Senior Market Sales, Inc. today announced the launch of its new patent-pending Social Security Timing™ software, which helps married retirees uncover tens of thousands in additional Social Security benefits they may have otherwise left on the table.
“Whether to elect Social Security early or late is a decision virtually every retiree is faced with,” said Joe Elsasser CFP, Director of Advisory Services for Senior Market Sales and the software’s creator. “Social Security Timing™ is the only software in the marketplace that simultaneously calculates all whole year election age combinations across nine possible election strategies in order to identify the strategy that offers the highest lifetime benefit.”
Social Security Timing™ has two components that help retirees make better choices. One is the free “What’s at Stake?” consumer calculator, which allows married couples to find out in real dollars the difference between their best and worst possible Social Security election decision. The calculator also shows their top three election strategies and gives them the option to consult an advisor for further guidance. The second component is the Social Security Timing™ software that financial advisors can purchase to use with their clients.
Apr 29, 2011
Social Security Timing Software
A press release:
Good Report On iClaims For Retirement Cases
From a recent report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (footnotes omitted):
At an April 15, 2010 hearing before the House of Representatives’ Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Social Security, Congressman Xavier Becerra asked the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to review the iClaim application to ensure individuals filing for benefits using the iClaim application were receiving an appropriate level of service from SSA.To address Congressman Becerra’s request, we selected a random sample of 250 RIB [Retirement Insurance Benefits] iClaim applications filed in May 2010.We surveyed the SSA [Social Security Administration] employees who processed the RIB iClaim applications to determine the number of times the Agency had to re-contact individuals for additional information or clarification and the reasons for the re-contacts. We also obtained the employees’ perceptions of the iClaim application process. Finally, we reviewed 50 of the RIB iClaim applications from our sample to determine whether the information provided by the individuals in their iClaim applications corresponded with the information recorded in SSA’s system that was used to determine individuals’ eligibility for benefits and their benefit amounts. ...
SSA employees were generally positive regarding the amount of time it took to process an iClaim application. However, employees expressed concerns about the difficulty in re-contacting individuals.
In addition, we found that the information provided by individuals in their iClaim applications corresponded with the information recorded in SSA’s system. ...
Re-contacts with individuals are a necessary and important part of processing some iClaim applications. In fact, of the 245 individuals in our review who filed a RIB iClaim application, SSA re-contacted 144 individuals (59 percent) to obtain additional information or clarification. ...
While SSA employees had both positive and negative comments about the iClaim application, employees were generally positive about the amount of time it took to process an iClaim application. ... In fact, most employees responded iClaim applications were faster to process than in-person or telephone applications. Specifically, 62 percent of employees in our review stated iClaim applications were typically the fastest application type to process. ...
Although iClaim applications generally take the least amount of time to process, employees were concerned about the difficulty with re-contacting individuals. To fully develop the claim, we found employees had to re-contact individuals in our sample up to five times, for an average of two times per individual. ...
During our review of RIB iClaim applications, there were no indications that individuals filing for RIB using the iClaim application did not receive an appropriate level of service from SSA. In fact, SSA employees re-contacted more than half the individuals in our sample to obtain additional information or clarification. While employees raised concerns regarding some difficulty in re-contacting individuals, they also recognized that iClaim applications were typically faster to process than in-person or telephone applications. In addition, we found that the information individuals provide on their iClaim applications corresponded with the information in SSA’s system used to determine benefit eligibility and amount.
Note carefully that this was a study of the retirement claims, which are, by far, the easiest claims to take. The report would be far more mixed if it were talking about survivor claims or disability claims. Supplemental Security Income claims cannot even be taken over the internet.
Apr 28, 2011
Maybe I Need To Set Up An Office In Britain
From the Daily Mail, a British newspaper:
More than a million people have failed to qualify for state sick benefits since tough fitness tests were brought in.
The million – around three quarters of all new disability benefit claims – were found fit to work or have dropped their claims after doctors examined whether they were really disabled. ...
Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith now plans to reassess the existing 2.6 million long-term claimants on IB [Incapacity Benefit].
More On Arrest Of Joseph Murphy
From KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids:
Update: And there is this from the Janesville, WI Gazette:More victims are emerging after Dubuque police sent out a warning about a Social Security scam.
