Maybe we could stop disabled people from blowing their money on cigarettes, and aggravating health care costs associated with it....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/disabled_smokers;_ylt=AqBASYJ_2ISPqcH.flqs624DW7oF

P.S. For those of you who don't know what I mean by "SSD," I mean "Social Security Disability"....i.e. the checks the U.S. government (specifically, the Social Security Administration) gives to people for doing nothing but being disabled.

Maybe we could stop disabled people from blowing their money on cigarettes, and aggravating health care costs associated with it....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/disabled_smokers;_ylt=AqBASYJ_2ISPqcH.flqs624DW7oF

P.S. For those of you who don't know what I mean by "SSD," I mean "Social Security Disability"....i.e. the checks the U.S. government (specifically, the Social Security Administration) gives to people for doing nothing but being disabled.


I wonder how many of those receiving SSD do so becaused of COPD.

P.S. For those of you who don't know what I mean by "SSD," I mean "Social Security Disability"....i.e. the checks the U.S. government (specifically, the Social Security Administration) gives to people for doing nothing but being disabled. It's their money, after all.

To be eligible for Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) you must have:

a. worked and paid into the program through payroll or self-employment taxes in the required amount in 10 of the past 20 annual quarters, and

b. have one or more physical or mental impairments that prevent you from engaging in any substantial, gainful employment for at least one year.

...it is more of a "safety net" and will pay monthly benefits to you based upon the amount of money that you have paid into the system through employment taxes.

http://www.littletonlaw.com/injury_&_disability/social_security/social_security_disability_ssdi.htm

Here's a more accurate picture of the way it works:


If you become disabled... Then you generally need:
In or before the quarter you turn age 24 1.5 years of work during the three-year period ending with the quarter your disability began.

In the quarter after you turn age 24 but before the quarter you turn age 31 Work during half the time for the period beginning with the quarter after you turned 21 and ending with the quarter you became disabled.
Example: If you become disabled in the quarter you turned age 27, then you would need three years of work out of the 6-year period ending with the quarter you became disabled.

In the quarter you turn age 31 or later Work during 5 years out of the 10-year period ending with the quarter your disability began.


The following table shows examples of how much work you need to meet the “duration of work test” if you become disabled at various selected ages. For the “duration of work” test, your work does not have to fall within a certain period of time.

NOTE: This table does not cover all situations.

Examples of work needed for the “duration of work" test
If you become disabled... Then you generally need:
Before age 28 1.5 years of work
Age 30 2 years
Age 34 3 years
Age 38 4 years
Age 42 5 years
Age 44 5.5 years
Age 46 6 years
Age 48 6.5 years
Age 50 7 years
Age 52 7.5 years
Age 54 8 years
Age 56 8.5 years
Age 58 9 years
Age 60 9.5 years

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10029.html#part2

I know requiring a 38-year old to have worked 4 years is a stringent standard and all, but calling a lifetime's worth of payments "their money" because they paid taxes for some relatively small portion of their life is a bit of a stretch, IMO.

It's a bit like calling welfare benefits "their money."

I wonder how many of those receiving SSD do so becaused of COPD.

Haha, funny thought.

But calling a lifetime's worth of payments "their money" because they paid taxes for some small portion of years is a bit of a stretch, IMO.
The I in SSI and SSDI is for INSURANCE. A person who is being paid SSDI is simply recovering on an insurance policy, into which they paid a certain minimum number of premiums.

It is not fairly characterized as "the checks the U.S. Goverment gives to people for doing nothing but being disabled." I wonder if you didn't know that when you started the thread. (I noticed your responce post first read: "fair enough.")

It's just like AFLAC!:cool:

It's a bit like calling welfare benefits "their money."Damn, if you didn't edit it again! Are you simply trying to come up with some kind of clever response rather than fairly examine the issue? Then, of course, you'd have to admit that you had no idea of the way it worked when you started out...

The I in SSI and SSDI is for INSURANCE. A person who is being paid SSDI is simply recovering on an insurance policy, into which they paid a certain minimum number of premiums.

That's one way to look at it.

