# The Inability to Speak English Shouldn’t Qualify as "Disability" for Social Security



## macgeek (Sep 25, 2020)

Can you imagine someone coming to our country, never paid into social security or paid very little, and they get disability benefits because they can't speak English?

Does not shock me one bit.  How many years has this been going on? Way too long it looks like. Just one reason of many the system is going broke I guess.  Hopefully it's been changed in April 2020, but knowing our government I have my doubts. Common sense is not so common.

*As a former administrative law judge described it, if a claimant were 45 years or older, limited to sedentary work, and claimed an inability to communicate in English, they were a “slam-dunk for benefits.”*

https://www.heritage.org/social-sec...h-shouldnt-qualify-disability-social-security


----------



## Nathan (Sep 25, 2020)

What an inflammatory & misleading  opinion piece, from a heavily slanted media source to provoke outrage and anger.   Freedom of expression being abused, and used to divide a nation.

The change in policy merely eliminates the decades old discriminatory policy of denying S.S. benefits to non-English speakers.   It DOES NOT make the inability to speak English a "disability", as the Heritage.org article loudly proclaims.

Here is an article from the real world of non-fake media, the AARP:
AARP article:


> Starting April 27, the government will no longer consider the inability to speak English as one element in determining whether a person should receive Social Security disability benefits.
> 
> The new rule, announced Monday, changes a policy created in 1978 that required the Social Security Administration (SSA) to assess English proficiency as part of someone's education when deciding whether they would be able to rejoin the workforce or should receive disability benefits instead. For people age 45 and older, inability to speak English was a supporting factor the agency used when making this decision. (Lack of English proficiency was not sufficient on its own to make someone eligible for disability.) The inability to speak English was also considered to counteract a worker's level of education — another factor in the decision to award Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits.
> 
> ...


----------



## Damaged Goods (Sep 25, 2020)

Nathan nailed it.  Inability to communicate in English in itself does not qualify an individual for SSDI or SSI disability.  The primary factor is the degree of severity of an individual's impairment.  If it prevents performance of past relevant work, then the vocational factors of age, education, and acquired skill level are factored-in.  Inability to communicate in English is one of the educational levels considered.


----------



## Rosemarie (Sep 25, 2020)

Such a person should only receive benefits if they are willing to learn English. Why are they living in an English-speaking country if they do not speak the language?


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 25, 2020)

Heh, I did all this typing then saw where Nathan did a nicer job


So I'll jus' redirect my post



Nathan said:


> What an inflammatory & misleading opinion piece, from a heavily slanted media source to provoke outrage and anger. Freedom of expression being abused, and used to divide a nation.


 

 .


----------



## wcwbf (Sep 25, 2020)

Nathan said:


> What an inflammatory & misleading  opinion piece, from a heavily slanted media source to provoke outrage and anger.   Freedom of expression being abused, and used to divide a nation.
> 
> The change in policy merely eliminates the decades old discriminatory policy of denying S.S. benefits to non-English speakers.   It DOES NOT make the inability to speak English a "disability", as the Heritage.org article loudly proclaims.
> 
> ...


as usual, when a story sounds so outrageous, it's usually not true.  Nathan, thanks for the clarification.


----------



## macgeek (Sep 25, 2020)

Nathan said:


> What an inflammatory & misleading  opinion piece, from a heavily slanted media source to provoke outrage and anger.   Freedom of expression being abused, and used to divide a nation.



well then their doing what all the other media outlets are doing daily then. AARP also can be a heavily slanted media source come to think of it. They all have their bias and agendas. When I turned 50 I never joined AARP for this very reason. Bias. But you think AARP is not biased? We can all believe what we like.


----------



## macgeek (Sep 25, 2020)

Rosemarie said:


> Such a person should only receive benefits if they are willing to learn English. Why are they living in an English-speaking country if they do not speak the language?



Learn our language and assimilate use to be the rule of thumb for coming here many decades ago, but not anymore I don't believe.  They have more opportunity here then they would by staying in their own country. I have seen many that live here but don't speak our language.  Some I guess are not interested in learning our language I suppose.


----------



## macgeek (Sep 25, 2020)

Damaged Goods said:


> Nathan nailed it.  Inability to communicate in English in itself does not qualify an individual for SSDI or SSI disability.



