SS reform and the weakest among us
Today the World Magazine Blog has a post entitled Welfare Experience, in which opinions are solicited concerning how well welfare reform has worked for people in the last ten years. The very first comment someone left got my attention. "B" pointed out some alarming things about how "Proposed changes in Social Security and Medicaid may reduce disability benefits."
Investment-wise, I've never considered the private investment idea for SS to be as risky as some paint it, but it was alarming to see how it could greatly reduce available benefits for people such as the mentally ill who often have no other resource available. Again, from B's comment:
"Medicaid, a partnership between the federal government and states, has become the single most important public funder of mental health services. Incoming HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt has proposed reduced coverage of services for individuals in Medicaid's "optional" eligibility categories, which includes many people with significant disabilities. Leavitt's proposals as Governor of Utah resulted in substantial cuts in mental health benefits in that state.
Also the disincentives to work are remarkable for those persons with psychiatric disabilities who rely strongly on SSDI. If they try to work they may lose their benefits altogether and if the work trial fails they are without any security whatsoever."
I've seen first-hand cases exactly like that. I left a comment there as well, which I'll copy below:
"Thanks, B, for your info. I had leaned in favor of the private investment option for SS reform, but it is alarming to see how it could affect the mentally ill. They are already in one of the weakest points of the social safety net. The mentally ill are routinely turned down for medical insurance, and even a history of "mere" clinical depression can result in being turned down for disability insurance. The options are few for one of the most studiously ignored classes of needy people in our land - studiously ignored by the Church as well as the State."
There's a big part of me that looks at government welfare and says, "why are we depending upon the State to do the work of the Church?" But I don't think the Church is quite ready to carry whatever load the State dumps. I am very "conservative" on "social issues", and moderately so on fiscal issues, though I have a populist streak that makes me "miss" the Democratic Party of days before I was born. But having said what I said in the first part of the paragraph, I'll turn around and say that I do believe "we the people" have a responsibility as a nation not to ignore the plight of the weakest among us.
UPDATE: "B" has yet to provide documentation for the above allegations, so it's possible that it's just a rumor, or a "red herring" as another commentor has said on that thread. But I'm still concerned. Everything's up for grabs when congress goes to work. I generally support our conservative congress, but that doesn't mean that I completely trust them.
Investment-wise, I've never considered the private investment idea for SS to be as risky as some paint it, but it was alarming to see how it could greatly reduce available benefits for people such as the mentally ill who often have no other resource available. Again, from B's comment:
"Medicaid, a partnership between the federal government and states, has become the single most important public funder of mental health services. Incoming HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt has proposed reduced coverage of services for individuals in Medicaid's "optional" eligibility categories, which includes many people with significant disabilities. Leavitt's proposals as Governor of Utah resulted in substantial cuts in mental health benefits in that state.
Also the disincentives to work are remarkable for those persons with psychiatric disabilities who rely strongly on SSDI. If they try to work they may lose their benefits altogether and if the work trial fails they are without any security whatsoever."
I've seen first-hand cases exactly like that. I left a comment there as well, which I'll copy below:
"Thanks, B, for your info. I had leaned in favor of the private investment option for SS reform, but it is alarming to see how it could affect the mentally ill. They are already in one of the weakest points of the social safety net. The mentally ill are routinely turned down for medical insurance, and even a history of "mere" clinical depression can result in being turned down for disability insurance. The options are few for one of the most studiously ignored classes of needy people in our land - studiously ignored by the Church as well as the State."
There's a big part of me that looks at government welfare and says, "why are we depending upon the State to do the work of the Church?" But I don't think the Church is quite ready to carry whatever load the State dumps. I am very "conservative" on "social issues", and moderately so on fiscal issues, though I have a populist streak that makes me "miss" the Democratic Party of days before I was born. But having said what I said in the first part of the paragraph, I'll turn around and say that I do believe "we the people" have a responsibility as a nation not to ignore the plight of the weakest among us.
UPDATE: "B" has yet to provide documentation for the above allegations, so it's possible that it's just a rumor, or a "red herring" as another commentor has said on that thread. But I'm still concerned. Everything's up for grabs when congress goes to work. I generally support our conservative congress, but that doesn't mean that I completely trust them.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home