In Small-Town America, Social Security Disability benefits are often about more than just the individual's receiving the benefits; they're about the places they live, and the businesses they spend their money at.
People thinking about applying for Social Security Disability (SSD) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) often wonder whether they can own a home and still be approved for disability benefits.
Homeless people are more likely to have some sort of disability, either mental or physical than the general population. According to a Housing and Urban Development study released in 2009, 42.8 of adults using homeless shelters reported a disability compared to 17.7 percent of non-homeless people.
Both Social Security Disability (SSD) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) are managed by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and provide benefits to people who are unable to work because of disability or blindness. However, there are significant differences between the two programs. The table below outlines those differences.
They often say a picture is worth a thousand words--so, let us paint the picture for you: the Social Security Administration is behind on processing disability claims. Not just a little bit, either. Currently, their average processing time is 491 days.
Question: I was wondering if you can help people that are on SSI-SSD get more money cause I feel I'm not getting what I suppose to get.
Obtaining Social Security Disability (SSD) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits quickly when disaster strikes is very difficult. Even if the claim is perfect, with all requested information provided and no missing documentation, it takes the agency weeks or months to decide whether to grant benefits. The story of a man in Salem, Oregon, reflects the vulnerability of the disabled and the weakness of the safety net.
Earlier this year, we discussed a class-action lawsuit that was filed against a select number of Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) in Queens, New York in 2011. The allegations at hand? Bias. The class-action lawsuit claimed that five ALJs allowed their prejudice and bias to interfere with their ability to make fair and just decisions-an estimated 4,000+ decisions.