SSDI cut in 2016

mikemike said:
The Senate has hearings over the SSDI issue. Too many doctors fraud...

And SSI will be cut but not SSDI. see the economic reports on the news.......
Click to expand...
Right.

There is doctor fraud but it's only part of the equation. I saw two messing with the system and they were caught and I'm just one person. But again the dopes in Washington created this system and it's a bad one and they likely don't care.
 
I like this. PowerOn asked if Bush paid back the money he stole. Here is just one article, I'd have to do searching for more if you'd like it. Read the article or the snippets I left for you. This is what I was saying in a thread yesterday that rightfully was cleaned up but it is appropriate here. It nails two prior Pres.

https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/corp/warbudget022105.php

Social Security and Bush's War Budget
by Joel Wendland
(Friday 18 February 2005)
"With Bush propagandizing about the fiscal "crisis" of Social Security and
his critics on the left and right pointing to a bloated $600 billion budget
deficit, it is time to look at where all the money went. Clinton¹s
presidency closed with a $300 billion surplus and rosy dreams about paying
down the national debt."
With Bush propagandizing about the fiscal "crisis" of Social Security and
his critics on the left and right pointing to a bloated $600 billion budget
deficit, it is time to look at where all the money went. Clinton¹s
presidency closed with a $300 billion surplus and rosy dreams about paying
down the national debt. (Of course, billions of that surplus were created by
cutting or eliminating programs related to welfare.)


...
So where did all the money go? And why did it go there?
***
I guess Cheney was right: terrorism would disappear if Bush was reelected *
well, at least as an issue, anyway. What other explanation could there be?
No major mass arrests of Al-Qaeda suspects has occurred. Terrorists are
still at large in Iraq. In fact, just last month, the CIA warned that the
Iraq war will prompt a growth of terrorist forces globally.
But not to worry, Bush was appointed by God and a few thousand stolen votes
in Ohio to keep you safe, so don¹t worry about terrorism.
Social Security is the new crisis. Well, at least it will be in 50 years.
But we have to have a crisis mentality about it now. Focusing on terrorism
would distract us simple-minded Americans with our short attention spans.
The Bush administration uses this crisis mentality as a tactic. It recalls
something the Reagan administration did fairly well. David Stockman,
Reagan¹s budget policy adviser and "free market" ideological toady,
masterminded it, in a paper presenting the administration¹s ideological and
fiscal goals called, "An Economic Dunkirk." Essentially, it sought to
provoke and create a series of managed crises that would present the public
with few options regarding the government¹s finances: cut, eliminate, and
scale back social spending, while expanding military spending.

* * * *
9/11 presented Bush with his original Dunkirk. How could he go wrong?
Military budgets shot up. Few critics emerged, except on the left, to
challenge the notion that tax cuts for the rich, ignoring the growing
unemployment problem, billion dollar airline bailouts, and shoving Enron
corruption under the rug was our patriotic duty. Racial profiling and
attacks on public institutions became a top priority.

It boils down to we have the money. It was stolen and SS is still okay but that's not what the gov. wants us to know. I also don't know if it got paid back. When you see there's a money crisis, it is taken from those with the least pull, the least power, and what can we do - march in Washington in sleeping bags because we can't afford hotel rooms? So, take the poor and stomp on them because that's what Washington can do really well.
 
Foxrac said:
It looks like certain doctors have favoritism.

It looks like disability reviewing board need to tighten up and possibly require anyone to see a doctor that SS provided instead of let anyone to find doctors whatever they want.
Click to expand...
SSA already has that policy. It sends deaf people who apply for SSI to audiologists. It pays for their services. SSA approves the applications once it gets the result that proves that the applicants are deaf. It has been like that for a long time.

As for SSDI, the private doctors are required to provide evidences (X-ray/MRI/eye exam/etc) as a final analysis to show that an applicant has a permanent disability that prevents him/her from being able to work. It takes 6 months for SSA to make a decision. Favoritism? How?
 
NYNY said:
Foxrac: Would you clarify this statement:
"It looks like disability reviewing board need to tighten up and possibly require anyone to see a doctor that SS provided instead of let anyone to find doctors whatever they want."

You're writing about the review board, so it seems like you mean go to any doctor who's applying for SSDI should be able to see his/her own doctor for this?

* * *
When I was on the Dice information tech board the employment system was crashing, more and more people (older) were looking at SSDI. The rule back then was if you could not work in your current position held for the last five years, you can apply for disability. It didn't mean you'd get it. More and more older people (@54+ one exception was made for someone who may have been 45 and I'm not sure she got it) applied and received SSDI.

Those applying swelled logically. There weren't jobs for us (outsourced for pennies - I saw as a manager what the pay was within limits). There was a lot of discrimination (age, hearing, other non-hearing related issues). People did turn legally to SSDI.

I see an economic employment system (what system) that sucked that was not meant to sustain an influx of people who, under old standards, could work. But the money was taken again and again.
Click to expand...

Under current system, anyone applied for SSDI can pick any doctors that they want.

It need change the procedure that require applicants to see a doctor that SS picked one of them, more of like SS accredited doctors.
 
CrazyPaul said:
SSA already has that policy. It sends deaf people who apply for SSI to audiologists. It pays for their services. SSA approves the applications once it gets the result that proves that the applicants are deaf. It has been like that for a long time.

