Your Right To Question The Decision To Stop Your Disability Benefits. Disability: Fill & Download for Free

SSDI is on the rise for a number of reasons -The number of women in the workforce is rising. Nowadays, more and more women regularly pay into social security, and seek disability benefits when they become disabled. No, this doesn’t mean women apply for disability more, just that there are more people in the job market and thus more people able to apply for disability. A whole new segment of the population is applying for and receiving disability benefits, contributing to the rise in rates.Advances in medical technology are contributing to the rise in people receiving disability benefits. One way this is seen is through veterans. Injuries that would have been fatal in past wars from years before are now easily treatable, but when the injured veterans return home, they are still unable to work because of both their medical and mental conditions. The lenghty War on Terror contributes to the increased number of vets coming back with physical and psych disabilities - they work upon return, which exacerbates their disabilities or are unable to work at all upon return. Also, not just vets, but the entire population as a whole are surviving things that years ago would hsve been fatal. Prematurely born babies are more likely to survive, but they may grow up to have disabilities that require benefits. The same is the case for people who have had a heart attack, stroke, or similar medical crisis which would have been fatal previously, but is now survivable but disabling.The population in America rises each year. More people = more disabled people if tge rate of disability remains completly the same.The population in the UD is also aging. Baby boomers between the ages of about 50 to 70 are considered in their peak years for experiencing disabilities and medical conditions that have left them unable to work. If people in this age bracket have age related or age exacerbated disabilities and retirement is not an option, disability benefits may be a their only option.Your question is phrased in a pretty judgmental way - “why is disability on the rise” vs “Is Social security disability on the rise because people see it as the new welfare benefits?” Not only is this judgmental towards people who have disabling physical and mental health conditions, but it is increadibly ill informed. As I mentioned, there are many legitimate, statistical reasons why disability claims increase. And, The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 08/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940. So, there is nothing “new” about SSDI. And, it isn’t welfare, so the only people who would see it as such are those who don’t understand how the program operates. Disability is generally short for SSDI, which stands for Social Security Disability Insurance. Like any insurance, you pay premiums (through taxes), and your benefits, if needed, are based upon how much you paid in premiums (taxes). Like any other insurance, say homeowners insurance for example, some people never need it. Some people need it and get back more than they paid in premiums - just like you can pay $1500 a yr in homeowner’s insurance and never need it or after 5yrs file a claim for $180,000 when your house is hit by a tornado even though you paid in $7500. That’s just the way insurance works. Would you consider the person filing a homeowner’s insurance claim after a devistating tragedy took their home to be taking welfare? Most wouldn’t. So, why do you consider it welfare someone who files a disability insurance claim after a devistating illness or injury takes away their ability to work? Because it is insurance through the government? Because it is easier to judge someone who cannot stop or avoid repercussions of something physical /mental than it is to judge someone who cannot stop /avoid a tornado, hail, floof, or other natural disaster? Whatever the reason, it’s a pretty close-minded approach. No one wishes for an illness or injury (one could make the argument that someone with a factitious disorder “wished” for the illnesses they “create,” but even they didn’t want the underlying disorder. So, the point still stands). Therefore, it just isn’t ethical to judge people who cannot work because of their unfortunate situations.And, none of this even addresses the point others made about how few people can survive on SSDI. The average monthly payment is less than $1250/mo (which is < $15,000/yr). There are very few places in the US where that alone is enough to justify not working and commiting fraud just to get “welfare.” The max is $2681/mo ($32,172/yr before taxes) hardly enough money to make a life decision not to work in order to get a bunch of money from the gov’t, plus if someone makes that much in SSDI, their pre-disability was substantially more than $30k/yr. Who in their right mid would give up a job making $100k+ /yr just to get a check from the gov’t of $30k/yr. But, that’s the max, not the norm. The range for majority of SSDI payments is $800 -$1800/mo ($9,600 - $21,600/yr). The poverty line in the US is considered $12,490 for a single person and $25,750 for a family of 4. So, the average SSDI receipent is living just above the