Personally, I've seen a lot of people (criminals no less) claiming SSD as their sole source of income when they are reasonably yound and look very able. So it appears to me as a system that is abused so much that it is actually a way to gouge responsible hardworking people to support the opposite kind of people.

Granted, this opinion is based on personal experiences with SSD benefactors, so feel free to prove me wrong.

It is not fairly characterized as "the checks the U.S. Goverment gives to people for doing nothing but being disabled."


Isn't it? I guess I expect everyone to be gainfully employed for 1.5 years before they're 28, don't you?

Damn, if you didn't edit it again! Are you simply trying to come up with some kind of clever response rather than fairly examine the issue? Then, of course, you'd have to admit that you had no idea of the way it worked when you started out...

Yes, I frequently edit my posts soon after posting them (In the previous post, I mostly changed my response because your summary of the law sounded off to me, so I checked it...). I'm sorry if that bothers you so much.

But I'll freely admit that I'm not an expert in the social security system and never pretended that I was. Are you?

But I'll freely admit that I'm not an expert in the social security system and never pretended that I was. Are you?
I slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night, Leper. If you need to know anything... just shoot me a PM.

;)

Lol!

Yes, I frequently edit my posts soon after posting them (In the previous post, I mostly changed my response because your summary of the law sounded off to me, so I checked it...). I'm sorry if that bothers you so much.I wasn't summarizing the law. I quoted a piece of information from a firm that handles these matters and then provided the link. It doesn't bother me at all if you or anyone else checks up on something, but to change the post via edit in that situation can cause responses to be confused looking.

But I'll freely admit that I'm not an expert in the social security system and never pretended that I was. Are you?No, but I talked to someone who is, and she said the SSDI approval process can be pretty tough to get through. Your examples of people who seem to be abusing the program are no doubt true, but in most cases it would appear that the people benefitting from the program are decent and deserving. I know of a few like that.

I slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night, Leper. If you need to know anything... just shoot me a PM.

;)Freakin' hillarious!:cool:

No, but I talked to someone who is, and she said the SSDI approval process can be pretty tough to get through. Your examples of people who seem to be abusing the program are no doubt true, but in most cases it would appear that the people benefitting from the program are decent and deserving. I know of a few like that.

I wouldn't disagee with the characterization of "most benefitting from the program are decent and deserving." My guess would be that about 3/4's of the people are deserving. However, that still spells a highly abused system to me.

I believe the process can be pretty tough to get through. Like all bureacratic institutions, it'll be tough in some places and easier in others....and that could be based simply on the fact that an Administrative Law Judge and his/her staff may be hard as nails in one jurisdiction and a creampuff in another jurisdiction.

Here's my other personal experiences with SSD:

I myself worked as a clerk on a SSD claimant in law school. It was an ex-con (a pedophile) who claimed to have a degenerative back disease and was denied his claim based on the fact that the ALJ determined that he was not "disabled." I never saw the final result on the case, but that guy was certainly having a hard time getting SSD. In my research and experience on that one case, I learned that this is a highly litigated matter and that lawyers will work when their only compensation is to get a piece of the awarded benefits.

I also had a friend who received SSD in his late 20's or early 30's. He had lupus. While it's a serious disease and I don't know the details of his benefits or disease, in his case, it didn't seem to affect his day-to-day life at all and I don't see why he would not have been able to take at least a deskjob. Instead, for a long time, he did not work at all and lived off his SSD and just played the hell out of online video games.

I also have a family member on SSD. She is older (about 60) and had knee replacement surgury. Now, she certainly qualifies as "disabled" IMO, but she could and wanted to do some work still. However, if she received income, her benefits would be cut. So she doesn't work and just receives her benefits.

Now, granted, my opinion is not statistical at all, but from my experience, SSD is a horrible system and is too easily abused.

Edit: For Shiloh, I just edited typos.

Now, granted, my opinion is not statistical at all, but from my experience, SSD is a horrible system and is too easily abused.
I agree with almost everything you said, this in particular. The only thing I question is calling 3/4's of the SSD recipients "deserving". I'd say it's probably no more than half.

