There's an op ed in the New York Times on the marriage penalty in the SSI program which is preventing a couple who each have Down Syndrome from marrying.
The author completely misses or at least doesn't write about the strong possibility that the couple will soon be eligible for Disabled Adult Child (DAC) benefits, if they're not already. Marriage won't be a problem for DAC as long as both are eligible for DAC, which is itself crazy! DAC pays benefits on the Social Security account of a parent but the parent must be deceased or on benefits on their own account. Since the man with Down Syndrome is 44 and the woman is 40, their parents are at or near retirement age. Usually marriage ends DAC but not if you marry someone who is also eligible for DAC.
I hate, hate, hate counseling someone newly entitled to DAC that they probably don't want to get married because it will probably end their DAC but it's my job. This may be the worst provision in the Social Security Act.
13 comments:
Nothing “prevents” anyone from doing anything.
There are choices to be made in life and consequences that go with those choices.
It’s sucks…that’s life in a nutshell. We all have choices to make.
Really, that is your response. Not helpful in any way. If we took that approach to policy, nothing would ever change. Bad policy. Too bad. How does this note add to the discussion.
The only facts missing for DAC would be parents' eligibility, but given the couple's ages, 40 and 44, certainly seems likely that at a minimum their parents will reach retirement age pretty soon.
There also is the potential pitfall of SGA in the past. I can recall a case where the family's good deed in paying their child with down syndrome to do very little beyond greeting people a day or two a week at a family business almost screwed the child out of DAC.
Why is it bad policy?
It is complete and utter nonsense that a parent stops supporting a child once they get married, especially a disabled child. Sure they presumably become as independent as possible but a parent should always be looking out for their children (and their spouses) and then the children looks out for the parent as they age. At least that is the way it has always worked in my family and those of most of my friends. I am not talking about coddling, but it is nonsense to tell an 18 year old "okay I'm done, you're on your own" or "you're your husband's problem now,"
If they are working and barely under the limit to keep SSI, is that strategy to just keep Medicaid? Where I am excess income ends SSI but not eligibility to Medicaid.
If DAC is an insurance benefit why limit it to 50% when parents are alive? It seems punitive.
Because the if the NH is alive, that’s the rule. How is it punitive?
@12:16pm,
What you are describing in your situation is either a specific state's Medicaid rules (i.e in one of the states that reserve the right to make their own Medicaid eligibility determinations) or continued Medicaid eligibility under section 1619b.
In many cases, it is possible to keep Medicaid under 1619b or state Medicaid. The 1619b thresholds are decently high these days for even the poorest states. In states where 1619b applies, as long as the claimant stays below the 1619b threshold for their state and remains medically disabled they are protected from SSI termination for income reasons no matter how long their SSI is in N01 status. They just have to undergo periodic 1619b redeterminations (and regular medical CDRs like everyone else).
A few months before I retired, one of my colleagues was in process of doing an SSI redetermination on someone to reinstate their SSI that had been in continuous 1619b status for like 12 years. They only stopped working because the employer relocated to Mexico for the usual reasons.
Given you must file for any and all benefits when you get SSI, filing for SSA DIB and/or DAC would be something that pops up periodically given they both seem to be working and likely paying FICA. But perhaps their parents each were state employees who did not pay FICA, so there could be no DAC entitlement?
Didn't T2 change the marriage penalty after too many stories about widowed / widower seniors living "in sin" in order not to lose benefits? They put an age component into the law. (An example of consequences raising a ruckus and causing change.) But I'm also supposing that there are folks who think the disabled (esp folks disabled by things like Downs) on the public dole simply should not have sex or marry while "being supported" by the taxpayer, and maybe that's an unspoken issue as well. People are funny that way.
It’s not that they shouldn’t marry or have kids, no one has said that. There are no laws preventing that from happening.
In addition to not being removed if someone getting DAC benefits marries someone getting DAC benefits, they also don't lose their benefits if they marry someone getting DIB benefits on their own record.
RS 00203.035 Child's Benefits Termination of Entitlement
3. Marriage
The child marries, with these exceptions:
a.
Entitlement does not end if the child is a child disability beneficiary ( CDB ) and the marriage is to a Social Security beneficiary other than:
•
a child beneficiary under age 18, or
•
a child beneficiary age 18 or 19 entitled because they are a full-time student.
An individual receiving Supplemental Security Income benefits only is not included in the definition of a “Social Security beneficiary.”
The effect is that IF a DAC claimant marries a disabled SSI beneficiary not entitled under Title II they lose out but not if DAC or DIB. Seems illogical and unfair.
I think it is a strategy to have basic dignity in life. Most of us here pull down a very pretty penny and fail to appreciate how difficult life can be for those behind the 8 ball. Are there scammers? You better believe there are, but they are overwhelmingly the exception and not the rule. This country could save so much money in administrative costs if there was just a basic minimum income and basic healthcare. Oh but that's socialism (not really), heaven forbid.
Post a Comment