poverty line (earning just $200/mo more than poverty level). Minimum wage ($7.25 federally) for a 40hr a week job would earn you more than the average person gets from SSDI benefits, which means millions of Americans on disability get less than the equivilent of minimum wage. I’m not making any judgments about whether the benefit rates are right or wrong. Just trying to help you see why most people don’t choose disability over working. Is there fraud - yeah, there is in any benefit program. But, the rate of fraud in SSDI is less than 1% (per the SSA). So, that means that the other 99+% are legitimately disabled and unable to work, not using the program as welfare…I pray that you’re never in a position where you need to file any sort of insurance claim. If you are, I hope you’re surrounded by less judgmental people

Sure. A very recent question was asked recently and this should be merged with it.Let’s start with a story. I’ll get the details wrong, but I’ll give you great way to learn more about the story at the end. And you should, because it’s such a great story—and best of all, the good guys win in the end.In New England, everyone knows about the family-owned, 80-store grocery chain, Market Basket. And everyone remembers what happened in the Summer of 2014.The family who owned Market Basket had quite a scuffle. Essentially, long ago, the father who started the chain died and left the store to his sons and family.They had been fighting over Market Basket’s future since 1990. At the time in this story, one faction had 50.5% of the stock. The other had 49.5% of the stockOne son, Arthur T. (the only Arthur that matters for this retelling), was the CEO. His side had 49.5%—a minority position. Which means that the faction with the legal right to control the fate of the company, wasn’t actually managing it.Arthur T., on the right.Arthur was well known for very generous management.For example, Arthur paid the employees significantly above-average wages and had a great benefits program. Paid vacation paid sick leave, 401(k), profit sharing, flex-time, life and disability insurance. Not all employees got the same package of benefits, of course. But it was a company that a person could make a life-long career at—if they want to.Basically, Arthur had a policy of treating people like valued members of the Market Basket team. Not surprisingly, the employees really liked him!And the other side of the family? Hated this. To them, this “generosity” was money out of their pocket. And—get this—Arthur had this crazy idea that Market Basket should open more stores and make more money!The other side of the family want to make money a different way. Some wanted to sell off the whole chain to a competitor and “cash out”. So, they tried to find ways to fire Arthur. They spent a lot of money investigating him and trying to dig stuff up. It wasn’t very successful, but they did find a few things that raised some questions. They hired a retired judge to investigate, but no wrongdoing was found. Eventually, the family finally decided to fire Arthur.But the employees found out about it. And they protested outside the boardroom. So, the board decided not to fire Arthur.A few weeks later, they did secretly fire him. And, the new management team came in and immediately fired 8 employees who organized the protests. (And apparently more firings happened later.)Response?Almost overnight, 25,000 Market Basket employees went on strike.Long-time customers refused to shop at Market Basket.The losses to Market Basket were estimated at $10 million per day.What did the employees basically want? “Other side of the family! Sell all of your shares to Arthur so he can be CEO again.”But, the family said no.So, for about six weeks in 2014, everything Market Basket ground to a halt. (I remember walking into a Market Basket just to check it out. The shelves were slightly less bare than Soviet-era shops.)While constant protests outside of these empty stores continued.But the other side of the family wouldn’t budge. And all the managers from 68 of the 71 stores sent a petition to the other side of the family and said they would quit if Arthur weren’t reinstated. More protests occurred. The Attorneys General of Massachusetts and New Hampshire “courteously” reminded the other side of the family that if Market Basket finally formally fired all these employees, the situation would become very messy. Market Basket sent warnings of termination to hundreds of employees that they needed to show up for work.Not one employee did.Finally, the other side of the family surrendered.Arthur was able to purchase the outstanding shares for $1.25 billion… and he had to borrow about $500 million of it.And then, everybody went back to work.(Oh, and all those fired employees were offered their jobs back.)Want to hear more about the story? Someone made a documentary. Worth watching.Watch We The People - The Market Basket Effect | Prime VideoSO.What did most Republicans in New England say about all this?