Joseph Murphy is now in the Dubuque County Jail. Police say he pretended to be a Social Security benefits advocate, convincing several people to give him cash, which he kept for himself. ...
Police say Murphy set up a fake business called American Disability Entitlements.
He’d promise to help people who needed Social Security benefits start their paperwork. ...
The victims tell police Murphy demanded cash or credit card numbers up front. ...
Baxter says Murphy could also have victims in Wisconsin and Illinois. If you think you may be a victim, contact Dubuque police.
Did this fellow ever qualify as a non-attorney representative?An Edgerton native with a local history of fraud and harassment now is accused of bilking more than $30,000 from two Sheboygan residents, one of whom is mentally disabled. ...Murphy has been in and out of prison on theft and probation violation cases and often has sought out media attention.
In 1997, for example, he made national news after he complained to the media that the Social Security Administration branch in Janesville did not protect him from himself when it gave him almost $50,000 in back benefits. Murphy claimed he had a gambling problem and that he gambled away the money. ...
In the recent Sheboygan County case, a 47-year-old Sheboygan man told police he contacted Murphy so the man could get disability payments. Murphy listed himself in the yellow pages under American Disability Entitlements.
According to the complaint, Murphy over several weeks pressured the man to give him about $30,000. ...
In January 2009, Murphy aired a commercial in the Janesville area advertising the same company and seeking clients. ...
“Twenty-five years ago I was disabled and unable to work,” Murphy said in the commercial. “I was frustrated with the red legal tape, so I researched the Social Security laws and what I was entitled to. And I was just one case.
“Did you know there are up to 75,000 new disability claims in Wisconsin per year? If you are unable to work due to a physical or mental condition and are having trouble collecting Social Security disability benefits, please give me a call. I’m the little guy who will fight for what you are entitled to.”
Budget Limitations Hinder Debt Collection
From a recent report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) (footnotes omitted):
Our review focused on SSA’s [Social Security Administration's] debt collection arrangements in the SSI [Supplemental Security Income] program. Since Fiscal Year (FY) 2002, the percent of outstanding SSI debt in a collection arrangement has decreased. Specifically, between FYs 2002 and 2010, SSI debt in a collection arrangement decreased by more than 5 percent. SSA stated resource constraints in the SSI program have caused the Agency to shift focus from debt collection activities and other program integrity workloads to maintain front-line services.
During FYs 2008 through 2011, we estimated, based on historical SSI collection rates, that SSA could have recovered an additional $200 million of SSI debt. This could have been accomplished if SSA had placed an additional $441 million of outstanding SSI debt into collection arrangements at the FY 2002 level during FYs 2008 through 2010.
Apr 27, 2011
Disability Advocate Arrested
From Eastern Iowa News:
William Joseph Murphy, 44, (currently incarcerated in the Dubuque County Jail) is the focus of an ongoing theft investigation involving fraudulent social security disability advocacy. Anyone who may have been deceived by Murphy and/or his company, American Disability Entitlements, LLC, is asked to contact Investigator David Randall at 563-589-4429.
Answer To The Quiz
I received a number of answers to yesterday's "quiz", many of them having to do with the Vocational Expert testimony in the case. Those answers may have merit but I am sure that some would argue with them.
The issue that I was asking about is indisputable. It strongly appears that no one involved either at the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) level, the Appeals Council level or the District Court level recognized that the allegation of statutory blindness changed everything.
For purposes of statutory blindness, the date last insured for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits, which is what the Plaintiff in this case was trying to get, requires only the claimant be fully insured. The separate standard of disability insured status is dropped. This makes it much easier for a person who is blind to meet the insured status requirement.
It is conceivable that a person would last meet the fully insured and disability insured standard on the same date but that would be rare. If that had happened it should have been addressed in the ALJ decision. Enough of that decision is quoted that it seems most unlikely that this is the case. It is certainly possible that the Plaintiff in this case has never met the statutory blindness requirements but that is impossible to tell from this opinion since both the ALJ and the District Court stopped looking at the evidence after the date that the claimant last met the special disability insured requirement. Indeed, it appears that there was little or no evidence in the record after the date that the Plaintiff last met the special disability insured requirement because no one thought that was relevant -- but it was!
