 |
 |
David.... You've sure got me thinking here! As I see it as you present it the only criteria one needs to be assured of receiving their SSDI benefits is: 1. They've worked The requisite number of years required by the system and paid into that system during that time. 2. Be legitimately disabled (certified as that by a coupla physicians?) enough so that they're unable to earn a living, whether they receive treatment of not for their disability. Interesting. Social Security would have to stop taking it's usual adversarial role if they adapted your suggestion. As it is, many applicants (myself included) seem to immediately get their initial request for SSDI denied, and then are forced to go thru a lengthy appeals process, eventually ending up after a coupla-three years before a Social Security judge. In my own case, after a three year battle, and having had PD for 15 years, I hired an attorney who specialized in Social Security law, and HE finally got me before a judge. After driving me to tears, during the single most humiliating experience of my life, I was FINALLY declared disabled and granted my SSDI benefits. NOW, even tho my condition is worse than it previously was, I've been declared ABLE-bodied by SSDI because I was able to get a unique job enabling me to work out of my home. I met all SSDI requirements to work and STILL keep my "disabled status," including working for less than 36 months (I worked 22 months). I even returned SSDI monies - $3890 - to them that they'd overpaid me while I was employed. I was declared NOT disabled because of the AMOUNT I earned, NOT because of my deteriorating physical condition! And now...once again... I have to go thru the entire application process (and probably another 2 or 3 year battle) in order to get SSDI benefits and Medicare insurance. The "system" stinks when it treats the very people it was designed to help as tho they were criminals when they apply for that help!!!!!! Barb Mallut (very disillusioned!) [log in to unmask] ---------- From: Parkinson's Information Exchange on behalf of David Havard Sent: Thursday, August 14, 1997 11:25 AM To: Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN Subject: Re: 2 questions To Susan, Charles, Margie, Michel and many others who no doubt have the same general authoritarian attitude, I am somewhat surprised at this stance from a group who crave tolerance and support from society at large. To deny this man access to the contributions he made, to whatever social security fund he was a member of, is economic coercion. To make this judgement is the thin end of the wedge, which ends where. It ends with making economic judgements on peoples lives. It ends in culling people like us because we cost society too much. Listen to the economic argument: - if medical science is correct, he will die a lot sooner, need less money for the shorter time he is disabled - if he takes the drug cocktails, there will be extended non productive years, higher cost Let him die! This is the thin edge of the wedge. Why should the goverment support Udall (if as a non American I understand it)? Why don't PWP's pay for all the research themselves. Why do you expect consideration from others? We are not their responsibility. Society has to function on compassion. This man is not imposing has will on anyone (an answer re scientology, Jehovas Witnesses and blood transfusions and children). Let him have his personal choice. This man's attitude is one end of a spectrum. I doubt whether he represents a significant percentage. I can live without art - should I complain when government money supports the arts etc etc ( substitute a range of your own categories). But I don't, life would be so dull if we all conformed to the stereotype. This man is not abusing social security (in effect an insurance programme to which he has contributed), I doubt whether he organised his disease. (Ps if you want to control some of the hidden - not so hidden costs for the SSI do something about medical and other fatuous litigation, overpriced medicine in general and private medical insurance that dumps its responsibilities at the drop of clause 2053 in 2 point print) Forced feeding has not been in vogue for anorexia for some time, neither should forced sinemet for PWP's. Regards from a high tax paying European, full time overworking PWP (ps anyone have an asbestos suite I could borrow) CHARLES - thank you for your request to post my first mail to the list, much appreciated Susan D. Hamburger wrote: > > I strongly support the position that Charlie Meyer states - > questioning a person being able to get SSI disability if they are not > willing to follow the accepted medical regimen to improve their ability to > function. It was stated that they should have 'freedom of choice'. That is > an honorable and totally acceptable position if they would remain > financially responsible for themselves, but this young man wants his cake > and also to eat it. By wanting freedom of choice in how to treat his PD, but > also wanting the government to support him, he has put the burden on society > and abdicated self-responsibility. Our 'government' and SSI in particular, > are in financial trouble. There are many people who abuse our system, and > SSI disability is one of the areas that incurs abuse. It is set up for > those who have NO other options, and at this point, he has other options > (and hopefully many more of them in the future). > > Susan Hamburger > > ps Charlie, I was born and raised in Milwaukee and spent much time in > Madison even though I attended UWM for undergraduate and graduate school. > It's a funny thing about life; if you refuse to accept anything but the > best, you very often get it. > W. Somerset Maughm