From Joe Biden's plan for people with disabilities:
PROTECT AND STRENGTHEN ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
The Trump Administration has systematically attacked the Social Security disability programs—from proposing monitoring people with disabilities through social media in order to cancel their benefits, including their health care, to tightening eligibility through a proposal to redefine the number of hours in a work week so some applicants do not receive benefits. The National Council on Disability found that “people with disabilities live in poverty at more than twice the rate of people without disabilities.” To protect the economic security of people with disabilities and increase employment opportunities, Biden will take a holistic approach to Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), Medicaid, and other programs to support people with disabilities. He will:
- Increase the benefit level for people receiving SSI. Biden will set a federal benefit rate of at least 100% of the poverty level.
- Eliminate the five-month waiting period for SSDI and two-year waiting period for Medicare. Biden will work to pass legislation to ensure working people who develop a condition or disability are able to get their Social Security support as well as their Medicare benefits as soon as they qualify.
- Eliminate the “benefit cliff” for SSDI. Earnings limits under SSDI can discourage people with disabilities from engaging in employment or internship opportunities when they depend on SSDI funds. Biden will increase this limit and phase out this benefit gradually so people with disabilities don’t have to choose between employment and health care.
- Reform the SSI program so that it doesn’t limit beneficiaries’ freedom to marry, save, or live where they choose. Biden will work with Congress and the disability community to eliminate the SSI marriage penalty and “in-kind support and maintenance” provision and raise the asset limits associated with SSI that have not been increased since 1984.
- Expand access to tax-advantaged savings accounts, ABLE accounts, which provide people with disabilities a way to pay for “qualified disability-related expenses, such as education, housing and transportation.” Biden will work to pass the ABLE Age Adjustment Act, which will make ABLE accounts available to 6 million additional adults with disabilities, including 1 million veterans.
- Reverse damage done to Social Security rules by the Trump Administration. President Trump announced that he wants to change the Social Security rules for people who get disability benefits, including SSI and SSDI. His proposed change would require many to re-verify their disability every two years, a tough enough process to get through once, targeting adults with disabilities who are close to retirement, children with disabilities, and people with certain medical conditions including cancer and behavioral disorders. If approved by the Trump Administration, Biden will rescind this harmful proposal.
- Strengthen the Social Security Administration. Ensuring that Social Security benefits are easy to access and that field offices and teleservice centers are fully funded is key to our bedrock commitment to seniors and people with disabilities. Cutting Social Security services will only hurt the most vulnerable in our communities. Biden will provide sufficient resources for staffing needs to meet the needs of beneficiaries today and into the future.
These are small things that are mentioned. Why doesn't he increase benefits?
ReplyDeleteThat's what I'm wondering. I'm still undecided. I'm a Independent. I'm on disability there is no way a person could live on $1068 a mo. My rent alone is 600 a mo it includes my water bill. I live in an area that is low cost of living.
DeleteI got on disability because I can't work due to stress and anxiety so going back to work isn't an option for a lot of people on disability. Besides I've read they lower your disability. I got my disability in about a year so I was very lucky I've heard and know people who have waited about five years and you can't work so NO INCOME for five or six years. Mine was a year, we still went in the hole on our bills. But there is no way I could pay all my bills without my fiance paycheck. If something happened to him or God forbid we broke up. I can't afford to live on what I make I worry about it a lot. Any way I don't know why Biden is raising everything else to a "living wage" or above the poverty level but not the SSDI. It very frustrating. He just hasn't earned my vote. Under Obama my ACA premium was $467/mo as my state voted not to extend medicaid/medicare for all under Trump it went to $0 last year and $22 this year which has been affordable. Under Obama I had NO Obamacare. Kind of ironic I say. But why raise SSI and min wage and not SSDI? Just the amounts people on SSDI can work and make on SSDI when most people get on SSDI bc they can't work.
