The Washington Post has added one more piece to its series stigmatizing Social Security disability benefits recipients.
13 comments:
Anonymous
said...
What I find interesting is that the author, Terrance McCoy, doesn't put 1 + 1 together. The article exhibits a good understanding about the effect of work-related income on SSI and SSDI benefits, set out in a slick graphic. Then the article describes the income of disabled workers in an "underground" economy, implying that they are illegally ripping of the system by earning anything. However, the paltry sums obtained by the disabled people described in the story would have no effect whatsoever on an SSD benefit or SSI benefit, as a comparison with the graphic in the same article reveals. Examples in the story include people getting a few dollars for turning in aluminum cans and such to a recycler, or by selling some dug up roots to a company.
By missing and failing to point out the obvious conclusion, the author feeds the stigma. No doubt, this article will be cited as evidence of widespread fraud by those wanting to cut SSI and SSD benefit programs when in fact the very limited work and incomes described in the article would not effect benefits even if meticulously reported to and reviewed by SSA. The disability standard envisions whether you can hold down a full-time competitive job, and none of the people described in the story are doing that.
Anyone who begrudges these people this lifestyle, should try it themselves. This economy exists not because anyone wants to defraud SSA but because they need to survive.
I can hear the judgmental comments now, why do they need their pets, why do they need to drink beer, why do they need to smoke? I will tell you why, because when life is so stacked against you, you take comfort where you can.
Anyone who is not ashamed that his level of financial desperation exists in the United States of America, should be ashamed of themselves.
I guess I read a different article. To me, it seemed like a commentary on just how impossible it is to live on SSI benefits and how close to the edge those folks are living. If they were gathering roots or cans 40 hours a week, sure, but they're not.
I don't begrudge anyone for having a beer or two when able, but if she's worried about having another heart attack, digging for roots is far less dangerous than continuing to smoke.
The people of this article are not the folks committing fraud (ignoring any issues with transferring assets to allow the wife to qualify for SSI). Nothing in this story raised any flags for me, and I'm someone that has concerns about fraud, working under the table, etc.
First of all, if you cannot read the article it is because you have visited the Washington Post too many times and now they want money to view articles. Should this be the case and if you have Firefox as a browser then: - Go to TOOLS, OPTIONS, and then PRIVACY - Click on SHOW COOKIES and search for 'Washington post' - REMOVE all 'Washington post' cookies COOKIES= files downloaded on your computer from websites showing your visit history for that site. Washington Post will only let you visit so many times before asking for $. For IE users, the goal is the same, but I cannot provide all Internet Browser steps for this.
MY COMMENTS:
- Obviously ROOTS was a metaphor for something else; not sure what? - Is this article "stigmatizing" or simply conveying to the readers that SSDI amounts are insufficient to live on? - Assuming the former, I would have to say that there may have been a better approach to this that would not confuse the heck out of readers.
PS: I am NOT trying to cheat the Washington Post; just giving away free roots! AKM
What is really shameful is the lack of good work done by so many administrative law judges at Social Security. Maybe the Washington Post should do a story on that.
The fact that people with severe disabilities feel forced to get out and risk their lives, doing stuff like digging up roots against their doctor's advice, just to get a few extra dollars should be a wake-up call that the basic SSI benefit amount needs to be raised. It's no headline grabber when someone like that keels over and dies prematurely, but rest assured it happens.
If they didn’t have enough money for food, you might be on to something. But as long as they manage to get things like cigarettes, alcohol, and cable TV, you won’t get far pushing for an SSI increase.
Ah yes, because people with disabilities that prevent any significant work should know their proper place...living in abject poverty, staring at a wall and doing nothing until they die, preferably as soon as possible. How dare they take even the slightest pleasure in life, or fail to resist life long addictions?
Your sarcasm and strawman arguments about staring at a wall are misplaced. Your energy would be better spent trying to think how opponents of SSI increases think. Most people don’t want their tax dollars funding vices that only contribute further to disability. If you can figure out how to get people on board with indirectly financing drugs and alcohol for people who don’t work, then you’ll have cracked the code.
9:45, they didn't have enough money to live in a building considered to be an actual dwelling. They didn't have running water or indoor plumbing or construction that met the fire code or a place to cook proper meals.
Is that poor enough for you, or does the person literally have to starve to death?
Washington Post is regressing. No knowledge off the whole Social Security disability process. Article does have interesting personal stories. But facts are way off. Fake news.