But that article says up until recently, they were getting disability approved for not speaking English. That is how I read the article which is why I shared it.  I'm not a lawyer so I can't verify if its true or not.


----------



## Aneeda72 (Sep 25, 2020)

Rosemarie said:


> Such a person should only receive benefits if they are willing to learn English. Why are they living in an English-speaking country if they do not speak the language?


SSDI is not understandable to anyone in my opinion.  As a side note my son with DS has a high school education and a diploma from special school, of course.  He neither reads nor writes, he has an IQ of 53.  He gets SSDI.


----------



## I'mnotdeadyet (Sep 25, 2020)

Aneeda72 said:


> SSDI is not understandable to anyone in my opinion.  As a side note my son with DS has a high school education and a diploma from special school, of course.  He neither reads nor writes, he has an IQ of 53.  He gets SSDI.


God bless you and your son. As someone who has paid dearly into the SS system for many years I have zero problem with this. Conversely, I have all kinds of issues with an immigrant who has not participated in our system at all in obtain SS benefits.


----------



## macgeek (Sep 25, 2020)

Aneeda72 said:


> SSDI is not understandable to anyone in my opinion.



I agree. it's very complicated.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Sep 25, 2020)

Nathan said:


> What an inflammatory & misleading  opinion piece, from a heavily slanted media source to provoke outrage and anger.   Freedom of expression being abused, and used to divide a nation.
> 
> The change in policy merely eliminates the decades old discriminatory policy of denying S.S. benefits to non-English speakers.   It DOES NOT make the inability to speak English a "disability", as the Heritage.org article loudly proclaims.
> 
> ...



I agree with you on substance -- English proficiency should not be a requirement for someone who otherwise qualifies for SS benefits. 

  However, the AARP is just as slanted and "fake" a source as the Heritage Foundation.  AARP lobbies for seniors and espouses liberal policies;  Heritage lobbies for and espouses conservative policies.  Fox News is "fake" because it is biased, but so is MSNBC.   I don't know of any truly objective sources of information, and I'm not sure there ever were any.


----------



## Nathan (Sep 25, 2020)

macgeek said:


> But that article says up until recently, they were getting disability approved for not speaking English.


"getting disability approved for not speaking English"....   Really?   Doesn't that sound a bit far fetched?  Answer: yes, because it is.


----------



## macgeek (Sep 25, 2020)

Nathan said:


> "getting disability approved for not speaking English"....   Really?   Doesn't that sound a bit far fetched?  Answer: yes, because it is.



seeing how our government works and the stuff they do, it would not shock me at all.


----------



## macgeek (Sep 25, 2020)

its funny how we all trust the news we have watched for years, but everyone else's news source is fake or biased. Interesting how that works. I question everything these days, even Fox news.


----------



## Nathan (Sep 25, 2020)

JimBob1952 said:


> I agree with you on substance -- English proficiency should not be a requirement for someone who otherwise qualifies for SS benefits.
> 
> However, the AARP is just as slanted and "fake" a source as the Heritage Foundation.  AARP lobbies for seniors and espouses liberal policies;  Heritage lobbies for and espouses conservative policies.


Seniors as a group are decidedly conservative, AARP would not exist if they were touting "liberal" policies.   Liberal Policies....like supporting Social security and Medicare?    



JimBob1952 said:


> Fox News is "fake" because it is biased, but so is MSNBC.   I don't know of any truly objective sources of information, and I'm not sure there ever were any.


I agree with you, FOX news is fake, MSNBC is left leaning now, originally featured  Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham.

Try AP or Reuters or BBC for more fact based reporting, and less opinion tainted content.


----------



## macgeek (Sep 25, 2020)

here u go. no longer a factor, which means it was. so my post was correct.

*English Language Ability Dropped as Factor for  Social Security Disability

Inability to speak the language was one determinant that had been considered.*

https://www.aarp.org/retirement/soc...ange-for-disability-benefits-eligibility.html


----------



## I'mnotdeadyet (Sep 25, 2020)

Nathan said:


> Seniors as a group are decidedly conservative, AARP would not exist if they were touting "liberal" policies.   Liberal Policies....like supporting Social security and Medicare?
> 
> 
> I agree with you, FOX news is fake, MSNBC is left leaning now, originally featured  Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham.
> ...


