Trump's proposal to cut disability benefits

I think its going to go through, I don't think Congress can do anything about it. Bascially people at the margins, and there are many, likely in the millions, will be affected. People who were never able to function in society due to drug/alcohol dependence, low IQ or poor employment skills. Its not that they don't want to work, they simply are unemployable because they don't have the basic skills to hold down a job. They typically get SSI at about $790 a month. They will no longer, not sure whats going to happen to them.

My sig other's son, a brilliant young man who has held excellent jobs was diagnosed with Parkinson's and can no longer work. He was recently turned down for SSDI. Go figure.

I’ve been hearing at my part-time job that LTC Medicaid is going to have program cuts, increased auditing for fraud and stricter recovery formats. I know they give the audit unit pep talks about catching fraud and hiding assets regularly.

I am going to be gentle here, but I did google Disability reviews changes Jan 2020 and didn't find any articles on Trump trying to redo the disability process and cutting benefits to many people.. He did talk about messing up SSDI before (in 2017) and I don't recall that he did much of anything. I also remember when he tried to mess up Obamacare and that didn't go so well..Lots of people protested that in DC and in other states. I think if he tries again, he is going to have to deal with the backlash/protests from the disabled and elderly, along with advocates for the poor, disabled and elderly.

I have also noticed that some politicians try to slide every law or cut when the opposing side is focused on something else. It happened to us in Wisconsin: We were focused on recalling former Governor Walker and the Republicans in the state assembly and senate passed every ridiculous law under the sun--because the Democrats were focused on getting enough signatures in order to recall Walker.

But Garden Artist is right, We should be calling our representatives and asking them to not support this measure. We should be talking about it more with our relatives, friends and neighbors that are on SSDI. I do not know if Trump is going to go through with this or not--He can be all talk some of the time (which lands in the very small percentage catagory) but it doesn't hurt to take necessary action on this matter.

Just my opinion.

Anonymous, I googled also, and found not only the link to the "proposal" of just in the last day, but also several other articles on his attempts to but benefits for specific classes/populations of people:

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=IevzXa6jMNeGtQbv7qSgDw&q=trump%2C+disability+insurance+cuts+proposed&oq=trump%2C+disability+insurance+cuts+proposed&gs_l=psy-ab.3...911.9836..9952...0.0..0.193.3619.32j9......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i131j0j0i131i10j0i10j0i324.Syqf7uYgqmE&ved=0ahUKEwjut9G0srPmAhVXQ80KHW83CfQQ4dUDCAs&uact=5#spf=1576266541184

If the URL is too long, search on "trump, disability insurance cuts proposed".

I haven't searched for the specific wording; perhaps his legal weasels are busy working it out and he'll sneak it through in an Executive Order.  

I was just thinking that I have a relative who's been getting SSI for years.  

Reducing SNAP was only to those who were physically able to work and under 50. Not bad policy if you ask me.

A little research shows the announced policy change was proposed by the GAO back in 2014, has been included in House bills at different times by both Democratic and Republican representatives and it _does_ _not_ _eliminate_ a single person from SSDI. It does introduce a 4th category for classifying _approved_ disability claims ("improvement expected") with a re-certification interval of 2 years and reduces the re-certification interval on "improvement likely" to 5 years while "improvement possible" and "improvement not expected" remains at 10 years.

So if someone is in a car wreck and approved for disability based on a badly broken leg and/or hip with a "improvement expected" classification, the claim would be reviewed in 2 years to determine if the person could work again or if the claim should be reclassified, maybe as "improvement possible" if the injury has left a more permanent disability. If the person does not submit the required re-certification paperwork then the claim would be "dropped". People who do not have a single condition qualifying for disability but have multiple moderate conditions that in combination qualify would also go into the "improvement possible" classification.

People with chronic illnesses like asthma or COPD would initially be classified as "improvement possible" and have their cases reviewed for re-certification after 5 years.

Someone with a serious mental illness is usually classified as "improvement not expected", as are people with down syndrome or terminal illnesses with their cases only reviewed every 10 years if needed.

The _actual_ goal of reviewing and re-certifying cases in more appropriate time frames (according to the people who actually support the policy changes) is to reduce fraud as much as to get people to return to work when able. I do not understand why anyone objects to the taxpayer money being spent on people who actually need help and not wasted on people who could take care of themselves. I know of one woman who was in a car wreck and suffered fractures in her ankle, upper leg, and hip requiring multiple surgeries and PT for over 2 years. Her doctors approved her to return to work and she lost benefits from the private long term disability insurance after 3 years. Because the SSDI case wasn't reviewed for another 7 years, she continued to draw SSDI for the full 10 years.

BTW: The original link posted is from a notoriously subjective media "site". Please note it does include a link to the actual policy statement release, quote the actual release, or interview or quote anyone in the Trump administration or any Republican source about motives; it just includes supposed motive statements from an "opposition" crowd. Just based on it's subjective style and basic lack of supporting facts, I would rate the article a 2 on a 1-10 credibility scale. I'm tempted to give it a 1, but since there was mostly likely some press release on a new SSDI policy, I have to leave the 1 rating for the alien abduction stories.

Since by the media own statistics, more than 90% of all articles and video stories produced by main stream media are anti-Trump, their credibility isn't much better so google searches including the word "Trump" will miss a lot of pertinent information too - like the 2014 GAO report, the Democrat who presented a bill in 2015 or the Republican who presented a bill in 2017.