(ahem)HELL YEAH, MARKET BASKET EMPLOYEES! YOU GIVE THOSE BASTARDS HELL!And here’s the rub:The other side of the family was totally in the right. Legally speaking. They could fire Arthur. And no one had the right to stop them.However. They’re also responsible for all the consequences that decision entailed. And firing a CEO who your employees will go to bat for? That is a very stupid idea. Everyone knows that.The Board had the right to fire the CEO. And even employees… Just as the employees had the right to quit, protest, and call for boycotts.Neither side’s rights are superior to the other. As it should be.They were all adults. Hopefully they can work it out. And if they can’t, then they can’t.Just an interesting side note:Neither Market Basket management nor its employees had any union.This all happened very organically.But don’t get me wrong: let’s pretend there was a union. The close-knit Market Basket family acted a lot like a union, right? It just happened in this case, they didn’t need all the special government privileges that the National Labor Relations Act gives to unions.Most Republicans are not against unions. They are not against labor action. Every employee has a right to form together with other employees, and protest, advocate, and to attempt to bargain collectively. But your actions may have consequences too.Republicans don’t care about the nitty gritty of the above. That is just the business of life. That is normal.What are Republicans against? They are against the government giving very special legislative privileges to unions. Which distorts markets, frustrates the very purpose of unions, and can convert unions into self-serving, corrupt organizations. And they really, really hate when unions try to strong-arm non-union employees.That is what Republicans don’t like.Now, because Republicans don’t readily support government-recognized unions’ relying on their labor legislation—and certainly don’t seek to expand what they already have—many recognized unions and Democrats often cozy up to each other. Democrats offer up government contracts and special legislation; unions “sell” the political votes of their union members. (Unions can’t legally force anyone vote a specific way; but they sure as hell try to “persuade” their members.)Voting for Republican’s opponents because they’ll reward you sweetheart deals doesn’t really endear your specific union to the conservative mindset. They’ll just think you’re corrupt.Also, every time I write an answer on unions, someone reminds me about public unions.Yes, I know. We don’t often think of “public unions” as unions. They’re a completely different beast. They should be abolished completely.

Question as answered:Does a decision to abort a fetus with physical defects mean that one doesn't believe a life with disabilities is worth living?This is one of those really, really difficult questions.That means that this is going to be a long answer.I’ll briefly address the situation in the article before going on to discuss my own point of view — the baby was diagnosed in-utero with a heart defect and a cleft lip. While it depends on what the heart defect is, neither of those conditions are incompatible with life. That was the surrogate’s argument; she agreed to abort if the conditions were incompatible with life, but they weren’t, so she wanted to keep the pregnancy knowing that her own daughter had been diagnosed with a heart defect and was now happy and healthy. The biological parents, on the other hand, said that they didn’t want to bring a disabled baby into the world because they didn’t want them to suffer.In this case, I would agree more with the surrogate; neither of the conditions the foetus was diagnosed with were inherently going to mean that the child would suffer throughout its life. A cleft lip is a common condition, happening in about 1 in 700 births in the UK, and thousands if not millions of corrective surgeries have been performed; this is a well-documented condition that doctors know how to treat. Heart defects vary, but do not inherently herald lifelong suffering.However, the issue arose here because it was a surrogate who refused to terminate on the order of the biological parents. If it were the biological mother who was carrying the pregnancy when the diagnosis was given, she would have the right to terminate if she wished. People can agree or disagree or condemn, but to take that choice away would be setting a dangerous precedent.It could be made illegal to inform the parents of in-utero defects, thus preventing them from aborting on those grounds — in the same way as some countries have banned gender determination to prevent sex-specific abortion — but you cannot say that a person can abort unless the foetus has been diagnosed with disabilities. That’s just not feasible.The best way to encourage people to keep pregnancies after a diagnosis is to ensure that they know the child will have a good quality of life, or as good a one as can be provided.Things to fight for to ensure that disabled children are born into a world where they can have a good quality of life: free or affordable healthcare to deal with health conditions arising from disabilities; free or affordable therapists (speech and language, physical, mental health) for the child while they’re growing up to give them the best start in life; disability allowance to fund carers and respite and adaptations to the house and car; support in school, either mainstream or special ed; housing and other benefits for poorer parents so that they