On the contrary, AARP is well known to lean left. While they may not lean as far left as the cited outlet in the OP leans right, they are decidedly left of center.


----------



## macgeek (Sep 25, 2020)

Nathan said:


> Seniors as a group are decidedly conservative,
> I agree with you, FOX news is fake, MSNBC is left leaning now, originally featured  Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham.



Seniors where I live are mostly democrats. Not sure where you get this info that they are conservative. 

Fox news is no more fake than CNN ABC CBS NBC NY Times etc.  AARP is left which is why I never joined it.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Sep 25, 2020)

Nathan said:


> Seniors as a group are decidedly conservative, AARP would not exist if they were touting "liberal" policies.   Liberal Policies....like supporting Social security and Medicare?
> 
> 
> I agree with you, FOX news is fake, MSNBC is left leaning now, originally featured  Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham.
> ...



MSNBC "left-leaning?" I'm doubled over in laughter.  They gave the anti-Semitic, fact-challenged Joy Reid a nightly slot!  I suppose Pravda leans a bit to the left, as well.  

I watch the BBC a fair amount although their US coverage is absurdly leftist.  I used to watch the PBS Nightly News but since Gwen Ifill died and Judy Woodruff took over as sole anchor, they have lurched left as well.  

I do like Eamon Javers, the CNBC White House reporter. I find him refreshingly straightforward.  

AARP's liberal bias is well established, I'm not going to argue about that here.


----------



## Damaged Goods (Sep 25, 2020)

macgeek said:


> here u go. no longer a factor, which means it was. so my post was correct.
> 
> *English Language Ability Dropped as Factor for  Social Security Disability
> 
> ...



The change tightens the requirements but the original post implies that an inability to communicate in English in itself qualifies a claimant.  As the ALJ referenced in the original post, adjudicators consider residual functional capacity (RFC) (sedentary work in the ALJ's example) and age.  Also, the The ALJ omitted the vocational factor of skill level derived from past work -- skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled -- and if skilled or semi-skilled, whether such skills are transferable to work within claimant's RFC.


----------



## wcwbf (Sep 25, 2020)

macgeek said:


> well then their doing what all the other media outlets are doing daily then. AARP also can be a heavily slanted media source come to think of it. They all have their bias and agendas. When I turned 50 I never joined AARP for this very reason. Bias. But you think AARP is not biased? We can all believe what we like.


of course media sources have a bias/slant/agenda.  i don't think anybody said they didn't.


----------



## Geezerette (Sep 25, 2020)

AARP supports whatever it thinks will bring in the most $ to its management  and financial products . Whichever way it thinks the wind will blow. I have nothing but contempt  for it.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 25, 2020)

macgeek said:


> well then their doing what all the other media outlets are doing daily then. AARP also can be a heavily slanted media source come to think of it. They all have their bias and agendas. When I turned 50 I never joined AARP for this very reason. Bias. But you think AARP is not biased? We can all believe what we like.


"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." 
Daniel Moynihan
That you believe something does not make it true.


----------



## Nathan (Sep 25, 2020)

JimBob1952 said:


> MSNBC "left-leaning?" I'm doubled over in laughter.  They gave the anti-Semitic, fact-challenged Joy Reid a nightly slot!  I suppose Pravda leans a bit to the left, as well.


  O.K., I'll take your word for it, I don't watch MSNBC.   Pravada?  Putin's daily read....



JimBob1952 said:


> AARP's liberal bias is well established, I'm not going to argue about that here.



No need to argue, but just curious- AARP's liberal bias is "well established" by whom, exactly?


----------



## Don M. (Sep 25, 2020)

IMO, anyone who chooses to migrate to another nation should have an obligation to learn the local language, and begin to adhere to the local customs.  Maintaining their original language is ok, but when dealing with the public, they should make an attempt to "assimilate".  

Years ago, when I went to Germany for several years, with the USAF, one of the first things I did was take some basic German language classes that were offered on the base.  Being able to communicate with the local people...albeit a bit "shaky" at first....sure made my time over there a lot more enjoyable. 

If I were "King" one of the things I would do is eliminate all this "Spanish" labeling on all the consumer products.  And, if that posed a problem for the Latino's, I would fund classes to help them learn English.   There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of Global languages, but only Spanish seems to be a "requirement".