My guess would be that about 3/4's of the people are deserving.Based on what?

I'd say it's probably no more than half.Based on what?

Based on what?

People I've seen/known on SSD. But like I said, it's a "guess."

Here's my beef with SSD... and it's been mentioned here before.

Just because a person is disabled doesn't mean they can't WORK. Maybe not ALL, and not at the same job they did before. But forcing people to stay home and live off their SSD check makes absolutely NO sense to me. It's an accepted fact that people do better when they have a reason to get up in the mornings.... like a job to go to. I think it does more harm than good to deny them that right.

Having said all that, I have no idea how the SS administration would handle one person's disability plan being different from the next person's disability plan.

Oh wait... that's the same concern I have for Hillary's NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM.

Maybe her campaign slogan should be A UNIQUE, TAILORED-JUST-FOR-YOU HEALTHPLAN FOR EVERY AMERICAN!

Personally, I ain't holding my breath till that one works either.

;)
SMW

But forcing people to stay home and live off their SSD check makes absolutely NO sense to me.SSDI does not force a person to either stay home or not work. It does, however, limit the amount a person can earn and still claim the disability.
It's an accepted fact that people do better when they have a reason to get up in the mornings.... This is very true.

Oh wait... that's the same concern I have for Hillary's NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM.Can you not discuss an issue without sliding into the tired rant about Hillary Clinton? C'mon!

SSDI does not force a person to either stay home or not work. It does, however, limit the amount a person can earn and still claim the disability.
This is very true.

Can you not discuss an issue without sliding into the tired rant about Hillary Clinton? C'mon!

I don't believe that first statement is true, Shiloh. Got any proof to back that up?

(no more than you can discuss an issue without bashing Bush.)

I don't believe that first statement is true, Shiloh. Got any proof to back that up?Hell, if you care about an issue enough to talk about it, you could look something up on that there computer of yurn. (It does more that play games and chat!:cool: ) Here's a start:http://www.esiason.org/pdf/BEFSSAInformationSheet.pdf

(no more than you can discuss an issue without bashing Bush.)I don't bash Bush. I take exception to several of his policies, but personally like the man.

Hell, if you care about an issue enough to talk about it, you could look something up on that there computer of yurn. (It does more that play games and chat!:cool: ) Here's a start:http://www.esiason.org/pdf/BEFSSAInformationSheet.pdf

I don't bash Bush. I take exception to several of his policies, but personally like the man.

Thanks... I was too lazy to look it up.

But now I have a question about the info you provided.

"A person may be eligible for SSDI benefits if they are unable to engage in substantial work activities due to their health. Substantial gainful activity is defined as making more than $830 from work activity or working full time for any amount of money..."

$830 per WHAT?

Month, year??

Look that up for me, would ya sweetie?

Thanks again.

;)
SMW

$830 per WHAT?Month.

Look that up for me, would ya sweetie?

Thanks again.

;)
SMWLike the good Southern boy that I am, I stand by to tend to all your higher needs, so long as my more base ones are satisfied.:cool:

My but you are a keeper. Here, she'll take good care of you... suitable for framing.

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/hillary_clinton.jpg

My but you are a keeper. Here, she'll take good care of you... suitable for framing.
Damn, if you didn't find a way to sneak Hillary in again!

SSDI does not force a person to either stay home or not work. It does, however, limit the amount a person can earn and still claim the disability.

Well, shut my mouth... guess I was wrong. (Or maybe I've just been led astray by my lazy-assed friend who's on SSDI and just doesn't WANT to work so tells me he CAN'T work!)

Yeah, that's my excuse. The second one.

:hula:

I myself worked as a clerk on a SSD claimant in law school. It was an ex-con (a pedophile) who claimed to have a degenerative back disease and was denied his claim based on the fact that the ALJ determined that he was not "disabled." I never saw the final result on the case, but that guy was certainly having a hard time getting SSD. In my research and experience on that one case, I learned that this is a highly litigated matter and that lawyers will work when their only compensation is to get a piece of the awarded benefits..
My dad has degenerative disk disease, which causes him constant pain 24 hours a day. He cannot take narcotic painkillers due to his status as a former drug addict and member of Narcotics Anonymous. And yet, he still works full time. In fact, he lives out of town away from his family 4 days a week so he can work and bring in more money. Therefore, I conclude that the guy you're talking about was full of shit.

