Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know, I had an epiphany yesterday, and realized that no one should double dip into benefits. Sure, I can understand the state paying some of the medical costs associated with a certain condition, but dishing out a check even though the person is employed? That is ridiculous.
Seems to me that rather than being 'backward' it is actually quite logical. No reason for one person to get double the benefits while others go completely without.
Listen to yourself, Frankie. So basically, you are against a mother or father receiving benefits for their child, who clearly has some sort of disability, when they work full time? I'm assuming that you believe that a person who has a terminal illness should not get SSI if he/she is able to hold down a job one year prior to their death? Or perhaps you even have issues with a child drawing a double SSI benefit when they are disabled and also receiving survivor benefits?
If you have such an issue with adults, perhaps you should be quick to point the finger at the doctors who are so quick to disable someone who clearly is not disabled. Or perhaps you should judge the attorneys who pick up these cases to make a quick buck knowing that there is nothing wrong with their client physically.
Temporary or permanently disabled children should not be left out in these situation just because you, as a taxpayer, feel it's not right that they receive these benefits!
Listen to yourself, Frankie. So basically, you are against a mother or father receiving benefits for their child, who clearly has some sort of disability, when they work full time? I'm assuming that you believe that a person who has a terminal illness should not get SSI if he/she is able to hold down a job one year prior to their death? Or perhaps you even have issues with a child drawing a double SSI benefit when they are disabled and also receiving survivor benefits?
Wait a minute now, don't twist my words. When did I ever mention children? I have no problem dishing out help to cover healthcare costs (as I mentioned), but not extra cash just because your child is 'special'.
Listen to yourself. Parents receiving special benefits (other than healthcare coverage) just because their child has some sort of disability? That is just asking for fraud. What other help would you need from the state besides health coverage? I would rather the state cover hospital bills as opposed to just sending the parents of said child a big check every month.
Quote:
Originally Posted by usc_gal98
If you have such an issue with adults, perhaps you should be quick to point the finger at the doctors who are so quick to disable someone who clearly is not disabled. Or perhaps you should judge the attorneys who pick up these cases to make a quick buck knowing that there is nothing wrong with their client physically.
So we live in a broken system. I can't do anything about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by usc_gal98
Temporary or permanently disabled children should not be left out in these situation just because you, as a taxpayer, feel it's not right that they receive these benefits!
Once again, I said nothing about children not receiving benefits. As a matter of fact, technically children can't even receive benefits. Most employers will cover the employee's children anyways, if that doesn't work, some Unions have special benefit programs available.
Quote: Frankie
Wait a minute now, don't twist my words. When did I ever mention children? I have no problem dishing out help to cover healthcare costs (as I mentioned), but not extra cash just because your child is 'special'.
I wasn't aware that being blind, deaf, having a heart condition, severe asthma, mental retardation or any other disability that applies would be grounds for calling a child "special".
Listen to yourself. Parents receiving special benefits (other than healthcare coverage) just because their child has some sort of disability? That is just asking for fraud. What other help would you need from the state besides health coverage? I would rather the state cover hospital bills as opposed to just sending the parents of said child a big check every month.
In the cases where children who are severely disabled and need 24/7 care which is not covered by medicaid, the parent/parents become the primary caregiver and cannot work. Are you telling me that you believe that the parent should not receive SSI for the child when he/she cannot work? How is he/she supposed to buy medical supplies and other items for that child not covered by medicaid? Hospital stays for children who become ill with forms of cancer are financially draining on the family. Are the parents not allowed to get help under these circumstances?
Fraud, in my opinion, would relate to the people who get a check and spend it in alcohol, drugs, lottery tickets and any other form of entertainment not relating to the child. It does not apply to the parents who use that money for the child's housing, medical supplies, food, etc.
Why people think covering care for a kid with disabilities or providing help so an adult with disabilities can work is somehow gaming the system is troubling on a number of levels.
if i may add, even if it's a bit of a side note and may not be relevant to OP: I grew up in a very 'hard/poor' living situation; many times using the welfare system and what came with it. There were times we had to act a certain way or do certain things to maintain those benefits, so our mom would not lose them. As an adult, I can look back and realize that this was a situation that never should have existed. She could have worked, or the various husbands or "uncles" could have as well ( many long stories mixed in here that will stay out of this post ). And a working mom/parents would have made a better situation for us children. But the times when there were no bennies, those times were very tough. Guess my point is that while the first solution would be to crack down or pull the assitance from the adult if not really needed, one has to remember the children that may be affected as well. Unfortunately those children have to live in the position given to them by their parents, and children should not be punished for that living situation.
