I do not think this is correct. Where are you getting this “finiteness” of SSA benefits?
There is a finiteness of RSDI/SSDI benefits. They can be exhausted and often are supplemented with SSI benefits.
In the case of retirement benefits, the letter you receive yearly outlines what your benefits are if you work until a certain age OR if you become disabled now. Those numbers are different - obviously if you become disabled NOW versus retiring at age 70, there will be less money to stretch your presumed lifespan. When a person receives RSDI/SSDI based on disability, it’s meant for a short term - to keep you going until you can work again.
SSI benefits are different. As I said above, SSI is pure Federal welfare. It is not based on previous work quarters, it’s based on a persons long term inability to work and LACK of work quarters.
I have many clients that receive RSDI/SSDI based on previous work quarters - they were injured / unable to work / older. I have clients who have never worked and will never have the ability to work - they receive SSI. I have clients who receive a combo of both RSDI/SSDI and SSI - they have insufficient work quarters to allow a livable income from RSDI/SSDI alone, so the Feds supplement it with SSI.
I don’t think you have this right.
Yes, they can be supplemented with SSI benefits, but that is when the person did not earn enough during their working life to make their SSA benefits above the SSI supplement level.
The different levels of payment are based on actuarial tables. Yes, if you start collecting earlier, the payments are lower, and if you start collecting later, the payments are higher. This is a calculation based on your expected lifespan, but it does not impact how long the benefit will last once you start receiving it. If you start receiving Social Security retirement payments at age 62 and then live to be 122, you will receive the payments for 60 years.
Now, it is true that the money you pay in is finite, and it’s true that some people take out way more than they pay in, while others pay in way more than they take out. But the retirement benefits do not stop once you hit a certain amount of payout. They are simply calculated based on the pay-in.
If so, then I won’t get SSI, if for no other reason than I doubt I’ll qualify for it. I have two pensions coming after I’m 65, and my husband has two and working on a third. Should my SSDI run out, I won’t even apply for SSI.
Don’t really care what the SSA calls it, it is still something I am entitled to because I paid into it for almost 40 years. Wow, a few thousand a month? I’m not getting anywhere near that.
I know that. My point is that I am not taking welfare because I am one of those who worked to pay in.
I know that too - when I was paying in, I was paying for people getting paid at that time. However, those who are paying in now will receive their payments when they qualify for them
Unless a new baby is born.
Where are you?
Yes it does, and most of the folks are not that strong, particularly when they can just give up and have someone else pay for their food and board. It would have been very easy for me to do that, and sure I thought about it at times, but instead I just worked two or three jobs, and didn’t have anything I couldn’t afford to pay for.
Would be interesting - I hope you find it!
You are correct - I explained myself poorly.
I’ve been working since I was 16, as has my husband. If tomorrow we both lost our jobs and we were unable to find immediate work and had to go on TANF and SNAP to take care of our daughter would we not be on welfare because we both worked and paid taxes for 16 years?
Incorrect - it’s a five year in a life time limit. There ARE exceptions, but it is a difficult process, including health evaluations/job skills assessment. Again, I am speaking for where I am.
The Twin Cities. My clientele primarily reside in the poorest communities of Minneapolis and surrounding areas.
[quote]
Report: Characteristics of a Typical Family Served by the Child Support Program. It’s relevant to this discussion, IMO, because a person receiving cash benefits (TANF/child care subsidies in Minnesota) are required to have an open child support case.
That was my question. Which medical privacy laws applied to the cases you were discussing? tomndebb suggested HIPAA, but I guess that wasn’t it, given the time frame. So which medical privacy laws applied to the situation?
Yes, in Great Debates and General Questions, cites are often requested and provided.
IMO, it’s poor form to enter a debate stating definitively this is how XYZ works, I know, because I was involved, but I can’t tell you more, because PRIVACY.
I don’t believe that whatever taxes are used to pay welfare are in a separate fund for the day you would need them.
You would have to go on welfare if you all didn’t find immediate work?
Then it must be highly different here, because the only limit on children is when they age out. It seems that you telling me that I’m wrong was a bit premature.
I will have to come back to this later as I don’t have time to focus on it now.
You can give us any details you want except those which might identify the individuals involved.
I have direct personal experience in the area which I can not speak about in detail because of the law.
As I already stated, the courts were involved. Not only medical privacy laws. When the judge signed the gag order forbidding anyone involved from discussing the case with anyone not required to work on the situation there was no expiration date. Do you not understand that? The judge did not write “you are not to speak of this until D’Anconia asks you about this.”
Why?
Because in order to get your reproductive rights restricted you have have to do some really, really bad stuff. There was extensive reporting on the rather horrific things these women did to their murdered children, reported on by all the local newspapers and some national ones as well. The cases were and still are notorious.
Which, more than the details, is the point here - you have to be a REALLY terrible, horrible person to get your reproductive rights restricted in the US. Way beyond the typical child abuser, way beyond the typical lethal child abuser.
If it is THAT important to you pick a notorious child-death-by-abuse case in Chicago from the early 1990’s where the woman was in drug treatment at the time and ask a judge to issue official documents enabling me to speak about the matter, there’s a decent chance you’ll hit one of those cases I worked on… but I have a hunch you’ll need a better reason that “we were discussing this on an anonymous message board and I asked for this other poster to give me a cite”.
