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.
I've had several Social Security recipients (in their mid to late 60s) ask me if they can qualify for Disability payments thru Soc SEc, rather than just regular Soc SEc. Of course, the obvious reason is that the SSDI pays more. Has anyone ever had any luck with this?
I've had several Social Security recipients (in their mid to late 60s) ask me if they can qualify for Disability payments thru Soc SEc, rather than just regular Soc SEc. Of course, the obvious reason is that the SSDI pays more. Has anyone ever had any luck with this?
I just spent a couple of minutes with the Social Security website (www.socialsecurity.com) but did not succeed in finding an answer to your question. I'm sure some poster who is knowledgeable about that specific issue or who had more time to spend on the website will come along and enlighten the rest of us.
However, I sure as hell hope the answer is a resounding NO! It makes mesick to think of people trying to milk the system in the way youdescribed. Disability is supposed to be for people who cannot work. If a person is "in their mid to late 60's" and is already drawing retirement benefits from Soc. Sec., that sort of presupposes that the working years are over for that person, who has obviously worked enough years to qualify for the regular benefit and who did not apply for disability in the past and who is now thinking of doing so as an afterthought just to milk the system. What a disgrace! That's a strange use of the word "luck" in your post.
I've had several Social Security recipients (in their mid to late 60s) ask me if they can qualify for Disability payments thru Soc SEc, rather than just regular Soc SEc. Of course, the obvious reason is that the SSDI pays more. Has anyone ever had any luck with this?
The payments are calculated the same way so they would be identicle. I don't know where you heard otherwise
I've had several Social Security recipients (in their mid to late 60s) ask me if they can qualify for Disability payments thru Soc SEc, rather than just regular Soc SEc. Of course, the obvious reason is that the SSDI pays more. Has anyone ever had any luck with this?
There is not such thing a s SSDI when you are older than 65. Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) is payable to a disabled person under 65. When you reach 65, and your are receiving SSDI, it is converted to SSRI (Social Security Retirement Insurance).
Then you really are no longer disabled under social security but retired. Obviously you can still be "disabled" but the age itself, that is the statutory age of 65, becomes the disability. When social security was set up, it was designed to provide some level of monetary support for the aged because being older was essentially considered a "disability" for work purposed. To make it simple, they defined 65 as the age of "age disability" for all. Subsequently, in recent years "age disability" has changed depending on your date of birth, so now it is 66 or 67 for some.
Retirement age is really just an age of presumed disability because of age. Yes, some people can change it by defining a early retirement with reduced payment or later with increased payment. However, that does not really change the idea and the concept.
I know this requires a paradigm shift for many, thinking I am inventing this nonsense. If you look at the earlier documentations of Social Security programs in this country and others that preceded the US, you will find that the concept of age was discussed as a "disability". Keep in mine that age 65 was indeed very elderly years ago and certainly was a real disability for work purposes. Now, it is not considered so elderly.
When a person reaches full Social Security Retirement Age, they are switched from SSDI to Social Security and possibly SSI. I know of a person who qualified for SSDI at age 55 or thereabouts. She received health insurance through Medicare and Medicaid as a SSDI recipient. She is now 70 years old, receives SS and SSI, and is on Medicare and Medicaid. Her son is an epileptic and receives SSDI and the same Medicare/Medicaid health benefits. Lives in a city with teaching hospitals. Both have received stellar health care at absolutely no cost. Recently, she was hospitalized twice for kidney stone removal. Again, the absolute best care. Son is also an alcoholic and has been in and out of detox, staying weeks at a time at a very nice facility. Dental coverage is their biggest problem. She has teeth extracted and bridges made at no cost, son had a root-canal (paid for by Medicaid) needs a crown which they can't pay for.
I wouldn't want to walk in their shoes, but because I am not on Medicaid, if I had needed that kidney stone surgery, I'm sure my out-of-pocket would have been thousands of dollars. As it is, I'm stuck with co-pays every time I turn around and some expenses not covered by Medicare at all.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 09-21-2011 at 01:35 PM..
I know of a person who qualified for SSDI at age 55 or thereabouts. She received health insurance through Medicare and Medicaid as a SSDI recipient. Her son is an epileptic and receives the same benefits. Lives in a city with teaching hospitals. Both have received stellar health care at absolutely no cost. Recently, she was hospitalized twice for kidney stone removal. Again, the absolute best care. Son is also an alcoholic and has been in and out of detox, staying weeks at a time at a very nice facility. Dental coverage is their biggest problem. She has teeth extracted and bridges made at no cost, son had a root-canal (paid for by Medicaid) needs a crown which they can't pay for.
I wouldn't want to walk in their shoes, but because I am not on Medicaid, if I had needed that kidney stone surgery, I'm sure my out-of-pocket would have been thousands of dollars. As it is, I'm stuck with co-pays every time I turn around and some expenses not covered by Medicare at all.
You automatically qualify for Medicaid in addition to Medicare if you are disabled under SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance) is you qualify for SSI (Supplemental Security Income). SSI is for those who have low income and minimum resources. Consequently, almost all medical care and dental care is covered.
There is not such thing a s SSDI when you are older than 65. Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) is payable to a disabled person under 65. When you reach 65, and your are receiving SSDI, it is converted to SSRI (Social Security Retirement Insurance).
Then you really are no longer disabled under social security but retired. Obviously you can still be "disabled" but the age itself, that is the statutory age of 65, becomes the disability. When social security was set up, it was designed to provide some level of monetary support for the aged because being older was essentially considered a "disability" for work purposed. To make it simple, they defined 65 as the age of "age disability" for all. Subsequently, in recent years "age disability" has changed depending on your date of birth, so now it is 66 or 67 for some.
Retirement age is really just an age of presumed disability because of age. Yes, some people can change it by defining a early retirement with reduced payment or later with increased payment. However, that does not really change the idea and the concept.
I know this requires a paradigm shift for many, thinking I am inventing this nonsense. If you look at the earlier documentations of Social Security programs in this country and others that preceded the US, you will find that the concept of age was discussed as a "disability". Keep in mine that age 65 was indeed very elderly years ago and certainly was a real disability for work purposes. Now, it is not considered so elderly.
Livecontent
I was pretty sure the above was the situation, but I didn't want to write that in a post without being sure. Thanks for the info. I knew someone more knowledgeable would come along.
Dental coverage is their biggest problem. She has teeth extracted and bridges made at no cost, son had a root-canal (paid for by Medicaid) needs a crown which they can't pay for.
It is my understanding that there is no dental coverage with Medicare (?) on top of which dental bridges seem to not be a basic service and would need to be covered out of pocket. Maybe Medicare coverage is changing to include dental?
It is my understanding that there is no dental coverage with Medicare (?) on top of which dental bridges seem to not be a basic service and would need to be covered out of pocket. Maybe Medicare coverage is changing to include dental?
She's still on Medicaid (Title XIX) as well as Medicare. I think Medicaid is paying for the extractions, partials and root canals. I know they have no money for this.
It is my understanding that there is no dental coverage with Medicare (?) on top of which dental bridges seem to not be a basic service and would need to be covered out of pocket. Maybe Medicare coverage is changing to include dental?
Medicaid includes Dental Coverage which the OP is also entitled.
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.