----------



## macgeek (Sep 25, 2020)

Pepper said:


> "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
> Daniel Moynihan
> That you believe something does not make it true.



good advice that works both ways.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Sep 25, 2020)

Nathan said:


> O.K., I'll take your word for it, I don't watch MSNBC.   Pravada?  Putin's daily read....
> 
> 
> 
> No need to argue, but just curious- AARP's liberal bias is "well established" by whom, exactly?



AARP is liberal enough that a conservative alternate was established about ten years ago. I think it's called AMAC. There is another one called the American Seniors Association.  

I looked at the AARP website.  It's mildly, not wildly liberal.  AARP likes big-government solutions but so do lots of people. 



This is from an investment website:

 Among other things, AARP supported President Bill Clinton’s 1994 push for a large expansion of government involvement in healthcare. In 2005, the organization helped stop a Republican-led attempt to reconfigure Social Security benefits to put the SS program on a more solid financial footing. And in 2010, AARP riled many of its more conservative-minded members with its strong support of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

AARP’s Obamacare stance cost the group about 300,000 members, many of whom affiliated with other senior groups. “We made an offer to anyone who cut their AARP card in half that we’d give them a year’s free membership,” says Randy Lewin, spokesman for the American Seniors Association, which bills itself as the “conservative alternative” to AARP. “We had to stop [the promotion] early. I had too many 55-gallon trash bags full of AARP cards cut in half.”

Jim Martin of the 60 Plus Association, which also uses the “conservative alternative to AARP” line, pulls no punches. He calls the AARP “a huge fraud on seniors, profiting by commission from a variety of money-making schemes…and promoting programs of big government and high taxes which [ultimately] hurt, not help” older Americans.


----------



## Nathan (Sep 25, 2020)

OK, thanks JimBob, I never suspected that an organization like AARP would have any political leanings either way.   To me, AARP is just an insurance market place, sprinkled with links and informational tidbits of interest to the target audience- senior citizens.

Edit:  To be honest, I can't see why any senior would want to be affiliated with ANY commercial entity like 60 Plus or AARP that have a political agenda....at our age are we not proud of our intelligence and knowledge, so much so as to want to have our views spoon-fed to us?


----------



## I'mnotdeadyet (Sep 25, 2020)

Nathan said:


> OK, thanks JimBob, I never suspected that an organization like AARP would have any political leanings either way.   To me, AARP is just an insurance market place, sprinkled with links and informational tidbits of interest to the target audience- senior citizens.
> 
> Edit:  To be honest, I can't see why any senior would want to be affiliated with ANY commercial entity like 60 Plus or AARP that have a political agenda....at our age are we not proud of our intelligence and knowledge, so much so as to want to have our views spoon-fed to us?


This. Plus, all you gotta' do is say you're a senior, and you still get the discount! 

The truth is AARP does not support candidates on either side, and they've been investigated several times for candidate donations by their officers, etc. None of these investigations have ever shown a bias one way or the other, however, their support for policies are always to the left. They are very careful to keep their leanings in the background.


----------



## Nathan (Sep 25, 2020)

I'mnotdeadyet said:


> None of these investigations have ever shown a bias one way or the other, however, their support for policies are always to the left.


So, what type of policies are we talking about here...being "to the left"?   Wait,  I Googled _"AARP too left leaning_"  and came across this FOX piece on The O'Reilly Factor, in which Bill O'Reilly interviews AARP president Lee Hammond to whom he admits to being an AARP member.   Hmmm, so  O'Reilly badgers Hammond for not having enough "conservative voices" in their articles, and that AARP's magazine cover has only had GHWB on the cover, and all the rest  "Every one of them is a left-winger, every one".  Ooookay.  
Otherwise, no real discussion of "left wing" policies.


----------



## I'mnotdeadyet (Sep 25, 2020)

I don't think anyone but you said 'left wing'. I used the term left leaning and left of center in their policy support. I don't see any other reference to left wing. There is a distinct difference. 

Instead of trying to find sources that claim they are left, why not spend the same time looking into the policies they support and deciding for yourself? While I may feel their policies are liberal, your barometer may read differently. 

Keep in mind that if JFK were alive today he'd be considered conservative.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 25, 2020)

Damaged Goods said:


> Nathan nailed it.  Inability to communicate in English in itself does not qualify an individual for SSDI or SSI disability.  The primary factor is the degree of severity of an individual's impairment.  If it prevents performance of past relevant work, then the vocational factors of age, education, and acquired skill level are factored-in.  Inability to communicate in English is one of the educational levels considered.