Most Attorneys wouldn't even talk to me if I was still working. My fiance at the time only made $12/hr and he pays a lot $600/mo in child support. Luckily most of the year I was waiting on SSDI my Dad was alive and able to help w most bills. We also downsized to 1 bedrm apt and car which is paid off. Which we haven't been able to get out of bc my disability is so low. By the time I pay rent over half my check is gone it's pathetic I've been thinking of going back to work but I usually get fired which is the visicious cycle why I got on disability. It's why I got disability so quickly bc I had so many hospitilazitions. My meds make me so drowsy it hard to even get up for work. But I could try it. It just not worth it if their going to lower my disability though.
I'm disabled from brain cancer treatment that had left me blind and in a wheelchair at age 17, I live in California and only collect around 1k a month. Disabled people are treated like human waste! It's really time for a change!
Delete
ReplyDeleteEliminating the five month waiting period for DIB would cost taxpayers millions of dollars and quickly deplete the trust fund. Every SSA DIB claimant would get an extra 5 months of benefits.
@8:52 AM
ReplyDeleteDid you even read the post? That's literally the very first bullet point!
I just wonder how we can afford all of this. I know, we're the wealthiest nation in the history of this entire planet, and other nations with far lower GDPs are able to provide far greater benefits for their populations. But... something something... job creators....
Eliminating the waiting periods is a good idea. Does eliminating the marriage penalty and in kind support and maintenance mean wives of millionaires can get SSI?? The two year review thing is meaningless from all sides
ReplyDeleteHow many millionaires want to marry and support a disabled person that only has 1k a month?
DeleteI am copying and sending this summary to every current and recent past client, encouraging voter registration and absolute support for Biden and every other candidate of the Democrat Party standing for election this November.
ReplyDeleteEveryone is so worried about how such long overdue changes will be paid for. Easy, peasy. Rip off the bandaid and raise the cap to a earned income minimum of $250k a year. After that, tax all yearly capital gains over 100k with a carve out for home sale capital gains of 500k.
ReplyDeleteHow do you do this without increasing taxes?
ReplyDelete@9:18
ReplyDeleteIn regard to DIB, given retroactivity is limited to 12 months pre-application, assuming the claimant's established onset date is at least 17 months pre-application (12 + 5 = 17), it would have no impact on the solvency of the trust funds. Given the general reluctance of the average American worker to admit they are disabled, I suspect any impact this change as to solvency of the trust funds would be minimal.
Some of the ideas have merit and would help those in need but I don't think many of the changes he's wanting will realistically be acheived. Removing the waiting periods would be a huge benefit to those filing or receiving benefits but would be atronimically expensive.
ReplyDeleteRaising SSI to the federal poverty level would put the monthly benefit around $1063/mo which is an enormous increase and would m
likely swell the welfare diasability rolls.
In addition, as 9:28 am posted...where will all this money needed to make these changes come from?
@10:14 AM
ReplyDelete"How do you do this without increasing taxes?"
You probably can't. You can, however, have the good sense to elect politicians willing to impose higher taxes the extremely wealthy, who frankly use and benefit more from government spending (including spending on social welfare programs) than the average citizen anyway.
9:28 here. Since it apparently wasn't obvious enough to some: My comment was more tongue-in-cheek than serious. I'm not actually so ignorant of economic principles as to believe that lowering tax rates on the super-wealthy in any way spurs increased job creation. Interesting to see that merely throwing the word "job creators" into a mix of utter nonsense is apparently persuasive to so many people, though.
ReplyDelete10:21
ReplyDeleteEliminating the 5 month waiting period would have a huge impact on the solvency of the trust funds. The great majority of SSA dib claimants are not late filers and they begin receiving benefits 5 months after their onset.
If a claimant's onset is 06/02/20 and they timely filed an application, their month of entitlement will be 12/2020 due to the five month waiting period.
Without the waiting period their month of entitlement is 07/2020. Five extra months of benefits for all these claimants, it is totally unaffordable in my view.