13 comments:
What I find interesting is that the author, Terrance McCoy, doesn't put 1 + 1 together. The article exhibits a good understanding about the effect of work-related income on SSI and SSDI benefits, set out in a slick graphic. Then the article describes the income of disabled workers in an "underground" economy, implying that they are illegally ripping of the system by earning anything. However, the paltry sums obtained by the disabled people described in the story would have no effect whatsoever on an SSD benefit or SSI benefit, as a comparison with the graphic in the same article reveals. Examples in the story include people getting a few dollars for turning in aluminum cans and such to a recycler, or by selling some dug up roots to a company.
By missing and failing to point out the obvious conclusion, the author feeds the stigma. No doubt, this article will be cited as evidence of widespread fraud by those wanting to cut SSI and SSD benefit programs when in fact the very limited work and incomes described in the article would not effect benefits even if meticulously reported to and reviewed by SSA. The disability standard envisions whether you can hold down a full-time competitive job, and none of the people described in the story are doing that.
Anyone who begrudges these people this lifestyle, should try it themselves. This economy exists not because anyone wants to defraud SSA but because they need to survive.
I can hear the judgmental comments now, why do they need their pets, why do they need to drink beer, why do they need to smoke? I will tell you why, because when life is so stacked against you, you take comfort where you can.
Anyone who is not ashamed that his level of financial desperation exists in the United States of America, should be ashamed of themselves.
I guess I read a different article. To me, it seemed like a commentary on just how impossible it is to live on SSI benefits and how close to the edge those folks are living. If they were gathering roots or cans 40 hours a week, sure, but they're not.
I don't begrudge anyone for having a beer or two when able, but if she's worried about having another heart attack, digging for roots is far less dangerous than continuing to smoke.
The people of this article are not the folks committing fraud (ignoring any issues with transferring assets to allow the wife to qualify for SSI). Nothing in this story raised any flags for me, and I'm someone that has concerns about fraud, working under the table, etc.
First of all, if you cannot read the article it is because you have visited the Washington Post too many times and now they want money to view articles. Should this be the case and if you have Firefox as a browser then:
- Go to TOOLS, OPTIONS, and then PRIVACY
- Click on SHOW COOKIES and search for 'Washington post'
- REMOVE all 'Washington post' cookies
COOKIES= files downloaded on your computer from websites showing your visit history for that site.
Washington Post will only let you visit so many times before asking for $.
For IE users, the goal is the same, but I cannot provide all Internet Browser steps for this.
MY COMMENTS:
- Obviously ROOTS was a metaphor for something else; not sure what?
- Is this article "stigmatizing" or simply conveying to the readers that SSDI amounts are insufficient to live on?
- Assuming the former, I would have to say that there may have been a better approach to this that would not confuse the heck out of readers.
PS: I am NOT trying to cheat the Washington Post; just giving away free roots!
AKM
What is really shameful is the lack of good work done by so many administrative law judges at Social Security. Maybe the Washington Post should do a story on that.
The fact that people with severe disabilities feel forced to get out and risk their lives, doing stuff like digging up roots against their doctor's advice, just to get a few extra dollars should be a wake-up call that the basic SSI benefit amount needs to be raised. It's no headline grabber when someone like that keels over and dies prematurely, but rest assured it happens.
12:11,
If they didn’t have enough money for food, you might be on to something. But as long as they manage to get things like cigarettes, alcohol, and cable TV, you won’t get far pushing for an SSI increase.
@9:45
Ah yes, because people with disabilities that prevent any significant work should know their proper place...living in abject poverty, staring at a wall and doing nothing until they die, preferably as soon as possible. How dare they take even the slightest pleasure in life, or fail to resist life long addictions?
11:47,
Your sarcasm and strawman arguments about staring at a wall are misplaced. Your energy would be better spent trying to think how opponents of SSI increases think. Most people don’t want their tax dollars funding vices that only contribute further to disability. If you can figure out how to get people on board with indirectly financing drugs and alcohol for people who don’t work, then you’ll have cracked the code.
9:45, they didn't have enough money to live in a building considered to be an actual dwelling. They didn't have running water or indoor plumbing or construction that met the fire code or a place to cook proper meals.
Is that poor enough for you, or does the person literally have to starve to death?
Did they have all that before?
Washington Post is regressing. No knowledge off the whole Social Security disability process. Article does have interesting personal stories. But facts are way off. Fake news.
The article describes life for millions of people around the world, except they don't get money and food from their government.
Post a Comment