YES!  It's not like you can get disability benefits just for the inability to speak English.  

The Social Security website states:

"To qualify for Social Security disability benefits, you must first have worked in jobs covered by Social Security. Then you must have a medical condition that meets Social Security's definition of disability. In general, we pay monthly benefits to people who are unable to work for a year or more because of a disability.

In addition to meeting our definition of disability, you must have worked long enough — and recently enough — under Social Security to qualify for disability benefits.

Social Security work credits are based on your total yearly wages or self-employment income. You can earn up to four credits each year.

The amount needed for a work credit changes from year to year. In 2020, for example, you earn one credit for each $1,410 in wages or self-employment income. When you've earned $5,640, you've earned your four credits for the year.

The number of work credits you need to qualify for disability benefits depends on your age when you become disabled. Generally, you need 40 credits, 20 of which were earned in the last 10 years ending with the year you become disabled. However, younger workers may qualify with fewer credits."


----------



## Damaged Goods (Sep 26, 2020)

Aneeda72 said:


> SSDI is not understandable to anyone in my opinion.  As a side note my son with DS has a high school education and a diploma from special school, of course.  He neither reads nor writes, he has an IQ of 53.  He gets SSDI.



Your son's impairment satisfies the medical requirements on that basis alone.  There is no need to consider any vocational factors such as education.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/20/appendix-1_to_subpart_P_of_part_404

(...)

1. Significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning evidenced by a or b:

a. A full scale (or comparable) IQ score of 70 or below on an individually administered standardized test of general intelligence; or

(...)


----------



## Aneeda72 (Sep 27, 2020)

Damaged Goods said:


> Your son's impairment satisfies the medical requirements on that basis alone.  There is no need to consider any vocational factors such as education.
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/20/appendix-1_to_subpart_P_of_part_404
> 
> ...


Yes I know.  Children, disabled at birth, qualify for SSDI from birth.  My other disabled son also receives SSDI.  While his IQ is, 80, he also can not read or write.  He has quadriplegic cerebral palsy, a seizure disorder, and many other physical defects.  He has had cancer and he is total care.    He also has graduated HS and has diploma.  While he speaks English, his language is not understandable unless you are used to his garbled speech.


----------



## StarSong (Sep 27, 2020)

He can't read or write but graduated HS?


----------



## Aneeda72 (Sep 27, 2020)

StarSong said:


> He can't read or write but graduated HS?


Yes, of course, most every disabled child goes to school till they are 22 and graduates.  They are taught practical things.  Getting along, to be non aggressive, make simple food, use microwave, don’t eat crayons, make your bed do dishes etc.  If they have the ability to read and write, they will be taught to do so.

The totally disabled work on not biting people, not yelling and screaming, chewing food, swallowing etc.  Those unable to learn, due to severe mental retardation or other very severe disabilities still go to school, and still graduate.

Before the virus both my boys worked at sheltered workshop.  My son has a beautiful smile so he was a greeter. My son with DS worked at a restaurant wrapping the forks and spoons in a napkin and putting butter on dishes.

Did you think disabled kids stayed at home and learned nothing?


----------



## Damaged Goods (Sep 27, 2020)

Aneeda72 said:


> Yes I know.  Children, disabled at birth, qualify for SSDI from birth.  My other disabled son also receives SSDI.  While his IQ is, 80, he also can not read or write.  He has quadriplegic cerebral palsy, a seizure disorder, and many other physical defects.  He has had cancer and he is total care.    He also has graduated HS and has diploma.  While he speaks English, his language is not understandable unless you are used to his garbled speech.



A child disabled at birth who has never worked qualifies as a title II disabled adult child on the work record of the parent rather than title II SSDI.  

18 years of age or older;
disabled by SSA's definition before age 22; 
the child of insured workers who are either disabled, retired or deceased;
have filed an application for child's benefits; and
be unmarried (some exceptions - if adult child marries, benefits end, *unless *marriage is to another social security beneficiary).
POMS DI 10115.001, 20 CFR 404.350 - .352.

My condolences for the crosses you bear.