@1:46
ReplyDelete10:21 here. I believe you are wrong as to someone who filed on 6/2/20 being entitled 12/2020. Isn't it 5 full months, meaning 1/2021 would be their first month of entitlement? Regardless, you believe a great majority of DIB claimants are not "late filers." To be honest, I disagreed with that position at first. Upon further research, 74.29% of claims are filed within 17 months of AOD, meaning yes the majority of DIB claimants are not filing late enough to make the 5 months waiting period irrelevant.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v79n3/v79n3p47-text.html#chart1
As to whether this would create a significant problem as to the solvency of the trust funds, unlikely. The average benefit is $1,234. Multiply that by 5, that is $6,170 more in benefits per awarded claim. The most recent year in which the newly awarded claims data is published is 2017, which had 557,804. Multiply that by $6,170, that's a cost of $3,441,650,680 per year. That sounds like a lot, but the outflow in 2019 was 1.003 trillion. So it would be a .343% increase in outflow. That seems sustainable, or at least any solvency issues wouldn't be contingent on this change.
@2:18 PM
ReplyDelete"it is totally unaffordable in my view."
Then you either lack imagination or lack an understanding of the math involved. We could've doubled the amount of monthly payments to all Title II and Title XVI recipients in 2018 for less than the amount our government decided to throw away each year on Congress's 2017 "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act," which didn't seem to produce any new jobs, and which our economy was and can do just fine without.
But I guess aim for the floor and you'll at least never be disappointed.
All the back and forth is irrelevant. When was the last time significant changes to the Social Security Act when passed that made atngible difference in the average claimant's ability to mee their daily needs?
ReplyDeleteIt won't happen after the next election either. Politicians on both sides are more interested in lining their pockets and the pockets of their friends or keeping the poor so destitute, they need the government for everything in their life.
ReplyDelete2:18 I've been counting out 5 month waiting periods for many years as part of my Claims Specialist job. (I've found 5 fingers come in quite handy for my counting waiting periods and avoiding mistakes) .
If someone became disabled 06/02/20 their waiting period runs 07/20 through 11/20 and their first month of entitlement is 12/2020. Yes it's five full months that is why 06/20 isn't counted as part of the waiting period (It would be counted only if the onset was 06/01/20)
This is all moot unless Biden is elected and the Democrats control CONGRESS .
ReplyDeleteAs someone who has constantly had income beyond the cap for FICA contributions for 25 years I am more than willing to get rid of the cap completely if it would get rid of the wait periods for SSDI and Medicare.
ReplyDelete9:56 the marriage penalty could easily be altered so that it tapers out. Two individuals on SSI should get their full benefit. Likewise for a SSI individual who is marrying someone who has income of 20,000 a year should get their full benefit. As the income of the spouse goes up, the SSI would go down.
And for goodness sake, the amount of assets a person can have and get SSI has to be changed! It should be automatically adjusted with the rate of inflation.
I'm always sure that when proposals to improve SSI and SSDI are proposed that the first thing some people will bring up is how to pay for it. When anyone with half a brain knows that there are a lot of ways to pay for things, but (no) surprise, that means maybe spending less someplace, maybe raising taxes someplace and no, neither of these is off limits. In a country where some people froth at the mouth on the idea pf a poor person getting a stimulus check yet who yawn at corporations double dipping, firing workers during pandemic and keeping most if not all of their tax windfall as profit. Priorities surface in these discussions, and using "fiscal responsibility" as a cudgel for not improving the social safety net while ignoring plenty of places where the money is wasted - like I said, it shows where one's priorities lie.
ReplyDeleteSeriously?
ReplyDeleteWhat are the chances Congress will vote for a tax increase that will affect themselves and their best donors so the average guy could have a bit more?
@9:56, the marriage penalty refers to the reduction in benefits that two SSI recipients suffer when they get married to each other. Two SSI Recipients that decide to get married end up with a total of about 25% less combined benefits after getting married than they were receiving before they got married.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe five month waiting period for SSA DIB has existed for many decades. It discourages people from applying who have short term disabilities and helps to protect the trust funds. We don't want SSA to be swamped with new claims, and once someone is on disability that is a disincentive for returning to work.
Instead of looking to spend more money, Biden should be looking for ways to save. Many millions of dollars could be saved if SSA simply said that life expectancy clauses will no longer be recognized for workers' compensation lump sum settlements. This clause is written into the settlements for the purpose of avoiding offset of SSA dib benefits.it defeats the intention of Congress which was to prevent disabled workers from receiving a windfall of both SSA DIB and WC.
