What Should We Do About Social Security Disability Appeals: Fill & Download for Free

I think it's time Americans wake up.This right here. This is the agenda. Virtually everything else pales before it. And Americans have been in denial about it for decades now.This is a hard Quora answer to write. To discuss all the laws, policies and programs that have brought us to this point would take a book written over months, not something I can type here in a few minutes on my phone. I won’t be able to credit every source or detail every point. But I'll attempt to touch on some broad factors. Forgive me for nutshelling it this way.tbpFirst, realize that today's Republican party is in no way “Conservative.”Today's Republican Party does NOT want to “keep things the same.” No. Even as they purport to embrace a past era of prosperity, they actually want to reverse the very policies and practices that brought that American standard of living about.Did everyone achieve The American Dream? Well, obviously not. There were still poor Americans, and women and minorities were locked out by design. And yet, as a rising tide lifts all boats, household incomes did increase among all demographics. Quality of life did improve. Most Americans looked to the future with hope.Let's be clear. In developing the New Deal; creating Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Disability insurance; setting a minimum wage; legislating civil rights in housing, employment and education; regulating environmental, worker and consumer protections; subsidizing home ownership and higher education via the GI Bill and Pell Grants; investing in highways, airports, schools, national parks and science exploration; and promoting a positive image of America abroad, past Presidential administrations, including GOP ones, were more ideologically Progressive than the Trump Administration is now.Let’s look back. In the 1930s and 1940s, Communism —and Fascism disguised as Socialism — were actual, tangible threats to American freedom. Does anyone remember that?And some people did, in fact, condemn the policies above as pink or even red.Nevertheless, even then, most Americans, Republicans and Democrats, agreed that a certain level of suffering and in America was unacceptable. The reality of abject poverty, particularly of the elderly, children and low-wage workers, had come to light during the Progressive era, and shocked Americans. Americans wanted to be better than that.En Masse, Americans agreed there was a need to ensure that people who worked should have basic food, clothing, shelter and medicine.Contrary to today's narrative, minimum wage was not created as starting pay for teenagers’ part-time jobs. Set in 1938, minimum wage was intended to be a floor at which a full-time worker could achieve sustenance.In advocating for a minimum wage in 1933, Roosevelt said:No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. … and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of decent living.The fight for a minimum wage was intense and long. But it succeeded, in 1938. Having a “bottom floor” for wages didn't only impact those at the very bottom. Wages of all workers continued to rise.The fight for programs to protect those who could not work was also intense and long, but also won. In 1935, with the passage of the Social Security Act, Roosevelt said:Today, a hope of many years’ standing is in large part fulfilled… We have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.”Some decried its passage. But what was its impact? Well, one measure is the substantial decrease in poverty among one of the most vulnerable populations, elderly women:Those who recognized the need to maintain and expand such policies during the 1950s and 1960s didn't have to fall into the “extreme leftist” camp. Among other things, President Dwight Eisenhower expanded both Social Security by signing SSDI (Disability) into law. In 1954, he wrote to his brother Edgar:I oppose (too much government control). But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by…. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.Eisenhower was also clear publically, as he said at Lincoln Day box supper in February 1954:Republicans come forward with programs in which there are such words as "balanced budgets," and "cutting expenditures," and all the kind of thing that means this economy must be conservative, it must be solvent.But they also come forward and say we are concerned with every American's health, with a decent house for him, we are concerned that he will have a chance for health, and his children for education.Dwight Eisenhower was not a liberal. But he emphatically believed that Americans’ quality of life was a priority, and warned in 1953 that the country must never prize military might above general welfare:Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.As a reminder, Eisenhower had a long Military career , and was speaking in the middle of the Cold War , when Americans feared Communism and Fascism in a way that was much more tangible than now.Yet most Americans didn't see valuing the public good as a dangerous left-wing idea. Later, President Richard Nixon — also not a liberal — favoredcomprehensive health insurance protection to millions who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with improved protection against catastrophic illnesses. No American will miss basic medical care by inability to pay.…And attempted to pass a negative income tax, advocating a Guaranteed Basic Income — an idea floated by Milton Friedman , also not a liberal.Friedman also supported an Individual Mandate for health insurance, which had been introduced in 1986 by the Conservative Heritage Foundation to discourage “free riders” on the system and promote personal responsibility. Taxpayers, after all, get stuck with the bill for unpaid catastrophic health care.Lots of things happened between then and now. Eventually, the economy did falter, for many reasons too numerous to name. At this time there was a shift in Conservative thought. It clicked in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan.While Conservatives had always been for less government and cautious spending, Reagan famously said in his 1980 inaugural address: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” (Later, Grover Norquist would say, “Our goal is to shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub.”)Now, policies and laws and budgets and regulations began to go in reverse. The narrative began to change. Education and social program budgets began to shrink, and as their quality fell, public support for funding them fell, allowing further cuts that further