 |
 |
This indicates what Money Magazine, in its scathing articles from last Sept and, I think, Nov, said about this chicken-s--- outfit. Each SS office makes its own rules,and as a result, like for the Stork here, they occasionally screw up and do the right thing. The impression I got from the article is that it is a bad organization employing some bad people, much like the IRS - government out of control. Unfortunately, the pols, I think, like it this way. For instance, Sen. D'Amato, from that (insufferable) state to the north of here, is currently running a reelection ad bragging about how he got some woman's SSDI approved amidst all the government "red tape," that as a legislator is his friggin' fault for not fixing! This form of "local rules" operation seems to work for the VA because there is some rationale involved - it's based on availability of service at each hospital, and it is official in-writing policy. I am a category 7, the lowest priority, but I still get service at the one I go to for meds because they have the capacity. If I didn't I could always find one that did. In Minneapolis, for instance, I know I would not be served. I WONDER ABOUT DOING THIS WITH THE SSA! Assuming you couldn't just go to another SSA office if you didn't like the answer you got at the first one, I wonder if you could instead pick a friendlier one to start with. Like this one here. Perhaps good and bad (or rather bad and badder!) SSA office locations could be posted here. I sure as heck would not (and will not, when the time comes) accept the word of someone who works there on this; it needs to be tested a few times. Getting on that road to the cure will be great, but meanwhile some amongst us in the US need to eat. It would sure be useful if someone here could try this and let us know if, in fact, you are told you must go to a particular office. And I still think that once we get Udall funded (and while we're waiting for the cure to happen) we should use our new political contacts to start picking on this sorry outfit. We're probably their biggest customer. -----Original Message----- From: STORKIE 1 <[log in to unmask]> To: Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sunday, May 03, 1998 8:02 AM Subject: re disability pension -As the ads say-"talk to the man that owns one" >At age 62, I applire for regular retirement from Soc. Sec. I then applied for >disability status because of my Parkinson's. I told them at the onset that I >would still be working on a parttime basis, slowly, but necessarily for about >two years, transferring my clientele for continuity of services. I told them >I was still playing golf and tennis on a reduced basis as suggested stronglly >by my neuroligical and other medical resources. > >The whole cycle took about 6 months-- first the award of my requested age 62 >pension and then the award of the disability pension.I had no problems--just >took a couple of "shrink" tests and an exam by their "doc". > >Good luck!!