Before you drink the kool-aid, you might like to smell it first.

Then what news source would one recommend?

When any news source reports on a policy release or a study about something concerning, I like to find the actual document (primary source) and read it for myself. Almost all national sources are compromised today and reporting from a subjected view. The days of objective journalism (either without a slant or covering both sides) are few and far between. Local media has more even reporting, so when something happens in a particular city, I search for the local paper or tv station's coverage. Personally I consume multiple "sites", starting with my local newspaper (democratic paper in a decades long solidly republican region), the tennesean (liberal state newspaper), cnn and fox news, new york times, washington post, and wall street journal. At least when you read both the cnn and the fox coverage, you get each side's slant. I tend to start with fox primarily because they include links to source documents more often than other sites.

I find it very sad what passes for journalism these days. I remember when cnn and the new york times didn't have organizational agendas (although some of their columnists did) and didn't lie while pursuing those agendas or encourage hateful and/or personal attacks on people with differing views.

While I greatly dislike Trump's personal attacks much more than I did Obama's more clever undercuts, the current Democratic leadership calls for direct harassment of people and their families in restaurants or at their homes and public speaking engagements is disgusting and in my opinion a very direct attack on free speech. During my young adulthood, I admired many politicians (current and historical) from both major parties, but today I find that much harder to do. Although the policy separations are greater, it's the demonizing of the opposition that's most troubling to me. I want a nation where Ellen DeGeneres sitting beside George Bush at a ballgame is normal and accepted again. Doubt I will ever see it again in my lifetime, but it's still my "ideal".

What’s wrong with verifying that someone is truly disabled? I don’t see any problem with having a schedule for re-certification or requiring MD visits to update status? My brother had to; he was on SSDI since the 70’s. There was no doubt he was disabled and the government evaluator verified his condition. It shouldn’t be an issue.

There is a lot of waste and abuse in that program. I am all for some sort of status check.

Do people think that one party is going to take grandma’s SS or make them ineligible for benefits? That’s not going to happen. That article is pure fear mongering & conjecture with no facts to back it up.

Programs such as SSDI and Public assistance will still be available for our poor who truly need it. That’s what Medicaid is for. There was a huge Medicaid/food stamp expansion in the last administration which has to be re-examined. Too many folks were getting food stamps.

Mothers will still get WICC & food stamps for their babies, our elderly folks with no resources will be provided for & will still be supported by state Medicaid programs and federal assistance if applicable.

Don’t you reevaluate your financial status at intervals and cut the pork if you need to?

But don’t worry Congress is not doing anything anyway - they are busy wasting more time and taxpayer money before they head back in their private jets to their constituencies for the Holiday break.

To those who answered in sincerity, I apologize.  It was not my intent to open the door to political comments, media criticism and other similar issues which have now arisen.  

I am quite aware of the history of this provision and the concepts; I posted now b/c of changed circumstances, which I'm not going to address as I have no intent of further prolonging or encouraging friction.

This is the second time this has happened when I tried to share news that should be treated for the issues, not the surrounding politics.

Please accept my apologies; if the Admins act on my request, this thread should be closed for comments shortly, or perhaps on the next business day.   But I do appreciate the remarks on both sides as they addressed the issues, but not the political atmosphere.

GardenArtist - thanks for bringing this issue up. I notice the article is from msn.com, a critic of Trump, and usually an alarmist. So, I googled some more and found a more reasonable source, The Motley Fool, a well known investment adviser group. Their take is this proposal is a draft and a starting point from which both parties will haggle, and there is little to no chance that this cut will happen. Here's an excerpt from the article:

Relax, folks, this Social Security cut has virtually no chance of being implemented

With Trump proposing $26 billion in cuts to Social Security between 2020 and 2029, you might be growing a bit concerned that bigger expenditure cuts might follow. But this is the point where I tell you that everything's going to be OK. In fact, the chance of this particular proposal being implemented is very slim, in my opinion.

To begin with, presidential budgets are often a rough draft from which Congress begins pushing and pulling to fit certain fiscal and political agendas. Or, in plain English, it's a starting point from which discussion begins, not a final draft. By the time a federal spending bill has been signed into law, it often looks nothing like the annual budget or 10-year projections presented months earlier by the president.

Secondly, a divided Congress practically ensures that next to nothing is going to get done when it comes to major social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Democrats in the House are certain to oppose any reduction to Social Security benefits, including halving the period whereby retroactive disability benefits can be collected. Without support from the Democratic majority in the House, I don't see how this provision has any chance of being included in a final spending bill for fiscal 2020.

Third and finally, Trump is unlikely to take a hard-line stance on keeping this provision in his budget, especially with his own election now less than 20 months away. Back in 2013, while speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump had this to say:

"As Republicans, if you think you are going to change very substantially for the worse Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in any substantial way, and at the same time you think you are going to win elections, it just really is not going to happen... What we have to do and the way to solve our problems is to build a great economy. "

In other words, Trump understands that direct changes to Social Security means some group is going to lose out and be worse off than they were before. Therefore, making any direct changes to Social Security prior to an election is akin to political suicide.

Long story short, President Trump's budget is bound to hit on a number of talking points, but it's unlikely to incite any change to the existing structure of the Social Security program.

End of excerpt. Link to article:

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019/03/14/trump-outlines-a-significant-social-security-cut-i.aspx