can focus on caring for their child rather than keeping a roof over their heads.I have two cousins with disabilities; one older than me with severe Cri du chat, one younger with Achondroplasia and autism. I can clearly see that they both have quality lives.Is it the quality that someone able-bodied and neurotypical expects? Maybe not. I’m not close to the younger of the two, but my cousin with cri du chat often uses a wheelchair, is completely non-verbal with cognitive disabilities that mean she also can’t use BSL (she communicates through Makaton, which is a signed language for people with disabilities that affect their mental abilities) and is incapable of living independently. She also loves her flat in a supported-living building where she has full-time carers, enjoys seeing family when they visit, and had a fantastic trip with her carer to see Disney on Ice last year. She loves Dora the Explorer and Paw Patrol and programmes like that, and is never happier than when she gets gifts of merch.But it’s also true that that quality was hard-won. We are fortunate to live in a country with free healthcare, disability allowances and so on. My cousin has a car provided via Motability and got funding to go to college (teaching people with disabilities how to live semi-independently in supported living) for three years. My aunt had to fight to get her that funding, because they tried to say that she didn’t need to go. She was incredibly lucky that someone who had studied cri du chat was at the hospital when she was born, because otherwise it wouldn’t have been diagnosed for years and she would never have got the early intervention she needed.But what if people don’t have those things?In a country without decent healthcare, for a poorer family it may be nigh on impossible to get a disabled child the operations or treatments they need to have a good quality of life. Imagine the pain of watching your child suffer and knowing that you can’t alleviate it because it would cost hundreds of thousands, and you’re making decisions about whether electricity or food is more necessary this week. A disabled child is relatively likely to need full-time care; again, extremely difficult to accomplish if both parents (or the parent, if a single-parent family) need to work full time or work multiple jobs and can’t afford a full-time carer, not to mention lifelong care. And while with an able-bodied child it can seem easy to say “give them up for adoption if you’re too poor” — although let’s be real, it’s never easy — the reality is that a disabled baby or child will struggle to get adopted.I think that if a parent knows, genuinely and whole-heartedly and with incredible sorrow, that they will be unable to give a child the care they need to survive and thrive, termination of the pregnancy may be the kinder option.For the record, this is the same opinion I hold of abortion full stop — if a woman knows she can’t provide a good life for any baby she might bring into the world, for whatever reason, she is completely within her rights to choose abortion.This is not about the quality of life that a person with disabilities can have; this is about the quality of life that a parent can provide for a child with a disability.There are a lot of people who, because of personal circumstances and the lack of support offered by their country, would never be able to provide the care and resources that a disabled child needs to thrive.So, I say again — fight for good and affordable healthcare so that no-one has to terminate for fear of medical bankruptcy or not being able to afford the necessary operations. Fight for accessible therapy and good support in schools so that parents know their child will get the best possible start in life. Fight for benefits and allowances for parents and disabled people so that parents know they can afford care and support and give their adult child a good life after they’re gone. Fight against government cuts and societal attempts to marginalise disabled people.If you make it possible for a parent to know that their disabled child will have the best possible chance at having a good quality of life, then you stand the best possible chance of encouraging that parent to keep the pregnancy.To answer the question more directly — no, I don’t think that the decision to abort a foetus with diagnosed disabilities inherently means that the parent doesn’t think it’s a life worth living.I definitely think that some parents do think that, and perhaps the biological parents in the article were some of them. The article was written from the perspective of the surrogate, so we don’t know.But I also think that there are parents who know that a child with disabilities could have a life worth living, but also know that they’re not capable of providing that life. That a child could have extreme suffering prevented with the right care but that that care is out of reach for their family. And in that situation, a family might decide that it seems better for the child to never be born than for them to suffer because they were born into the ‘wrong’ kind of family.We need to ensure that all families have the opportunity to access the kind of care that they know a disabled child needs, no matter what their income or where they live.