eroded quality (“Starving the Beast”).Moreover, while Reagan actually raised taxes 11 times during his presidency, he famously slashed tax rates for the wealthy, ostensibly so wealth could “trickle down” to everyone else.Here's what happened:This was known as Supply Side Economics. Its chief architect in the Reagan Administration was Bruce Bartlett. Since then, Bartlett has recognized Reaganomics as a disaster that destroyed the middle class, and since then has been warning against such policies:| I helped create the GOP tax myth. Trump is wrong: Tax cuts don’t equal growth.So, what did happen after Reagan's tax cuts? Well, this:…and this ……and this ……and this……and this.In words, the wealthy have become much wealthier, while the average American worker has barely seen a raise in purchasing power since 1980.In the meantime, the costs of housing, health care and college have increased exponentially. In no state can a full-time worker at minimum wage afford even an apartment, much less food, clothing, medicine and transportation. And it is now literally impossible for a student to “work his way through college.”Instead, they now graduate into the workforce hampered with decades of debt, needing to hold off marriage and home ownership. Meanwhile, tens of millions of Americans are approaching retirement with little or nothing saved.*Meanwhile, the Beast has been starved. The quality of public programs have fallen, as has the quality of life, education, and health care and economic mobility relative to the rest of the world. Even charitable donations have fallen, as a low tax environment makes donations less beneficial to donors.It's into this reality that the Trump Administration, including Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, are opposing protections for preexisting conditions in health care … advocating privatization of Social Security and Medicare … appealing for slashes in Medicaid … withholding payments to insurance companies to provide affordable health care … turning back regulations that protect average consumers in a market crash … dialing back protections on the environment … abolishing a minimum wage … busting unions … increasing penalties for students in college loan debt … making bankruptcy harder for the average American … explode military spending to a level never seen before … and successfully passed a tax plan that renders Reaganomics a permanent trajectory of wealth inequality into Kingdom Come.This is not “Conservative,” people. It's radical. Reckless. Dangerous. And entirely unnecessary, as the massive tax relief to the richest people in the history of the world, during a time of economic expansion, was unnecessary.It's lunacy.Wake up.

How does one apply for disability in the USA?It is not necessary, but hire a disability lawyer on contingency[1] — a lawyer is not paid unless you are approved. This is the most effective approach. Robin Hubbard's answer to Why did Social Security deny me after I've shown them proof.SOURCE: Survey Statistics: Who Is Most Likely to Get Approved for Social Security Disability Benefits?Initial applications are rejected 65-70% of the time and reconsideration, appeal and hearing typically take 18 months or more. Do set up a My Social Security for application and tracking SSA benefits. my Social Security | Social Security Administration---DIY: Disability Starter Kit will help available in English or SpanishThe online Application for Benefits also includes links to information that will help you complete the form.Updated Feb 27, 2020SUMMARY OF ELIGIBILITY CRITERIAUnable to do substantial gainful work activity (~=$1,200 or $7.50 hourlyThe severe medically proven impairment will last a year or moreMatches SSA Blue Book Criteria => BenefitsNot in Blue Book & Results of Residual Function Capacity assessmentCan still do past work = NO benefitsCan still do other work = NO benefitsCannot do past or other work => BenefitsSOURCE: SSDI Solutions Initiative Publishes Issue Brief on Determination & Appeals ProcessWhy did Social Security deny me after I've shown them proof that I'm not able to work because of my disability even after I sent them my medical records?What kind of written proof do I need to provide the social security office that I am mentally disabled/unable to work?What is the difference between SSI and SSDI (Disability)?I just received a continuing disability review paperwork. Will I lose my disability if I haven't been going to the doctor?Can social security disability benefits be taken or garnished by the state to pay court costs or fines?Benefits Planner: Disability | How You ApplyYou should apply for disability benefits as soon as you become disabled. If you are ready to apply now, you can:Complete your application online.Call our toll-free telephone number 1-800-772-1213. If you are deaf or hard of hearing, you can call us at TTY1-800-325-0778.Call or visit your local Social Security office.If you want to apply in person, please call and make an appointment before you visit your local office.If you wish to help another person apply for disability benefits, please read Helping Someone Apply Online.Here is the kind of information you should have:Information About YouYour Social Security number and proof of your age;Names, addresses, and phone numbers of doctors, caseworkers, hospitals, and clinics that took care of you and the dates of your visits;Names and dosages of all the medications you are taking;Medical records from your doctors, therapists, hospitals, clinics, and caseworkers, that you already have in your possession;Laboratory and test results;A summary of where you worked and the kind of work you did; andYour most recent W-2 form or, if you were self-employed, a copy of your federal tax return.Information About Family MembersSocial Security numbers and proof of age for each family member who may qualify for benefits; andProof of marriage, if your spouse is applying for benefits, as well as dates of prior marriages, if applicable.The documents you may need to show us must be original documents or copies certified by the issuing office. . .If you don't have all the documents you need, don't delay filing for benefits. We will help you get the information you need.SOURCE: Eight Lesser-Known Social Security Disability FactsUseful Facts About the Claims Process8 Social Security Disability Myths and FactsWho Gets the Most in Disability Pay? 8 Key Social Security FactsLearning From Social Security Disability Forums5 Facts You Need to Know Before Applying for SSDI ·Footnotes[1] Contingent fee - Wikipedia

