From the Columbus Dispatch:
People with developmental or intellectual disabilities often face the prospect of losing a portion of their disability benefits if they marry. Sherri and Bill Adams finally were able to wed this month after a years-long fight, and they’re pushing for a law to help others. ...
But the so-called marriage penalty remains an obstacle for many couples in the United States. The new Mr. and Mrs. Adams, who took their fight to marry public with an online petition drive in 2016, vow to keep pushing for what they and others see as a matter of civil rights.
“Although we found a loophole in our situation, we will not give up,” Bill said. “There are a lot of couples who are still unable to get married, and that is still not right.”
The disability community’s long-running battle for change gained support last year with bipartisan legislation introduced in Congress to protect the federal benefits of people with intellectual or developmental disabilities who wish to marry. If enacted, the Marriage Access for People With Special Abilities Act would keep Supplemental Security Income benefits for an individual from being affected by marital status, and ensure access to Medicaid benefits as long as the person qualifies for SSI. ...
After Sherri went to the Social Security office last year for a new card, she and Bill discovered that they could avoid a devastating reduction in their modest benefits (together they receive less than $2,000 a month) if Sherri received a portion of her disability income as a survivor benefit based on her deceased father’s Social Security.
Not many couples have that option or even know it exists.
Licking County residents Jordan Boring, 36, and Sarah Burkett, 34, had a lovely wedding in December 2018, but the ceremony didn’t culminate in a legal union.
“It’s not fair,” said Margie Goodin, a former site coordinator at the disabilities-services program where the two met. “All they want is to be able to spend every day together.”
Jordan and Sarah, both of whom have Down syndrome, opted for a commitment ceremony to preserve crucial benefits. They also have not been able to get a place together because combining households could jeopardize their benefits, said Sarah’s mother, Patti Burkett. ...
There are actually two penalties. If both members of a married couple receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI), they receive a lower amount than if they are not married. It's worse for Disabled Adult Child (DAC) benefits on the account of a parent. DAC recipients become completely ineligible for benefits after marriage. However, if both are eligible for DAC they can keep their benefits after marriage. It appears that Mr. and Mrs. Adams are eligible for DAC and, therefore, able to keep their benefits.
14 comments:
I'm not sure the DAC termination rules make sense if you get married. Glad there is at least an exception to those rules. For SSI, it makes sense, total household countable income. I guess the Government just doesn't want you to be a CDB and marry a non-disabled individual.
There are many people with developmental or intellectual disabilities who receive SSA DIB based on their own records who many years after entitlement become eligible for higher benefits based upon the record of a retired or deceased parent. However, often because the parent retires or dies many years after the disabled child begins receiving DIB no one knows to file for those benefits and SSA does not check their records either. Technically, if the disabled child is receiving SSI along with DIB this issue should be resolved since under SSI a person is required to file for all other benefits for which they may be entitled. SSA should be doing this when they do an SSI redet.
@9:18
It's a weird penalty. It's because Congress thought the spouse can care for the disabled individual. I agree that makes sense in the SSI context, because SSI is strictly a matter of poverty (and disability obviously), and assuming the disabled individual and the spouse share finances it would make sense...now that I think about it, what if they don't? In any event, DAC is under Title II. Not sure why marriage should impact DAC, when it doesn't impact DIB.
9:49 AM What these rules (and those in welfare) do is discourage people from getting married who otherwise would marry. Of course, that merely encourages sex out of wedlock, which leads to children born out of wedlock. This is clearly, for so many reasons, not good for society. But, like so many other issues, Congress has no stomach to actually fix the problem. Some don't ever want to spend the money, others just don't want to change it... So many laws are passed by Congress that simply don't consider the real world implications of those laws. I think it is mostly because the members largely have little to know EXPERIENCE dealing with disability, poverty, etc. And, when they do, they often expect others to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps," because they were able to!!
9:49 DAC is a form of a child's benefit. Plain old child's entitlement ends on marriage. (https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0300203035) The idea is clearly that a NH who has children has responsibility for them, and hence their eligibility for benefits under that NH account exists. At marriage, that entitled child is no longer the responsibility of the NH, and has essentially severed the connection that made them eligible prior to marriage. Fair enough. The exception for DAC's keeping their entitlement if marrying someone on social security is pretty obscure and still is contrary to the general rule.
actually makes sense. SSI is meant to provide minimum essential funds to live, based on one person living alone. 2 people living together require less (per person) in rent, utilities, etc. Hence, they receive less money (per person).
Should it be this way? Maybe not, but the rule makes sense when you think about the purpose of SSI.
Congress passes numerous laws and have absolutely NO clue what the ramifications are as a result of those laws being passed and enacted. They need to visit FOs......and NOT just one time either. Laws passed actually can and often times do complicate the programs SSA administers, especially the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. Perhaps Congress should reach out to those people (employees especially) who actually have to implement the laws that Congress passes and see the absolute craziness of their actions. Since the SSI program has been around, attempts have been made to SIMPLIFY it. What a joke. So glad I have the number of years in I do under my belt. Couldn't imagine just coming into the agency as an employee.
@2:22
No. DAC is not SSI.
SSI is a flat rate, providing minimum essential funds based on one person living alone. DAC benefits are based on the DAC recipient's parent's earnings, not some set amount. Also, if a DAC recipient lives with someone else, that's fine and doesn't necessarily result in a reduction. If the DAC recipient gets married to a non-disabled individual, it doesn't result in a reduction, it results in termination and that termination is permanent.
Replying to 9.18. Actually if an individual who otherwise would be eligible for CDB benefits engages in SGA after age 22 but before being found eligible (because for example the parent is not dead, disabled or retired), he or she CAN NEVER GET DAC BENEFITS, NEVER, EVER REGARDLESS OF THE DISABILITY. A total oddity int the statute that Congress has refused to fix. Shameful.
Adult Child. If you can do the adult thing and get married, then get married and be an adult and you take care of yourself because you are no longer a child.
@8:28 Ridiculous. So getting married means the person can take care of themselves and is no longer disabled? So you dont know any disabled people who are married? Or is it that if you are already disabled you shouldnt be allowed to get married?
Heartless comment. And stupid.
@828PM People who get married shouldn't be dependent on their parents anymore. That's the reason DACs are terminated when they marry non-DACs. This only affects people disabled before age 22 who get married.
We had to cancel our wedding for fear of not having the finances to survive.
My S/O is on SSDI, I'm on SSI.
I'm devastated. Getting rid of this Penalty needs to apply to all disabled though, not just pick and choose who it doesn't affect.
I agree you can't survive on SSI as it is and modern day finances require 2 incomes just to survive and eat let alone have anything it's like they want the disabled to suffer for being disabled the whole system is heartless.
Post a Comment