Instead of being a case where the ALJ needed only to look at the evidence up to the date that the Plaintiff last met the special disability insured status requirement, which was December 31, 2001, this was a case in which the ALJ needed to look at the evidence of all of the Plaintiff's impairments, which went beyond visual problems, up to December 31, 2001 under the regular disability standard but then look solely at the visual problems to determine whether the Plaintiff was statutorily blind until the date that the Plaintiff was last fully insured. This makes this a unusual and complicated case. That complication should have been addressed in the ALJ decision but it was not. It is entirely possible, even probable, that the Plaintiff remains fully insured today. You only need 40 quarters of coverage to be fully insured for life and this Plaintiff probably earned those 40 quarters a long time ago. Since visual problems often get worse with time and since December 31, 2001 was quite some time ago this opinion gives me an uneasy feeling.
So who got it right? Here are the ones I received:
So what does the low number of correct answers tell us? What does it tell us that this case went so far with so fundamental an error? Anybody slapping their head? What do you think?
The issue that I was asking about is indisputable. It strongly appears that no one involved either at the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) level, the Appeals Council level or the District Court level recognized that the allegation of statutory blindness changed everything.
For purposes of statutory blindness, the date last insured for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits, which is what the Plaintiff in this case was trying to get, requires only the claimant be fully insured. The separate standard of disability insured status is dropped. This makes it much easier for a person who is blind to meet the insured status requirement.
It is conceivable that a person would last meet the fully insured and disability insured standard on the same date but that would be rare. If that had happened it should have been addressed in the ALJ decision. Enough of that decision is quoted that it seems most unlikely that this is the case. It is certainly possible that the Plaintiff in this case has never met the statutory blindness requirements but that is impossible to tell from this opinion since both the ALJ and the District Court stopped looking at the evidence after the date that the claimant last met the special disability insured requirement. Indeed, it appears that there was little or no evidence in the record after the date that the Plaintiff last met the special disability insured requirement because no one thought that was relevant -- but it was!
Instead of being a case where the ALJ needed only to look at the evidence up to the date that the Plaintiff last met the special disability insured status requirement, which was December 31, 2001, this was a case in which the ALJ needed to look at the evidence of all of the Plaintiff's impairments, which went beyond visual problems, up to December 31, 2001 under the regular disability standard but then look solely at the visual problems to determine whether the Plaintiff was statutorily blind until the date that the Plaintiff was last fully insured. This makes this a unusual and complicated case. That complication should have been addressed in the ALJ decision but it was not. It is entirely possible, even probable, that the Plaintiff remains fully insured today. You only need 40 quarters of coverage to be fully insured for life and this Plaintiff probably earned those 40 quarters a long time ago. Since visual problems often get worse with time and since December 31, 2001 was quite some time ago this opinion gives me an uneasy feeling.
So who got it right? Here are the ones I received:
- Anonymous
- JOA
- Anonymous
- Anonymous
- Anonymous
- Ralph Wilborn
- Anonymous
So what does the low number of correct answers tell us? What does it tell us that this case went so far with so fundamental an error? Anybody slapping their head? What do you think?
Will History Repeat Itself?
From the Washington Post (emphasis added):
The White House is warning that catastrophe will strike if Congress fails to raise the limit on the national debt: With too little cash to pay creditors, the U.S. government would default. Interest rates would skyrocket. And the economic recovery would collapse. ...
So far, the Treasury has nearly drained a $200 billion cash-management account at the Fed, providing a cushion of money to pay bills without new borrowing. Next, Geithner is likely to take a series of “extraordinary actions,” such as suspending the issuance of special securities that help state and local governments manage their own finances. Once the debt hits the limit, Geithner may declare a “debt issuance suspension period,” permitting him to borrow from the pension fund for federal workers.
[Robert] Rubin [Treasury Secretary in the Clinton Administration] pioneered these strategies in 1995, at the start of the budget battles between President Bill Clinton and Republicans led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). As the fight dragged on through two government shutdowns, Rubin had to juggle the nation’s bills for 135 days. Finally, Clinton threatened to delay Social Security checks, spurring Congress to approve more borrowing to make sure the checks went out on time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)