I’m updating this answer with a public service announcement.As of December 2019, there are alarming changes proposed for SSDI eligibility reviews. They’re planning to increase the frequency—and remove the requirement that a Social Security reviewer back up their decision with medical evidence. When they did this during the Reagan administration, tens of thousands of people were cut from the rolls due to failure to comply properly with paperwork or some paper-pusher deciding they didn’t look disabled enough. Well, any autistic person who has enough work credits to qualify for SSDI is probably not going to “look disabled enough” and anyone with executive dysfunction is probably going to screw up their paperwork. This isn’t targeting Autistic people, and plenty of other folks will suffer too, but nobody should be kicked out of the social safety net this way.If you are Autistic, or know someone who is, or likewise for any other disability, fight this as hard as you can! And with about 20% of the population having a disability (including stuff you get from being old) that pretty much means everyone is either disabled or cares about someone who is. Write or call your Congresscritters, the Social Security Administration, the op-ed page of your local newspaper, etc. Find out if local groups are demonstrating against it (disability rights groups, general “resistance” groups such as Together We Will or Indivisible, etc.) because the one bright spot since January 2017 has been that if the people protest these horrible decisions, they often get reversed.Social security disability benefits: What Trump's proposed cuts could mean for recipientsOK, so back to my original answer.This whole propaganda about millions and millions of autistic children who never grow up and need 24/7 care the rest of their lives is a complete fabrication. In order to get the 1:68 (or 1:58 or whatever it is this week) figure, you have to include a lot of people who have an Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis but whose disabilities will not render them unemployable. Many people who have careers and families are being diagnosed later in life, often when their children are diagnosed and they identify these same traits in themselves. See Peter Flom's answer here: Are the vast majority of autistic people unemployed? If so, what are the sources that list this?Although it's highly probable that an autism diagnosis would not be made unless the symptoms affected someone's ability to perform activities of daily living in some way, this is not the threshold that qualifies a person for Social Security disability payments. (However, it would qualify someone for protection from discrimination on the basis of disability, and perhaps for Vocational Rehabilitation services.)In order to receive SSDI or SSI, someone has to be disabled to an extent where the person can prove they're incapable of performing "substantial gainful employment."* Social Security tries very hard to claim someone can, indeed, work enough not to be qualified for benefits. Qualifying for benefits can take several rounds of appeals (a period of up to 4-5 years) and the assistance of a specialized attorney. You do not simply walk into the Social Security office and walk out with a lifetime Direct Deposit! Even if you have to roll into the office in a power wheelchair, you'll probably still get denied the first time around.And after qualifying for SSDI/SSI, there are periodic reviews to see if the person's condition has improved.** I suppose they could use the continuing reviews as a pretext for kicking autistics off the rolls, but I've never heard of a quota for people with X or Y diagnosis--and the whole "autistic tsunami overwhelming our entitlement programs" is bunk anyhow.*** They also check IRS records to see if the person's reporting enough income that Social Security considers "substantial gainful employment" (which is $1,100 per month in 2014 for SSDI and I can't be arsed to research SSI limits, which are less).As I mentioned, qualifying for SSDI or SSI as an adult is extremely difficult. I know that children with developmental disabilities, such as autism, can qualify for SSI and Medicaid primarily to get insurance coverage for expenses of caring for them due to their condition. I don't know how that process compares to the adult disability process. I do know that if someone who received SSI as a child but goes on to work as an adult, they can disqualify themselves from benefits if they make more money than the limits.**** I know there are types of trusts to shield them from losing their benefits if Grandma leaves them some money or Mom and Dad leave them the house to live in, but I don't know how easy it would be to change the laws to prohibit Special Needs Trusts.Anyhow, I hope it's useful to understand more about Social Security Disability programs as well as the truth about autism statistics. Do not worry about hordes of autistics suddenly overwhelming Social Security and being turned out into the cold simply because autism is too popular.Please also realize that SSDI is often too little to live on, and SSI is very much not enough to live on in many areas of the country. Sure, SSI recipients go buy those big screen TVs or whatever to spend down their retroactive payments, but that's because they will lose their benefits if they still have more than about $2000 by the end of the month. After that, you're way, way below the poverty line.*The process is such hard work that being able to navigate the system ought to be proof that you are not disabled--many people are too disabled to get disability because the process is so difficult. Many of them live in a doorway or park near you.**My mother was on SSI for congestive heart failure. She had to go in every year to see if she'd gotten better and could work. She could barely get to the Social Security office and had to rest in bed for days afterwards.***Although a lot of autistics are on disability under other diagnoses, as psychiatrists are rubbish at diagnosing autism in adults--for a psychiatrist, when you hear hoofbeats, bipolar and schizophrenia are horses and autism is a zebra--they think that's something kids have, not adults, thanks to Autism Awareness.****I have heard there is a little-known loophole for people with developmental disabilities who received SSI as children, that if they get 6 work credits before the age of 24, they qualify for SSDI as though they had worked for 20 work credits like the rest of us need to. I have NOT verified this information. This would only be relevant if they became unable to work, for example, if they had been in some "disabled youth" program until age 24 with lots of supports but couldn't handle mainstream employment after they aged out.