From the New York Times:
Lori Long and Mark Contreras met on Match.com in November 2015. ...
Within weeks of [their first] date, both knew they had found their forever partner. But three months after Mr. Contreras proposed in his Salinas, Calif., home in December 2016 and Ms. Long said an ecstatic “yes,” Ms. Long sat him down for a talk. “I told him, ‘Mark, we’re not going to be able to pursue a life together,’” she said.
She still wanted to marry him, but not if it meant giving up the health care benefits that she relies on to live.
Ms. Long is caught in a governmental quagmire. She was diagnosed at 15 with ankylosing spondylitis, a condition that causes bone fractures and sometimes requires her to use a wheelchair. ...
Because she qualifies for Social Security benefits through a program for adults whose medical disability started before age 22, she is considered a “disabled adult child.” The designation, known as D.A.C., applies to 1.1 million Americans, according to the Social Security Administration website.
Those who qualify generally cannot continue to receive benefits if they marry someone who is not disabled or retired. ...
Ms. Long is among a nationwide network of people pushing for change in Social Security laws as they pertain to marriage. They include not just D.A.C. recipients like her, but also a larger group of disabled Americans — roughly four million — who get S.S.I., or Supplemental Security Income. ...
34 comments:
DAC benefits are paid because a young person is disabled and is considered dependent on a parent. The law ends those benefits when one marries, for the most part, because now the DAC is no longer considered dependent on the parent. Once they are married, they are dependent on their spouse, and themselves, for income and health insurance, much like everyone else.
The policy is unconstitutional and should be taken to the courts since the rule violates the constitution by forbidding a class of citizens from having equal rights.
Spot on!
Who'd want to marry a disabled person? *BIGGEST eye-roll in the United States at this moment*. It's truly ridiculous and I've dealt with it first hand. I've seen the "unworthy" looks on many faces when they find this out, whether it be DAC or SSI. Unworthy of marriage... it's a sad, sad situation when someone feels that way.
Sad indeed. I love you but I won’t marry you because I will lose my benefits.
Who said anyone was “unworthy”?
I don’t understand how it’s unconstitutional. No one is saying they can’t marry.
The benefit programs administered by SSA have so many issues that need to be addressed before this particular one. DAC’s are a small percentage of beneficiaries.
Having said that, I don’t think DAC entitlement regarding marriage needs to be changed. The spouse is assuming the responsibility after marriage.
@4:35 Disabled people often feel unworthy of marriage as their disabilities can sometimes drive people away. Not many people want a drain as a dependent. A lot of times, when marriage is proposed, and the proposer, is then told about how the system works, gives one an "unworthy" feeling. This is coming from a claimant that has been in this situation. If the proposer does not have ample insurance, or cashflow to cover the loss of benefits, a marriage would be very difficult with the loss of income and medical benefits. It IS a devastating feeling, I can vouch for that. It is very much so a feeling of being unworthy, especially when the proposal is rescinded after finding out that it would be more of a burden than love itself can allow. Many choose to just continue dating forever, some leave, leaving the disabled person feeling worthless and unworthy.
This person and others under DAC and SSI...What is the rational for the policy? In theory, the spouse will provide for them. In practice, it probably works like welfare did... you move in together without making it legal, so you can still get your benefits. This is the logical result of the policy... so, why have the policy? Personally, DAC and SSI qualifiers should get the full payment, regardless of who the choose to marry or live with! As a percentage of the Federal budget, it's just not that significant. Plenty of other things to cut!
I remember in CRT training class a zillion years ago asking that question. And teh first response above is what we were told. The principle was that the wage earner is supporting dependents (child, widow, divorced wives) who were dependent upon them in life. That a marriage (or remarriage) severed that dependency link and was a logical conclusion to getting benefits acquired by being dependent.
I think that principle is tested given the rules on remarriage for other classes of dependency beneficiaries. What makes age 60 a milestone that lets one keep these benefits? Ton's of seniors "living in sin" because the government "made them" do so and subsequent publicity about same.
I mean there are so many loopholes - such as one can continue to collect benefits on a living ex-spouse’s record if your new husband or wife is drawing certain types of Social Security — specifically, survivor benefits, divorced-spouse benefits or childhood disability benefits.
Seriously, the principle is lost as a valid reason why, it's clear it gave up teh ghost likely over being "anti-marriage". Same could be said for DACs.
Are divorced spouses unworthy because they lose benefits when they remarry?
It's all based on being a dependent. Once you aren't due to marriage, there's no reason to continue them.
Look, just give everyone a universal basic income and insurance. Problem solved right?
The marriage termination provision for DACs was upheld by the Supreme Court in Califano v. Jobst (1977).
I deal with far more DACs who are outside the numberholder's household than those within it. If SSA tracked that (and I doubt they do), they'd probably see a similar trend across the country.
There's zero motivation for SSA to do anything, though. Anything that could terminate an entitlement and save the trust fund money is a-ok with them.
It isn't unconstitutional, but rather the will of Congress. Anyone that wants to sue over this will ultimately loose, as the (and especially THE current) Supreme Court would refuse the case stating that Congress can legislatively fix the issue IF THEY WANT TO.
There are all sorts of pro-con special interest carve-outs all over the Social Security act that benefit or hurt one group over another. This is simply one of the con ones for DACs.