----------



## Aneeda72 (Sep 27, 2020)

Damaged Goods said:


> A child disabled at birth who has never worked qualifies as a title II disabled adult child on the work record of the parent rather than title II SSDI.
> 
> 18 years of age or older;
> disabled by SSA's definition before age 22;
> ...


I adopted my two disabled children.  They are not a cross to bear but wonderful people who bring me great joy.  My son with DS is my favorite child.  Life would have been so dull and empty without him.  No condolences necessary.


----------



## JB in SC (Oct 9, 2020)

Geezerette said:


> AARP supports whatever it thinks will bring in the most $ to its management  and financial products . Whichever way it thinks the wind will blow. I have nothing but contempt  for it.



Yep and they sold seniors down the river when they backed the ACA. Rewarded to the tune of a billion dollars over ten years for their flat fee licensing for advantage plans and AARP specific carve outs to eliminate rate regulations.


----------



## Mairett (Oct 18, 2020)

macgeek said:


> Can you imagine someone coming to our country, never paid into social security or paid very little, and they get disability benefits because they can't speak English?
> 
> Does not shock me one bit.  How many years has this been going on? Way too long it looks like. Just one reason of many the system is going broke I guess.  Hopefully it's been changed in April 2020, but knowing our government I have my doubts. Common sense is not so common.
> 
> ...


Anyone on SSDI knows how hard it is to get SSDI. You have to have worked for so long and made a certain amount to qualify to even be considered for disability benefits. Plus after going through the pre screening, you then have to apply and go to appointments to see doctors. The best case scenario is a 6mo wait from month of first applying getting your first disability payment, and you cannot be working while trying to get disability(most cant). I know there is a different kind of supplement people can get that isn't disability. But its not easy to qualify for disability or is it cost effective....Plus its not like you get a lot of money on disability. Anyone on disability benefits is lucky to be poverty level. So, don't believe everything you read.


----------



## Aneeda72 (Oct 19, 2020)

Mairett said:


> Anyone on SSDI knows how hard it is to get SSDI. You have to have worked for so long and made a certain amount to qualify to even be considered for disability benefits. Plus after going through the pre screening, you then have to apply and go to appointments to see doctors. The best case scenario is a 6mo wait from month of first applying getting your first disability payment, and you cannot be working while trying to get disability(most cant). I know there is a different kind of supplement people can get that isn't disability. But its not easy to qualify for disability or is it cost effective....Plus its not like you get a lot of money on disability. Anyone on disability benefits is lucky to be poverty level. So, don't believe everything you read.


For disabled at birth, it is not hard.  For drug addicts, IMO, it is not hard.  But, yup, for everyone else, very hard.


----------



## Butterfly (Oct 19, 2020)

Mairett said:


> Anyone on SSDI knows how hard it is to get SSDI. You have to have worked for so long and made a certain amount to qualify to even be considered for disability benefits. Plus after going through the pre screening, you then have to apply and go to appointments to see doctors. The best case scenario is a 6mo wait from month of first applying getting your first disability payment, and you cannot be working while trying to get disability(most cant). I know there is a different kind of supplement people can get that isn't disability. But its not easy to qualify for disability or is it cost effective....Plus its not like you get a lot of money on disability. Anyone on disability benefits is lucky to be poverty level. So, don't believe everything you read.



You're absolutely right, though I've never known anyone except those who are disabled from birth or those who are fast-tracked because they are terminally ill to get their first payment within 6 months.  IMO It's more like at least a year, sometimes two.

And yes, disability benefits are actually very little money.  So the myth of somebody on disability living like a king on disability is just that -- a myth.


----------



## Pepper (Oct 19, 2020)

Absolutely true @Butterfly


----------



## Butterfly (Oct 19, 2020)

Aneeda72 said:


> For disabled at birth, it is not hard.  For drug addicts, IMO, it is not hard.  But, yup, for everyone else, very hard.



The rules for drug and alcohol addiction were tightened up in 2017.  You can no longer get disability benefits for addictions alone -- only if that addiction caused physical damage that causes seizures, etc., that prevent you from working.


----------



## Aneeda72 (Oct 19, 2020)

Butterfly said:


> The rules for drug and alcohol addiction were tightened up in 2017.  You can no longer get disability benefits for addictions alone -- only if that addiction caused physical damage that causes seizures, etc., that prevent you from working.


I did not know that, thanks


----------