My dad has degenerative disk disease, which causes him constant pain 24 hours a day. He cannot take narcotic painkillers due to his status as a former drug addict and member of Narcotics Anonymous.Freakin' cool. The example is awesome!:cool:

It's a bit like calling welfare benefits "their money."

If it isn't their money, who's is it?
Who has a right to tell the recipients of SSD how they can spend that money?


.

If it isn't their money, who's is it? Who has a right to tell the recipients of SSD how they can spend that money?
You are a friggin' idiot. My guess would be that you are a 30+ year old, that until recently, were still living with your parents. I know you are supposedly recently married... and all I can say is that I feel sorry for your spouse. It's obvious you have no children yet. All you are is a mouth piece for "moveon.org" and "mediamatters.org".

May at some point in your life, you learn to think for yourself, and determine that these groups (that you seem to hold in reverence), are as full of shit as you have been here on allforums.

This will be the last time I respond to your partisan drivel. I may not agree with many here (FT for example), but at least he can honestly debate an issue. You, on the other hand, can only look for semantic discrepancies and have no actual original thought on an issue. I actually feel sorry for you and your ilk... you are the antithesis of a wise human being... you do not know what you do not know... and therefore, you are a fool.

Wear the title of "Fool" proudly... you deserve it!

My dad has degenerative disk disease, which causes him constant pain 24 hours a day. He cannot take narcotic painkillers due to his status as a former drug addict and member of Narcotics Anonymous. And yet, he still works full time. In fact, he lives out of town away from his family 4 days a week so he can work and bring in more money. Therefore, I conclude that the guy you're talking about was full of shit.

Maybe. I never met the client myself. I just saw all of the paperwork on the case, including medical reports. And it was "degenerative disk disease" I believe. The guy claimed he had days when he couldn't get up and days when he was fine and felt no pain. Part of the reason, the ALJ had denied his original claim because he walked in and didn't seem to have anything wrong with him. Anyways, you may be right...I have to say, I wasn't sure if I believed him.

You are a friggin' idiot. blah, blah, blah...

Translation - "I cannot answer your simple question or even address the very important point you brought up so I am just going to curl up in the fetal position and call you names and hope nobody notices."

:rolleyes:

Maybe we could stop disabled people from blowing their money on cigarettes, and aggravating health care costs associated with it....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/disabled_smokers;_ylt=AqBASYJ_2ISPqcH.flqs624DW7oF

P.S. For those of you who don't know what I mean by "SSD," I mean "Social Security Disability"....i.e. the checks the U.S. government (specifically, the Social Security Administration) gives to people for doing nothing but being disabled.

And maybe you could just ban all welfare people from McDonalds while you're at it. Or at the grocery store, only healthy food products allowed in the carts for anyone on any type of assistance. The length of the list of people you can control will be amazing as you move closer and closer to a totalitarian state.

It's just like AFLAC!:cool: I love AFLAC. :cool:

And maybe you could just ban all welfare people from McDonalds while you're at it. Or at the grocery store, only healthy food products allowed in the carts for anyone on any type of assistance. The length of the list of people you can control will be amazing as you move closer and closer to a totalitarian state.

I agree with your concern. However, what would you propose for people who get "assistance" from the government for necessities and use that "assistance" to sustain their vices instead?

I agree with your concern. However, what would you propose for people who get "assistance" from the government for necessities and use that "assistance" to sustain their vices instead?

They get to smoke more cigs and eat less food. It's their choice.

They get to smoke more cigs and eat less food. It's their choice.
And god willing, it'll kill 'em sooner. That said, it shouldn't be "their" choice on OUR dime. I know, I know, it's "insurance", but the whole system's rife with bullshit claims, and said benefits should be paid out accordingly. IOWs, via credit cards where every purchase the recipient makes can be monitored. JMO.