DACs also get special treatment that others don't get, like no 5 month waiting period or continued Medicaid eligibility for DACs that loose SSI eligibility due to an increase in or initial entitlement to DAC benefits. DWBs previously entitled to SSI get reduced/eliminated Medicare waiting periods and 5 month waiting periods due to SSI/SSP credit months, as well as special comps (i.e. WINDEX). ALS sufferers get no Medicare waiting period. Children entitled on records of two or more parents get combined family maximums. And such, and so on.
None of these special perks apply to anyone except members of that particular group.
So, nothing new here.
Like many policies of the SSA, outcomes sometimes depend on TV shows and reactions to them.
We would hear stories of Grandmas living in sin in Florida since remarrying would cost them their widow/widowers benefits which lead to Congress passing an exception that said if you remarry after 60, you could stay on the former spousal benefit.
For the DAC cases, we were treated with a movie of a mentally impaired child, Down's Syndrome if I recall, being prevented from marrying their love, another Down's child. Hence, we get the exception for the marriage cutoff for a DAC claimant if they marry another DAC claimant.
Sounds good except, what if the person they wan to marry is just as disabled but doesn't get DAC benefits because none of their parents is either retired, disabled, ,or deceased. Too bad under the current law. NO exception. Or, what if that same other child is receiving SSI and not DAC benefits. Just as disabled but the exception doesn't apply to SSI beneficiaries marrying a DAC child.
The distinctions make no sense and if there is a constitutional argument, then it lies in the disparate treatment of similarly situated individuals, an equal protection argument. Possible but long term and not at all sure of success.
If we really want Congress to fix these problems, then somebody should write a nice heartwarming script for TV and then maybe something gets done.
It is a good policy, the government should always be the payer of last resort. Spouse assumes the responsibility.
Society favors the married state for many reasons. This particular provision should be struck for being counter to public policy.
@9:02
Maybe at the time of its enactment, but in the modern day, one disabled spouse cannot be reliant on a working spouse. Both spouses work in 46.8% of households, husband-only works in 18.2%, wife-only works in 7.1%. (those numbers do not add to 100% because of non-working households, and "other employment combinations.") Given the additional costs a disabled person experiences, the policy is not consistent with reality in modern america.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.t02.htm
@6:54
You do realize Congress can pass an unconstitutional law, right? In any event, you are probably correct (not for the reasons given), because there is not a constitutional right to benefits and the rational basis test is a low bar to clear.
654 you do realize that a constitutional challenge can be made to any law. May have not been an issue when passed but all it takes is one aggrieved plaintiff to get the ball rolling and there are many more than that. Class action anyone?
You guys do realize it’s no always beneficial to get married. They’re pros and cons to a lot of situations in life. Choices have to be made. Don’t we all wish things were different and you were able to just do what you want without any consequences?
@12:28
Sure, and SSA presumes marriage exists even when it does not as to SSI eligibility...which makes me wonder if SSA applies that to DAC as well? POMS seems oddly silent on the issue.
@149. Nope. Need a marriage certificate.
Marry up. It does cut the pool of prospective spouses a bit but one would be better off in the long run.
Interesting the spouse (wife) in this case was disabled but under T16 only and that is what disqualified the husband's DAC benefits. Has she been a T2 beneficiary it would have presumably gone the other way. I listened to the SCT argument for a bit. Very interesting. In any case I still argue that this particular provision is against public policy as it disfavors marriage and could actually promote divorce. Marriage is a stabilizing mechanism in society and divorce has the opposite effect.
@433 Divorce would not lead to re-entitlement. I believe it has to be annulled for that.
Correct
710 433 here you are correct but no matter how you slice it dice it the provision does not promote marriage and in fact promotes non marriage and to be more precise, marriage dissolution by annulment (which is not as rare as one may think). We are having a theoretical discussion and I just think it could be challenged as being against public policy.
My medical costs per year top or exceed $80,000/year, and some times well over $100,000. Even 20% of that + loss of income is a high price for a spouse to have to pay to take care of a dependent if the income/medical insurance is not there. Few (in my area) have the means to support me. Nor would I ever ask anyone too! This means, I'd have to find me a RICH husband to take care of me. As nice as that would be....well, go find me one, I'll marry, and I'll not be a burden on the system anymore. Sound good?! SSA should turn into a dating service to terminate benefits? See how much sense that makes? I can't get married. I accepted that years ago. Nobody wants to pour money into their spouse if it's not there! I would have to meet someone that makes $150,000-180,000+ per year to take care of me, a modest house, and two older cars. It's different if one is already married and is disabled by an accident or something, but to be single, with such high medical costs, and a low income... well, marriage is just not an option. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that feels left out of marriage for this reason.
All valid points but nothing to do with SSA.
@9:52 Sadly, in a way, you are right. It has to do with Social INSECURITY. Why should a person feel secure with a spouse in society? Tent cities are fine. I love how colorful they are!
I think the issue all boils down to is if Social Security should be allowed to punish certain social choices rather than be involved solely in providing benefits based on medical conditions.
@102AM Social choices like the person didn't work enough to qualify on their own record? Unlike SSI, Social Security (t2) doesn't punish people for living together without the benefit of marriage. Or people under FRA working full time at a good job that can't receive retirement and keep working?
While marriage is usually a terminating event for DACs, it's also the same for children/students receiving benefits and for divorced spouses.
Post a Comment