The United Food and Commercial Workers has stepped up its fight against Bush administration use of “no match” Social Security letters against workers whose on-the-job identification doesn’t match what’s in government files. The government uses the program to pressure companies to fire employees and to force workers to prove “legal” status or face deportation.
The UFCW, joined by the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, the American Federation of Government Employees and various business and community groups, is saying it will renew the fight against the Department of Homeland Security in court on this issue. The renewed court battle is necessary, the UFCW and its allies say, because of recent DHS action. ...
Witold Skwierczynski, president of AFGE [American Federation of Government Employees, which represents a good part of Social Security's workforce] Council 220, explained that workers at the Social Security Administration are being asked to take on ever-increasing loads by a mean-spirited and vindictive Bush administration. He said that recently the administration has demanded agency workers run checks against Social Security records on the eligibility of millions for prescription drug and other programs. All of these demands are made, he said, with no increases in staff.
Apr 6, 2008
No Match Rules Heading Back To Court
From the People's Weekly World:
Waiting In Dallas
From the Dallas Morning News -- and notice that this appears to be another example of the successful public relations effort by Allsup:
Judith Byrd thinks Social Security has flunked its first big test with baby boomers. After losing her airline customer service job following medical problems, the 59-year-old Allen woman waited more than two years for an answer to her claim for disability insurance.
Ms. Byrd received her first payment last May after enduring what she describes as the longest 26 months of her life. The pain of her unrelenting back problems and the frustration of dealing with a government bureaucracy threw her into a crippling depression that kept her at home for weeks....
"I'm convinced the disability claims system was designed to be difficult to navigate because the government can't afford to pay benefits to everyone," said Jim Allsup, president of Allsup Inc., an Illinois company that represents claimants and has seen its clients quadruple since 2000. ...
Last year, Ms. Watson received $34,000 in retroactive benefits, including the $5,300 she paid Allsup, and began collecting $1,450 a month.
Apr 5, 2008
The Dog Ate The Homework Excuse
The St. Petersburg Times is running a local follow-up story to the New York Times article that set forth the proposition that Social Security is overburdened with disability claims because Long Term Disability (LTD) insurance carriers are forcing their insureds to file disability claims when they have no chance of being approved.
I have a low regard for the LTD carriers, but this story is preposterous. Blaming the LTD carriers for Social Security's backlogs is about as pathetic as saying the dog ate the homework. The few excess claims that may be attributable to LTD carriers is a drop in the bucket compared to the flood of disability claims caused by the aging of the baby boom population.
If the Social Security Administration wants to cut down on excessive claims, it needs to look at its own conduct. Field offices are routinely taking Supplemental Security Income (SSI) claims for many individuals whose income is far too high for them to qualify. Part of the reason for this is a genuine desire to avoid missing SSI claims, but a good part of this is that Social Security field offices are alloted staff based upon the number of claims they take, giving field office managers an incentive to try to increase the number of claims taken. I would daresay that the number of unnecessary SSI claims taken by Social Security field offices vastly exceeds the number of unnecessary disability claims taken as a result of LTD carrier pressure.
I also have to question how unnecessary these claims taken at the behest of LTD carriers really are. Let me set forth an example. The claimant has been in an automobile accident and has been seriously injured. The expected return to work date is eight to ten months after the accident. Is it abusive to tell this person to file a Social Security disability claim -- since the definition of disability requires that the claimant have been or be projected to be disabled for at least a year? I would say not. Projections on when an individual will return to work after serious trauma are inherently uncertain. There is a real chance that a person in this situation will take more than a year to recover. So why not just wait and see how long it takes them to recover? You do not want to wait in this situation because it takes Social Security so long to adjudicate claims! The best thing to do is to get the claim filed as quickly as possible. The claimant can drop the case if he or she can get back to work in less than a year, but if not, the claimant will be much further along with the case if he or she files the claim shortly after the accident. This is just common sense.
If the Social Security Administration wants to cut down on excessive claims, it needs to look at its own conduct. Field offices are routinely taking Supplemental Security Income (SSI) claims for many individuals whose income is far too high for them to qualify. Part of the reason for this is a genuine desire to avoid missing SSI claims, but a good part of this is that Social Security field offices are alloted staff based upon the number of claims they take, giving field office managers an incentive to try to increase the number of claims taken. I would daresay that the number of unnecessary SSI claims taken by Social Security field offices vastly exceeds the number of unnecessary disability claims taken as a result of LTD carrier pressure.
I also have to question how unnecessary these claims taken at the behest of LTD carriers really are. Let me set forth an example. The claimant has been in an automobile accident and has been seriously injured. The expected return to work date is eight to ten months after the accident. Is it abusive to tell this person to file a Social Security disability claim -- since the definition of disability requires that the claimant have been or be projected to be disabled for at least a year? I would say not. Projections on when an individual will return to work after serious trauma are inherently uncertain. There is a real chance that a person in this situation will take more than a year to recover. So why not just wait and see how long it takes them to recover? You do not want to wait in this situation because it takes Social Security so long to adjudicate claims! The best thing to do is to get the claim filed as quickly as possible. The claimant can drop the case if he or she can get back to work in less than a year, but if not, the claimant will be much further along with the case if he or she files the claim shortly after the accident. This is just common sense.
Poll Results
Which Team Will Win The NCAA Men's Basketball Championship?
| Kansas (6) | 13% |
| |
| Memphis (8) | 18% |
| |
| North Carolina (25) | 56% |
| |
| UCLA (6) | 13% |
|
Total Votes: 45
New Newsletter
The Social Security Administration has introduced "Social Security Update," a new newsletter. No real news in it this time. The website contains information on subscribing.
Hard Fight In Idaho
KIDK in Idaho is running a story about the responses it received to the piece it ran this week about one person's fight to get on Social Security disability benefits. Patricia Patterson advised "You've got to have the proof: pictures, medications, discharge papers, referrals, every darn thing that you can get. The burden of proof is on you.'" Others advised that working makes it almost impossible to get on Social Security disability benefits.
Apr 4, 2008
SSA CLD Calculator
I asked yesterday whether the Social Security Administration had created some sort of utility for computing the SSA CLD (Social Security Administration Chronic Liver Disease) index that is part of the agency's listing for liver disease.
They have and it is available online.
They have and it is available online.
Astrue And The House Social Security Subcommittee
Is it just me or does it seem a bit surprising that Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue has not appeared before the House Social Security Subcommittee since May 1, 2007, almost a year ago?
The chairman of the Subcommittee, Mike McNulty, is retiring after this Congress ends. McNulty's health is a factor in his retirement. McNulty has post-polio syndrome. You would think that the Subcommittee's work would go on even if McNulty's health forces him to slow down a bit.
The chairman of the Subcommittee, Mike McNulty, is retiring after this Congress ends. McNulty's health is a factor in his retirement. McNulty has post-polio syndrome. You would think that the Subcommittee's work would go on even if McNulty's health forces him to slow down a bit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)