I’ve seen these discussions before, where people like curlcoat claim that reproductive rights can’t be infringed. They can, but you don’t hear about them because the law doesn’t allow it. Not just medical privacy laws but also judges tend to put gag orders on the cases as well. It makes it nearly impossible to provide a cite in a discussion like this, or even find an example on an internet search. The records are not publicly available.
Now, you can doubt I ever worked at a clinic, much less had even tangential involvement (mostly, I typed up letters for the other staff) but check into this yourself and you’ll find what I said is true - it’s almost impossible to find information on a woman’s having her reproductive rights restricted, and there’s a LOT of stuff sealed/gagged in any sort of child abuse death meaning that finding information on either side of the question is nearly impossible. Most of it will be in the form I just gave you - “I worked on such a case but I can’t discuss it”.
That’s the problem - these cases were and still are notorious. They were reported on extensively not just locally but nationally (maybe even internationally but my access to foreign news was sharply limited back then). There are almost no details I can give that would not be identifying to the case.
Here’s what I can tell you from probably the most well known one:
- The woman was poor, single mother who lived in Chicago.
- She had a history of both psychiatric and drug problems (what’s known as “dual diagnosis”)
- Some (more than one, less than 5) previous children had died under somewhat suspicious circumstances.
- There were signs of both abuse and neglect on all the children involved.
- The last murder (it was deliberate, with intent to cause death) involved considerable outright torture by more than one method before the child was finally killed.
- She lost all custody of her surviving children.
- She lost all future custody of any future children - which were sort of unlikely, given that so far as I know she has never been outside an institution since.
That also pretty much matches all the other such cases I have knowledge about (a total of 3). One woman was not incarcerated/institutionalized but had a standing order that any child she gave birth to was to be taken from her at birth, without even giving her a chance to see or hold the baby. If you think that was an odd rule think about what might lead a judge to impose that rule and you’ll probably be close to the truth of the matter. Yes, that meant if she ever had another baby she would give birth in shackles/restraints.
Keep in mind - in ALL of these cases more than one child had died before the woman’s reproductive rights were restricted.
They weren’t doing this because they were poor - they were poor because they were mentally ill and strung out on drugs which makes it pretty impossible to hold down any sort of work whatsoever. They weren’t nice people and they sure weren’t normal in any sense of the word. Well, physically normal.
That’s how screwed up you have to be to have your right to reproduce restricted in this country. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? For purposes of this thread it doesn’t really matter.
We don’t normally restrict fertility in this country. That means poor folks are going to have kids, too. At which point society has some interest in making sure the kids get at least the minimum they need to grow up to be healthy adults with some chance at being self-supporting citizens themselves.
No, we have about 6 months worth of living expenses saved up and family that would pitch in for things if necessary. I was just wondering how exactly you are figuring that you getting benefits is cool because you paid taxes but someone else getting benefits after paying taxes isn’t kosher. After all, if I never file for SSDI all that money doesn’t get put in an envelope and given back to me, it goes into the overall fund, so to say that it is “my” money and that I paid in and “earned” my benefit would be incorrect. The taxes are paid and the funds set aside to help those who need it, not to act as a savings account for each individual person, no matter what math they decide to use when choosing how much benefit you recieve.
It doesnt really matter for this debate. Courts can order just about anything they want, especially in lieu of a extended prison sentence.
Here’s a recent article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/02/09/judge-orders-woman-to-undergo-sterilizatio-2103800324/
*A Georgia judge ordered a mother of seven who pleaded guilty to killing her 5-week-old daughter to have a medical procedure to prevent her from having more children.
Carisa Ashe (search) was charged with murder and faced life in prison if convicted. After two days of trial, Ashe, 34, admitted to voluntary manslaughter.
As a condition of her sentence, she has 90 days to get a tubal ligation (search) or prosecutors can reinstate the murder charge, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rowland Barnes said in an order issued Tuesday.*
**So it can happen. **
Regarding the Georgia case, I have to wonder if that was later challenged. Also, if there was a lot more going on behind the scenes we can’t know.
Judges can order a lot of things but that doesn’t always mean they’ll stick for the long term.
I have no idea how your reply addresses my post, which was in answer to Broomstick’s claim that she couldn’t share any details of these cases.
However, Broomstick, if these cases are so notorious, you could simply provide us links to published articles about them.
Well, no she cant as then that would disclose that she worked on them, etc. Are you needing this info to continue the debate? Clearly not as my cites provided it.
or are you just giving Broomstick a hard time and bringing in a personal problem into a debate?
Again, I have no idea at all how your previous post had any relevance to what I said to Broomstick.
What does her sharing the info have anything to do with this thread? It’s a hijack.
^ This.
Even if YOU, Boyo Jim, linked to one of the cases I worked on I would not be legally allowed to acknowledge I worked on it. I can state such things occur but someone else has to find the case independently.
Thanks, DrDeth, for providing your cite. Given that yours occurred in Georgia while I was in Illinois it’s pretty clear that was not one I was involved in.
I don’t know why it’s such a difficult concept for people to grasp that I am legally restricted in what I can and can’t say about these cases. Tell me, do YOU want people in your doctor’s office blabbing your personal details on line? If no, then why do you expect me to do that to someone else?