As for SSDI, the private doctors are required to provide evidences (X-ray/MRI/eye exam/etc) as a final analysis to show that an applicant has a permanent disability that prevents him/her from being able to work. It takes 6 months for SSA to make a decision. Favoritism? How?
Click to expand...

Some doctors could make a modify the medical evidence to prove that patients are disabled.

For me, it took 3 months to get SSDI approved after they found that I have DB.
 
ASLuser101 said:
FYI, this bill won't become law. I can't tell you why without getting political.
Click to expand...
Hold me back. It's hard walking that fine line between political and not political. I dislike politics, so hopefully I don't infringe on it.

If my reading and conclusions are correct, this is just another scare tactic by the GOP and likely and better hidden, the DNC. What y'all are saying is the program that supports poor people - SSI - where they cannot have more than $2k/month in accounts, collect food stamps, and really are the poorest of the poor except for those who have nothing* may well be hurt again. We don't know how much it may be if it happens at all and ranges between 15, 20, and a potential 21% SSI cut. Washington is literally going to all people to die early if that happens and it has been done before.

Soooo, we see inequality with the richer people who can get out of many a jam and the hostages down here (middle and lower class) just keep getting weaker. Crazy world.
 
Foxrac said:
Some doctors could make a modify the medical evidence to prove that patients are disabled.

For me, it took 3 months to get SSDI approved after they found that I have DB.
Click to expand...
3 months for you? When did it happen? All of my friends who are on SSDI told me that they waited for 6 months as mentioned by SSA in its website to receive a first check once the application is approved.

If a doctor is found guilty of a fraud, he will lose his/her job (will lose the license).
 
That is called "Five-Month Waiting Period." you can check ssa.gov

However they should inform you if your case is approved or not in 60 days or so. but the check will come in after 5 months later.
 
Frisky Feline said:
That is called "Five-Month Waiting Period." you can check ssa.gov

However they should inform you if your case is approved or not in 60 days or so. but the check will come in after 5 months later.
Click to expand...
Yes, the first check will be sent after 6 months.

When Your Benefits Start

If your application is approved, your first Social Security benefit will be paid for the sixth full month after the date we find that your disability began.
For example, if your disability began on June 15, 2014, your first benefit would be paid for the month of December 2014, the sixth full month of disability.
Social Security benefits are paid in the month following the month for which they're due. This means that the benefit due for December would be paid to you in January 2015, and so on.
Click to expand...
 
CrazyPaul said:
3 months for you? When did it happen? All of my friends who are on SSDI told me that they waited for 6 months as mentioned by SSA in its website to receive a first check once the application is approved.

If a doctor is found guilty of a fraud, he will lose his/her job (will lose the license).
Click to expand...

My situation is more complicated - I'm supposed to be qualify for SSDI on August 2010 but they delayed to August 2011 so I had to handover the medical documentation (several doctor offices) to disability review so they approved on October 2011 and I didn't get first check until November 2011 after more than 1 year delay so I got big back payment as well.

That's strong personal question that I don't want to answer, anyway.
 
Foxrac said:
My situation is more complicated - I'm supposed to be qualify for SSDI on August 2010 but they delayed to August 2011 so I had to handover the medical documentation (several doctor offices) to disability review so they approved on October 2011 and I didn't get first check until November 2011 after more than 1 year delay so I got big back payment as well.

That's strong personal question that I don't want to answer, anyway.
Click to expand...
You don't need to give the details about your disability or whatever.

I pointed out that SSA started to count the months from the day you became disabled. Once it was approved, you would get the first check after 6 months. It applies to everyone who applies for SSDI. You talked about the back payments because you didn't get the first check after 6 months (you received the first check over 1 year later so that's why SSA owed you from the 6th month to the day you received it).
 
Nope, they counted the days from the date of first application. If your claim is true, I would have had SSI since I was born.... did it happen? Nope! When I was in teenager, I filled out application and had to wait 6 months instead of being 6 months old.

CrazyPaul said:
You don't need to give the details about your disability or whatever.

I pointed out that SSA started to count the months from the day you became disabled. Once it was approved, you would get the first check after 6 months. It applies to everyone who applies for SSDI. You talked about the back payments because you didn't get the first check after 6 months (you received the first check over 1 year later so that's why SSA owed you from the 6th month to the day you received it).
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Nope, they counted the days from the date of first application. If your claim is true, I would have had SSI since I was born.... did it happen? Nope! When I was in teenager, I filled out application and had to wait 6 months instead of being 6 months old.
Click to expand...
As long as you have medical reports to show when your disability began BUT you are 100% right that when an application is done for SSDI, the SSA starts to count the months.

For example, I work for 25 years, even though I am deaf, I can't work any longer due to chronic back pain that prevents me to work. The day I apply for SSDI, SSA starts to count it. It doesn't count my days/months/years of my deafness. I know because a lot of my deaf friends who are on SSDI told me. When I said disabled, I mean an inability to work.

To apply for SSI, the policy is not the same as the policy for SSDI which doesn't require your income reports. As for waiting period on SSI applications, SSA doesn't mention it at all. In other words, once it gets everything it needs and it approves your application, you would get SSI as soon as possible.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top