The Coalition for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD), the major umbrella group of organizations that help the disabled, has issued three recent statements concerning Social Security. CCD opposes the plan to increase the frequency and alter the targeting of continuing disability reviews. CCD supports expanding Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam and Samoa. (By the way, does anyone know the status of litigation on this issue?) CCD supports ending the five month waiting period for Disability Insurance Benefits.
Is the CCD enough to influence the Trump administration to halt this plan?
ReplyDeleteNot sure I get the consternation about CDR's. IF the person is still disabled their benefits will continue. IF the person is no longer disabled their benefits will end. Not sure what is so unfair about that.
ReplyDeleteI'm hoping for a strong democratic base electing a democrat this november. I always believe republicans protect the rich and democrats protect the poor to lower middle class. And i see no evidence from the current administration to suggest otherwise.
ReplyDelete7:08 you forget or ignore the people whose benefits get terminated because SSA sends the CDR paperwork to an old address or loses it once someone sends it back (happens all the time), can't fill out the paperwork because of the very disability SSA gave them benefits for, or misapplies the medical improvement standard (a majority of medical improvement terminations that get appealed are reversed...but not without a lot of time/money/stress).
ReplyDelete7:08 go back and read about the Reagan years if you want to see potential problems, Also, it's a major diversion of resources for an agency that is starving right now. The staff in my local district office is down 50% in workforce since 2015. They literally can't handle the incoming claims. Sending anything to them is a nightmare. They are literally at code red. The great myth of rampant fraud and improvement in this is just that--a myth. Kinda like Ronald Reagan's welfare queens driving Cadillacs all over the ghetto. All you will accomplish is shifting social cost around. How many sick and disabled people do our shelters, emergency rooms and prisons really want. The town I live in is getting ready to get hit with a big lawsuit for letting a paraplegic die in their city jail due to medical neglect. America is turning into a horror show.
ReplyDeleteThey have no comment on the proposal to move ALJ hearings to non-independent, non-judicial AAJs? Congress (Ways and Means, Senator Lankford) has also been deathly silent on that NPRM, even though they were vocally opposed to it in 2016... that's a much more pernicious proposal, IMO, then assigning earlier CDR dates to new applicants who win at DDS.
ReplyDeleteHey everybody; Does anyone ever wonder why able body Republicans log onto this site!! They love to see disabled people suffer!! What kind of people do things like that. I would not be surprised if 7:08 is rich! And to top it all off If 7:08 ever had a stroke he would run to the SSDI OFFICE to get his deserved benefits. And it not turning into a Horror show it has always been one. This is the last gasp of the republican party as we know it, let them try to do their dirty deeds good people are watching and waiting for nov 3rd 2020. And 50 years from now a republican will have no chance of being elected because they are throwing all caution to the wind and their true colors have been seen. THEY ARE VERY VERY ULGY PEOPLE THE REPUBLICANS!!!
ReplyDeleteThis is 7:27 PM, January 19, 2020 speaking as a former claimant.
ReplyDeleteIf there is a " proposal to move ALJ hearings to so called non-independent non-judicial AAJs"then it cant be no worse than an alj with a "deny"agenda. Futher if SSA and the trump administration is seeking cost cutting measures then they should remove these $100,000+ salaried ALJs. Claimants would be better positioned with a face to face state level adjudicator who earns significantly less salary. It's a shame if ssa isn't considering administrative level salary reductions with all these disability proposals.
I don't think it's fair to consider the proposed new diary category to the Reagan Debacle. I work at a Midwest DDS. We currently have the ability to set shorter diaries in MIE cases anyways. As it stands, medical consultants often recommend 12 to 18 month diaries. This change might get some people a few more months without a review. Still, any review with the consideration of MI is very different than what they tried to do in the eighties.
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:55 "Also, it's a major diversion of resources for an agency that is starving right now."
ReplyDeleteVery good point. To get approved at the hearing level, there was already numerous resources used to determine if this claimant was disabled. Now, they want to pile on more money to make sure they are still disabled.
It's kind of like with illegal immigration. Feel like it is a problem worth addressing. But I could come up with 10 other issues to address before this.
Feel like the CDR process can be improved. But they are going to find what maybe 10 percent at best who are not disabled anymore. Most will stay on even with a perfect CDR system.
Feel like resources could be allocated elsewhere mainly the huge backlog.
The Reagan debacle asked us to be meaner than junk yard dogs. We actually had DQB returns telling us that we had set a cessation date too late and we should cease benefits back to a week after a ALJ decision. Mr Hall blamed Dorcas Hardy but I think she was the one in 1986 given the job of trying to clean up the mess he created. If we had gone with the original Pickle bill without Reagan trying to get credit for it we would not have the problems we have now. Currently the people I continue are younger and less disabled than those we deny. All the anguish over a new diary category is unnecessary...as is the proposed change. We are not even doing scheduled CDRs currently. Once we reach the Congrssionally required minimum number, all CDRs stop
ReplyDelete10:57, I remember the pre-SSI days when the states gave disability through the welfare department and we had hearing officers who were political appointees or team members of the department. It was not a good system and there was no system for a review of a bad decision. Exception was Evelyn Gandy made some good appointments. While I disagree with law judges sometimes, I appreciate the requirements and training that go into one. Then we have a spelled out review process. I will have to say that over the years, the state disability determination services has improved some. The law judges do diary cases they think might show MI. I am not for this stepping up of CDR's with no basis for why we should do them. Certain policy makers are trying to undermine the system and ultimately destroy it. Changes need to be made by people who believe in it.
ReplyDelete