And as governments continue to make cutbacks, there will be fewer staff to monitor and watch over these families. As I said before; if someone here needs help, then I belive it's our responsibility to help them. But if someone abuses the system, just make sure before the plug is pulled as to what the whole picture may be.
OK, off my soapbox. thx
I think all of you are missing something here.....
We don't know the OP's situation. She/he said that they were receiving social security income for not only them but also their children. There may not even be a disability involved here. It could be related to survivor benefits.
And I, for one, understand the benefit system.
Like I said before, I have a younger brother that was a minor when our father died. He was a year old to be exact. My mother has received survivor benefits for him for what OUR FATHER paid in from income. Not YOUR tax money, his income!
Plus, our mother is disabled. She has worked in the past prior to becoming disabled. Unfortunately, she has two disabilities that have affected her to the point where she is in a wheelchair. She cannot work! She just recently filed for disability and was approved without hiring an attorney and she can also receive SS survivor benefits off our father now that she is totally disabled. Before, she could only receive them for my brother.
Again, she is not milking the system. She has a legitimate reason to draw disability along with a minor child who is drawing because our father is deceased.
I have known others in a similiar situation in regards to SSI income. One woman worked for a corp. and had a high paying job. Her little girl was stricken with cancer and died. Her employer was not that understanding and fired her six months into the child's treatment. She could not afford to pay cobra. So, she had to file for SSI income for her daughter. She received only $483 in income per month for that child. Is that enough to live off of? I think not.
So this whole idea of how you people believe that parents receive this large amount of income is really hard for me to comprehend. Unless you have been in that type of situation, it's not fair to judge!
if i may add, even if it's a bit of a side note and may not be relevant to OP: I grew up in a very 'hard/poor' living situation; many times using the welfare system and what came with it. There were times we had to act a certain way or do certain things to maintain those benefits, so our mom would not lose them. As an adult, I can look back and realize that this was a situation that never should have existed. She could have worked, or the various husbands or "uncles" could have as well ( many long stories mixed in here that will stay out of this post ). And a working mom/parents would have made a better situation for us children. But the times when there were no bennies, those times were very tough. Guess my point is that while the first solution would be to crack down or pull the assitance from the adult if not really needed, one has to remember the children that may be affected as well. Unfortunately those children have to live in the position given to them by their parents, and children should not be punished for that living situation.
And as governments continue to make cutbacks, there will be fewer staff to monitor and watch over these families. As I said before; if someone here needs help, then I belive it's our responsibility to help them. But if someone abuses the system, just make sure before the plug is pulled as to what the whole picture may be.
OK, off my soapbox. thx
I think you fit in with so many other children who have grown into adults, only to look back to see the wrongs that their parents did when they were growing up. Sorry that this happened to you.
However, there are situations out of a person's control such as the death of a spouse or an unforseen disability. You can't control death and you can't control injury or illness that may affect you later on in life.
Last edited by usc_gal98; 01-23-2009 at 08:32 AM..
Reason: spelling
totally understand and agree ( perhaps my posts dont always show that ). I will never go against one who needs or has earned that help. I've seen the need in other parts of my family. Without that help, they could not have made it. I wont ever pre-judge a person or a situation, as what one sees is not always the whole story. It's truly unfortunate that because of those who abuse the system, benefits for others could be in question. And my experience and opinions are only mine, i wouldn't dare claim to have all the answers. And who knows what is the best way to monitor all this..... the government can't cover it all, and self-management wouldn't work either.
Threads like this are always good for some discussions.
totally understand and agree ( perhaps my posts dont always show that ). I will never go against one who needs or has earned that help. I've seen the need in other parts of my family. Without that help, they could not have made it. I wont ever pre-judge a person or a situation, as what one sees is not always the whole story. It's truly unfortunate that because of those who abuse the system, benefits for others could be in question. And my experience and opinions are only mine, i wouldn't dare claim to have all the answers. And who knows what is the best way to monitor all this..... the government can't cover it all, and self-management wouldn't work either.
Threads like this are always good for some discussions.
No problem.
And for the record, I truly believe that there are some people who do abuse the system and that the system is flawed. Because of these types of people, the general public assumes that everyone is milking the system. Get what I'm saying?
For the record....
Survivor benefits are given to disabled spouses and minor children of the deceased. This is money that the deceased worked for and paid in over the course of their lives.
It's different circumstances for those who draw SS in how they qualify for those benefits. Such as disabled, retired, etc.
now if only the people laid off could actually get thru to the UE office to sign up for their bennies and keep some $$ coming in ( at least it's a big problem up here right now ). But that's another story...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