10:03 - If Biden wins and the Dems take the Senate, I'd say the chances are practically 100%.
ReplyDelete"If elected, I will do good things and not do bad things."
ReplyDeleteThe Democrats couldn't get this stuff passed with a majority in both houses of Congress, due to their traditional spinelessness.
2:59: windfall? Tell that to the factory worker who herniates a disc on the job, has surgery, and is no longer able to work.
ReplyDelete@2:59
ReplyDeleteHow many claimants do you think are aware of the 5-month non-payment period versus the 12-month minimum duration requirement? I expect the latter fact is emphasized far more often, and does a great deal more to discourage claimants who have short-term disabilities from applying. Although, I suspect many claimants are not medical experts, capable of determining prospectively how long their impairments will last, either 5 or 12 months, and both facts don't generally come into the equation when a claimant decides to file their claim.
As to whether this would save money, possibly. I would expect the additional payment of benefits, in addition to the immediate access to medicare, would allow for quicker medical treatment, which could actually support an uptick in medical recovery of the recipient, a rare feat as objective data published by SSA has shown. I'm not a medical expert, but early treatment for some conditions (stroke, traumatic physical injury, etc.) resolve better with early treatment. This in turn would actually result in an uptick in termination of benefits due to medical improvement. Not saying that would happen often, but I can't imagine it would happen less often if there was earlier access to treatment.
As to whether worker's compensation life expectancy clauses should be respected, that's extremely complicated. Many lump sum settlement agreements involving life expectancy clauses do in fact still get setoff while others don't. It depends on the wording. I wouldn't mind if SSA (and probably Congress) took a look at the issue, since I agree this is contrary to the intent of the Act.
@919, Ah that old chestnut. The fact of the matter is that Dems held both chambers under President Obama for a short period of time. Theoretically, they should have been able to pass a liberal agenda. However, the blue dog Democrats actually stymied their own party because they were Dixie Democrats at heart and are against social supports as a matter of course. Hopefully this time will be different. It is not that Democrats are spineless, it is that they want to do things the right way for the most part unlike McConnell who plays dirty with conviction that it is the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteCan any of these possible changes be done through executive order?
ReplyDeleteanon@12:34pm,
ReplyDeleteNo. Almost all would require legislative changes. Even fully funding the agency will require Congress to go along as they control the purse strings.
Plus, executive orders are generally a bad way to do things - they are a band-aid that can be pulled at the stroke of a pen by the next President. You can bet that if Biden wins, all of the great orange turd's executive actions will be undone as quickly as they can draft an executive order doing away with them.
You wrote"for people who get disability benefits, including SSI and SSDI. His proposed change would require many to re-verify their disability every two years, a tough enough process to get through once, targeting adults with disabilities who are close to retirement, children with disabilities, and people with certain medical conditions including cancer and behavioral disorders. If approved by the Trump Administration, Biden will rescind this harmful proposal."
ReplyDeleteI have been on SSDI for many many years and every 3 years they send me a form, I fill it out and they write me back that there is no need to review me. It is as simple as that, and so would every 2 years make any difference? The answer is no!
Some of these other points are lame as well. A tax-advantage savings account? I make so little I am tax exempt.
I want to see a 20 % increase in benefits across the board, and a guaranteed COLA every year of at least 3%. that would make me happy, and nothing short of that!
Reading the comments I'm perplexed. No one ever questions how we can afford a new aircraft carrier or advanced fighter program but if the money is targeted at the poor it's always "MY GOD HOW CAN WE AFFORD IT!"
ReplyDelete@821 Not likely to have many question paying for an aircraft carried on a blog dedicated to Social Security. Try one that has to do with defense spending and you may see some questions about it.
ReplyDeleteSocial Security benefits are supposed to be paid from a trust fund which has limited, though large, resources. Raising benefits, say across the board, for millions of current and future beneficiaries does need to be paid for by some manner that is not currently accounted for.
@10:14
ReplyDeleteIncrease those who can be taxed.
I doubt whether Biden could get all these changes through at once, but at least we'd be going in a positive direction and not blaming disability claimants for our economic woes. It's also nice to have policy not dictated by Rush Limbaugh.
ReplyDelete