplyDeleteYou may have a problem with the grid rules, but there's no inconsistency there.
Also, unemployment is based in large part on a person's belief and assentation that they can work. People can be wrong - particularly those who have a traumatic injury but attempt to return to work. Obviously Social Security puts little weight into an applicant's naked statement that they cannot work - why place such extraordinary trust that the applicant is correct when he believes he can work, but so little when he claims he can't?
Justin
If not mistaken,unemployment requirements in my state considers a person's HEATLH when they seek employment as it relates to determining unemployment benefit eligibility. Also i'm CERTAIN some people are unsure of their ability to work hence or therefore apply for both benefits.
ReplyDeleteSigned,former claimant.
All these arguments, to me at least, fall flat once you take into account the sovereign State interests. Sure, these people paid in to both systems. Big whoop. Do States not have the right to set rules regarding their UIB? Would a rule disqualifying one who applied for/receives other benefits based upon a finding of disability/inability to work be that out of line?
ReplyDeleteGenerally, UIB is to replace wages for members of the workforce who lost their last jobs until they find another job. The system involves workers who were just in and expect to return to the workforce.
Disability benefits are paid to those who are unable to work (and some of their dependents) for 12 continuous months (or what is expected to be 12 months or result in death) due to the limitations imposed by their impairments. Disability may desire to return folks to work at some point, but the original finding of disability is premised upon a rather long-term (if not permanent) disability.
Both programs are lifelines, temporary (at least in theory) relief. Why should a State give an unemployed person with another source of income (premised on inability to work!) the same amount of money it gives to workers who have no other sources of income? Especially considering the State has little money to play with for this purpose in the first place. Why would you want to prevent the State from stopping those getting money from Uncle Sam for being disabled from getting money from it (the State) on a notion that he is part of the workforce and trying to return to full-time work?
There isn't infinite money--using the pro-disability lobby position here would potentially result in some increased costs for States, which in turn would likely change benefit rules. You may be all about letting this double-dipping continue, but what if your State lowered everyone's UIB amount to account for these costs? And then you lose your job. Are you cool with getting less UIB (while not collecting disability) so folks who either are not trying to return to work (GRIDers) or want to go back to part-time/otherwise not SGA work can get a UIB check along with their disability check? Really?
Let me bring out my old saw--I agree that government should provide more money to our citizens in need. However, I do not agree that this money should come by way of contorted/asinine applications of the disbility program. Same argument works here. Think about it this way:
Those with the pro-disability position here are very concerned about getting the needy more government money (I am not saying this concern is wrong). So great is this concern, these folks can--with straight faces--argue that allowing one program (premised on inability to work) and another program (premised on job loss and desired return to work) to disqualify each other's applicants/recipients makes no sense at all. They back up this claim by pointing to a few narrow exceptions (created by statutory curiosities and inconsitent with the general purposes of each program) like GRIDers and part-time worker DIB recipients, when in actuality the majority of those affected would be people whose dual application contradiction cannot be done away with so easily...
Why is it so hard for you bleeding hearters to acknowledge the fundamental difference in purpose between the programs and each program's logical desire to exclude participants in the other program?
@ 5:31
ReplyDeleteYou have some well-articulated points. However, I disagree with some of your reasoning. The programs only conflict in logic and purpose if all people could be accurately described in just two categories: Either you are a person with a disability who cannot work (SSD), or you are a person who can work (UI). In that fictional reality, yes, filing for both would be a clear conflict. Unfortunately that just does not reflect our reality.
Reality for many people with disabilities is a lot more messy. Symptoms and functional limitations wax and wane. Many people with disabilities may be quite capable of working for short periods, or for a few hours a day, or with certain accommodations, then not be able to work for extended periods. It's a rare disability case where a person's functioning is truly static.
Given that we know some people with disabilities can sometimes work, the purposes of both systems can be fulfilled without contradiction of logic or purpose.
5:31 PM, January 23, 2014
ReplyDeleteThank you for an explanation based upon common sense, a quality that is becoming rarer as time passes. There is only so much money to go around, and like it or not there are rules that determine how it is distributed.
On another note, I am reading this from California a bit after 5:00 AM (I am up early) and I see a large number of people reading this blog from Baltimore where it is after 8:00 am. My guess is that SSAers in HQ are spending their time on this blog rather than work. So, for them, it is pay for work when not working or when working. So, rules be damned! We can print enough money just because..... It will all work out in the end.
5:31 PM, January 23, 2014
ReplyDeleteThank you for an explanation based upon common sense, a quality that is becoming rarer as time passes. There is only so much money to go around, and like it or not there are rules that determine how it is distributed.
On another note, I am reading this from California a bit after 5:00 AM (I am up early) and I see a large number of people reading this blog from Baltimore where it is after 8:00 am. My guess is that SSAers in HQ are spending their time on this blog rather than work. So, for them, it is pay for work when not working or when working. So, rules be damned! We can print enough money just because..... It will all work out in the end.