Prae, the world is full of people who make bad choices with their money, their lives, their children, etc. There really isn't any way to legislate against that.

As a nation, we try to help those in need, both in this country and around the world. Whether they accept the assistance, and what they do with it is out of our hands.

Sal gets it.

And maybe you could just ban all welfare people from McDonalds while you're at it. Or at the grocery store, only healthy food products allowed in the carts for anyone on any type of assistance. The length of the list of people you can control will be amazing as you move closer and closer to a totalitarian state.

There really isn't any way to legislate against that.
True, but there is a way we can avoid contributing to their poor choices.

You know, perhaps you're right. Maybe we should do away with it altogether.

You know, perhaps you're right. Maybe we should do away with it altogether.

That's what I would suggest. There was a time when private charity served this function. Private charity is in a better situation to deal with these sort of scenarios IMO.

That's what I would suggest. Their was a time when private charity served this function. Private charity is in a better situation to deal with these sort of scenarios IMO.

What is stopping private charity from dealing with the situation now?

.

What is stopping private charity from dealing with the situation now?


Because the government is already covering it.

Precisely.

And, Leper - I was thinking the exact same thing when I read your response earlier.

I dare say, no one is getting wealthy on SSD. My wife is on SSD and she could not survive, much less pay for her medications without my income.

Those who criticize people on SSD have never been disabled. They need to "walk a mile in their shoes."

I suspect if we did not have social security today a politician who suggested such a "socialist" program would have a tough time passing it...particularly with an asshole in the White House who just told children without insurance to go to hell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQNc7rXYi1U

Because the government is already covering it.

What kind of goofy logic is this? The government doesn't have a monopoly on providing assistance for those in need.

:rolleyes:

What kind of goofy logic is this? The government doesn't have a monopoly on providing assistance for those in need.

:rolleyes:
I don't believe that's what he was saying, Fran. If the government didn't do it, then private charities probably would.

I say let the bleeding hearts pay for 'em (I mean, at least they'd have a choice in the matter....).

The Praetorian ought to be thanking God for bleeding hearts.

Yeah - let me count the ways - I mean, after all, bleeding hearts bought me my BMW, my condo, my education, and were kind enough to give me my charming personality.

What kind of goofy logic is this? The government doesn't have a monopoly on providing assistance for those in need.

:rolleyes:

Although Prae has pretty much covered it...

If someone is already been given enough charity to cover their needs, any additional charity is a windfall. I don't think anyone's eager to give charity to people who don't need it.

I agree with your concern. However, what would you propose for people who get "assistance" from the government for necessities and use that "assistance" to sustain their vices instead?
Honestly Leper it's a tough call. It ticks me off royally when I see big fat people with their big fat kids getting hand outs from our Food Banks. You just know they are making bad choices. Or as in the case of someone I worked with, they would dine in restaurants eating high end until the money ran out and then have their hands out for free anything.

The problem I see with forcing the minority of abusers into only particular purchases is that it punishes the truly needy who are just trying to make their way in the world and have a bit of pleasure too. Are you going to tell some poor schmuck that is truly down on his luck and has some debilitating illness that he can't have a beer, can't have a cigarette? The only way I can see to do it, is just keep working on getting those fakers off of the dole.

The abusers will find a way to get what they want regardless. Even if it means selling their food stamps for drugs or other contraband. Ya can't force good behaviour in a corrupt system.

Because the government is already covering it.

That isn't "stopping" private charity from helping anyone. They could if they wanted to.

The government started SS in 1935, during the Republican Great Depression.

Why wasn't private charity covering it then?

Why did it become necessary for the government to step in?

The government started SS in 1935, during the Republican Great Depression.

Why wasn't private charity covering it then?

Why did it become necessary for the government to step in?


Since when has that period of time come to be called the Republican Great Depression?

Private charities most likely were overwhelmed at the time and reality forced the gov't to step in, much as it did by starting programs such as the Civilian Conservation Corps and Works Progress Administration.

...reality forced the gov't to step in...

Absolutely right.

Because the reality is that private charity cannot cover it all.