Dylan Scott, writes in the National Journal that the Social Security disability "reform" under consideration as the Republican "price" for extending the life of the Disability Trust Fund is some change in work incentives. The problem is that such a change probably won't save money and may end up costing money. Maybe more important, changes under consideration could work as a disincentive to return to work. Still, if work incentives are the only thing on the table, agreement should be possible. Are work incentives the only thing that Republicans intend to put on the table or merely the first thing? Will the controversial changes be revealed only after the 2016 election?
6 comments:
If this is their ransom, I'll take it. So few of my clients return to consistent work because they are (shockingly) actually disabled. But for those that do return to work, I've always thought that a cliff was a bad idea. A gradual reduction makes more sense and would probably pass muster. Maybe the republicans are noticing that it's a bad idea, especially in an election year, to run on cutting Social Security. As Trump climbs in the polls, he's the only major candidate to state that he won't cut Social Security. Like his other stances, the other candidates may follow.
For the last 26 years, I've seen that return to work schemes don't work. I agree with 9:09, but there is another big risk for any beneficiary who wants to TRY to return to work. If the work appears to initially be successful, and the beneficiary actually succeeds--for a time, SSA stops the benefits. Because of the stresses of the workplace (physical or mental), the worker's condition deteriorates, and they ATTEMPT to get back on Dib. From what I've observed, DDS and ALJs then take the attitude,"You worked for awhile, why can't you continue?" They then deny the new claim. Because of this happening, I've always advised my clients to NEVER attempt work--unless they are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that they will not have to go back into disability status.
5:23 should become informed about the Expedited Reinstatement process. These folks get payments for 6 months while the DDS determines if their current condition is the same as or similar to the initial allowance. If so, benefits continue. So, everyone should be encouraged to work when & if they can. Work can be therapeutic.
Threats to allow cuts to Social Security benefits while an election is approaching? I guess the Republicans believe they don't need votes from seniors, people with disabilities, and the substantial majority of Americans who favor the Social Security programs.
The linked NJ article, several of the above comments, and apparently "both sides" of the Congressional "debate," all ignore the whole logic and reason in law, and the political essence, for the very existence of SS Disability Insurance. To wit, its beneficiaries qualified for it, and through the CDR process remain on it, because they CAN'T WORK! PERIOD! (At least not, purely technically, above the inflation-adjusted SGA, but seriously, how many really do "game" that--not very darned many, and those who do deserve CDR scrutiny.) So this whole "debate" is 100% USDA Grade-A Prime BS. But, as noted above, if that's ALL it takes to get R's satisfied enough to deal halfway responsibly with this and move onto other pressing national problems, then so be it. But, Charles, I still like your elegant "administrative" solution; and, speaking as a D who voted for him in two generals, I wish we could get that seemingly-at-times-indolent git in the WH to focus on it.
Never trust a republitard goon.
A worldwide stockmarket crash and economic collaspe and a worldwide depression.
Maybe they will all get voted of office next year and nothing happens...
All of the great ideas of men and mice turned to crap.
Post a Comment