Social Security recently denied a disability claim filed by a triple amputee. I'm not surprised. The problem is that the woman had been a stay at home mom for ten years prior to the illness that led to the amputations. Generally, you must have worked five of the last ten years before becoming disabled in order to draw Social Security disability benefits based upon your own earnings.
For decades some have called for some sort of caregiver credits as part of Social Security. This idea has never received serious attention in the past and probably won't in the future. However, should Hillary Clinton not just win but ride into office on a tsunami that brings Democrats into control of both houses of Congress, anything's possible. Clinto has called for unspecified improvments in Social Security. The Iowa Electronic Market gives Democrats an 18-25% chance of gaining control of both houses of Congress.
For decades some have called for some sort of caregiver credits as part of Social Security. This idea has never received serious attention in the past and probably won't in the future. However, should Hillary Clinton not just win but ride into office on a tsunami that brings Democrats into control of both houses of Congress, anything's possible. Clinto has called for unspecified improvments in Social Security. The Iowa Electronic Market gives Democrats an 18-25% chance of gaining control of both houses of Congress.
18 comments:
It's looking less likely in the Senate
Was she financially eligible for SSI? If not, I don't understand why this is a story. There's something highly counterintuitive about giving people work credits for doing two things that are usually conscious choices: having children and then choosing to stay home and raise those children, which is a luxury for many.
Now, work credits are based on payment of taxes. If you give stay-at-home parents credit for phantom sacrificed earnings, how do you value those? And where does the money come from? Would we claw back those credits later, if the parent isn't disabled but never goes back to work after the children come of age?
The country is bankrupt; another democrat in office for 8 years? We will be 40-60 trillion in debt. There will be no social security anymore. Trump is the only chance I see of not having my benefits cut. I am on SSDI.
It's the Republicans who want to cut Social Security, not the Democrats. Also, a lot of the debt is due to Republicans cutting taxes, which they are promising to do again (primarily for the wealthy, as always). But the country is not bankrupt, and cannot be, since it controls its own currency. However, too large a national debt can cause problems - high interest rates or high inflation. Both of these are very low, indicating that debt is not a problem. In fact, interest payments on the debt are 0.8% of GDP, much lower than they were in the 1990s (at some times over 3%).
This is a poignant case, but it's not entirely clear that childcare credit would have altered the decision. Such proposals typically cap the number of years for which credit can be granted at up to five. Some proposals allow childcare years to be dropped from the computation of average earnings (or credited at some fixed amount, like half the average wage) when calculating benefits. (Notice that DI already allows up to three such "childcare dropout" years when calculating benefits, but not insured status.)
Even five years of credit for child care would have put this applicant right on the borderline of DI eligibility, which requires work in five out of the last ten years.
Both the disability and retirement programs are fundamentally designed to replace lost earnings, and giving credit for years in which there were no earnings is a departure.
Too many resources for ssi, not insured for dib. Unfortunately the system doesn't have anything for people like her
The US has never had a system that covers everyone and unless we become more european in outlook politically, we won't ever have such a system. The system we have has "supports" for things related to employment (such as workers comp, unemployment and retirement and disability and survivor benefits based on one's work and earnings (see a pattern here)) and for the destitute (not that welfare allows a lavish lifestyle) and for those in dire straits not due to themselves (such as infants and children). As living breathing adult human beings and citizens of the US, you have no worth in the eyes of the law unless you are earning a wage. And the support system reflects that view.
The attorney who helped her apply for disability said that he did not know she would be denied? The story says he has helped many people get disability. How is it that he has no clue about insured status? He should have explained it to his client, even if the client insisted on filing anyway.
What about SSI OR benefits form her higher paid parent SS'S Retirement account? Is either possible.
The family lives in a large house in an nice suburb, and the husband is an executive. What happened to this woman is awful, but if the goal of the article is to inspire outrage at the disability system, there are much better examples.
The blog headline is "Triple Amputee Denied Social Security Disability And I'm Not Surprised." It should be "Disabled Upper-Middle Class Suburban Mother of Five and Wife of Executive Didn't Pay Into Disability Program And Therefore Didn't Qualify For Benefits, And That's O.K."
7:35 has it. In a very black and white manner, you get covered for disability (or retirement or survivors) by paying the tax (i.e., premiums). Her policy lapsed because she stopped paying the premiums/tax. I don't pay my insurance, really can't complain when they deny the claim. Regardless of my situation, her policy lapsed about 4 to 5 years after she stopped working and lost 20/40. Had this occurred in that time, likely would have a different outcome.
There are much sadder cases like the married couple where one gets $1100 in SSDI and the spouse is not insured and not eligible for SSI because of it. Of course, any SSI couple is sad (couples rate should be done away with), but I suppose if neither of them were insured they tend to be just happy to be able to survive. Many changes are overdue for SSI to make it a little more humane. Especially the $65 work exclusion (which has remained the same since the 70's). Basically ensures that hardly any SSI recipient works and the ones who do do not report it.
5:42 SSI work - no the $65 earned income exclusion means is that as society moves away from pittance piece work and sub-dollar wage rates for a more reasonable wage rate for folks like the IDD community and others who are employed is that when they take jobs in the real world is that many more of them will find larger and larger OPs due to those now higher wages.
she was not "denied." The title should be, triple amputee not eligible for benefits because her insurance lapsed.
Yes, SS benefits (Title II) are an earned insurance benefit.
Kind of a bait and switch story. Or a click bait story.
The bait is she was denied. But really she was probably deemed disabled. Any ALJ who did not should be checked. She was denied SSI because her husband probably made too much money. Do not exactly see the story here.
@3:16 pm. My thoughts exactly. What attorney who does Social Security Disability doesn't understand what it takes to be insured? I feel for the family, but SSDI is suppose to provide for lost earnings. This lady did not pay in for 10 years. End of story.
The husband, an Executive, failed to provide his wife with long term disability insurance. Nothing wrong here, nothing to see, just a dumb butt Executive.....
Sounds like advanced diabetes mellitus, probable eye problems, too.
Clear DIB coverage or SSI resources denial.
Post a Comment