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.
There is nothing "easy" about getting disability. And, you don't go to the doctor for "a year". The time from filing until you actually get a hearing is 3 years. Those Disability Judges have case files of doctor records and lab/imagining tests to review before the hearing. If someone got Disability quickly, that means they legitimately qualified, so why shouldn't they get there money?
The Psychological Disability is a different story. SS has cut out alcoholism and addictions as disabilities and the Psychological treatment programs, for the 3 years until your hearing, require drug testing regularly. The very few folks that I know who have received Psychological SSDI have to have their money managed by an Advocate.
Reviews are almost always required from either 1 year to 3 years and up from there.
I guess the people are always going to trying for it, it is their right to apply.
the system has corruption in it from top to bottom . we only hear about the doctors , reviewers and lawyers who got caught helping fraudulent claims go through
It's no mystery what happened in the recession. Out there in the work force there are many people who are employed but are only marginally employable. Limited education, disabilities that make it very hard, if not absolutely impossible, to meet the burdens of employment. Many of those people have been working for years even when their medical conditions would support a disability claim. Once the jobs became scarce it was harder for them to keep or obtain jobs so applying for disability became their only option. Not malingering at all, just an instance of people who were no longer able to tread water.
But as far as I know, the OP hasn't found out for sure ... OP, have you yet?
Kind of frustrating to have this kind of thread when "someone said something" but there is simply no clarity at all. (OP, not blaming you -- this is more a general comment.)
I'll make an appointment and ask the question soon. If for no other reason than to put a merciful end to this thread that has become an apologia for welfare-through-"disability."
I recently looked at my social security statement and it list amount if I collect at 62 , 67 and 70 but not 65 when I might collect once medicare kicks in. I wonder why 65 amount is not listed.
I recently looked at my social security statement and it list amount if I collect at 62 , 67 and 70 but not 65 when I might collect once medicare kicks in. I wonder why 65 amount is not listed.
I would assume the it is not listed because for retirement it has no meaning. 62 is listed because it is the earliest you could collect, 67 is your Full retirement age and 70 is your extra credit age. 65 was once full retirement age but that was some time ago now.
I would assume the it is not listed because for retirement it has no meaning. 62 is listed because it is the earliest you could collect, 67 is your Full retirement age and 70 is your extra credit age. 65 was once full retirement age but that was some time ago now.
So is collecting at 65 the same amount as collecting at 62? yes 67 is my FRA
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.
