This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government. Disability Social Security Disability Insurance is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability Deaf Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Deaf, the WikiProject which seeks to improve articles relating to all aspects of deaf-related and Deaf culture. For the Project guidelines, see the project page or talk page.DeafWikipedia:WikiProject DeafTemplate:WikiProject Deafdeaf Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Occupations (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OccupationsWikipedia:WikiProject OccupationsTemplate:WikiProject OccupationsOccupations Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This is a very good article

I would like to add a sentence to the 7th point under the Differences between SSDI and Long Term Disability Insurance section.

The 7th point reads: Social Security will provide a person opportunities to return to work while still paying them disability benefits.

The point is true, however, I believe it should also be mentioned that if a person receiving SSDI does indeed return to work, and is eventually discontinued from SSDI status, they will not only lose their disability payment, they will also lose their health insurance coverage (Medicare).

Baldster 00:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that a person who returns to work may be terminated from SSDI it is not automatic. For example a person working sporadically or with few hours per week at a low wage might not meet the requirements of disability cessation on the basis of income. However, SSA sometimes uses that sort of work improperly when evaluating alleged medical improvement. So, if you wanted to add qualifiers to that optimistic statement I would suggest that you research the standards for disability cessation based upon income and also the standards based upon medical improvement and provide links to the applicable regulations. (Be sure to note the income differences for those who are blind and those who are not blind.) As always, we cannot provide our opinions and original works on Wikipedia, we should present facts that are supported by appropriate authorities. David Traver —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you understood exactly what I was proposing for the SSDI page. I'm not interested in when, how, or why people are terminated from the disability roles, and what the thresholds are for such termination. All I wanted to add was the fact that when people are terminated from SSDI, they will lose their health insurance (Medicare).

Baldster 04:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That too is not always correct. It is possible to have Medicare without disability benefits. I suggest that if you are going to provide that kind of information you do so while relying upon and citing a reliable outside resource and not your own opinion. Cheers. David Traver —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't my opinion. I was told this by two disability attorneys. That's the reason I've stayed on SSD for 12 years now, rather than attempt to become employed. I've had several surgeries in the past 6 years, and if I didn't have Medicare, I would have gone broke years ago. I likely will need more surgery in the future, so I can't afford to go to work, and would be a fool to do so! AAARanger5 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see we are speaking past each other. Your attorneys may be generally correct about your case, given your age and other vocational and medical factors. However, that does not translate into an accurate generalized fact for the rest of the population. (For example, a person who receives regular retirement and Social Security disability at age 62 would not lose Medicare if the disability portion of the award ceased.) Because this is an exquisitely complex area of law, one should follow the Wikipedia standards with great care and be sure to provide a citation to a reliable resource that allows readers to verify the accuracy and scope of the information presented. You cannot provide a link to the advice given to you by your attorneys. On the other hand, perhaps you make an accurate section of the article by relying on Medicare and disability cessation information you find at http://ssa.gov. Failure to give good support for your article section would not only reduce the value of Wikipedia, it might lead some unsuspecting person to make a seriously wrong choice. That is, you can really screw somebody up if you are wrong for their facts. Exploding the scope of one factual situation to a universal context invariably leads to inaccurate legal advice. So, if you put forth some legal facts please be sure you are right for everybody or include a very thoughtful and accurate disclaimer that clearly sets forth the limited scope of the rule you are describing. David Traver —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

when a person is approved for SSI, and are preparing to receive first check, will they receive back pay to the time they filed.

iI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.237.58 (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was working full time after having used up my 9 month trial work period and my 36 month period of extended eligibility and I still had Medicare. It was not scheduled to expire for another 4 years at that time.GraysonEG (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add a link to a Survivorship A to Z article on SSDI - the article is here. The article provides additional information and resources for people dealing with (or preparing to deal with) SSDI issues. I'm proposing it here because I do contract work for Survivorship A to Z. What do you think?

Prestonmarkstone (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been about three weeks since I made the above link proposal. If there are no objections at this point, I'll add the link.

Prestonmarkstone (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On December 31st, 2009, a user made some drastic edits to the chart in the "Likelihood of receiving benefits" section, as well as some other changes that indicated frustration with the SSDI process. The numbers in the chart were referenced with a link that is now dead, so it is unclear whether they were ever accurate, but the user certainly did not provide any references for the changes. Does anyone have a reliable source for accurate numbers? The websites of attorneys, non-attorney advocates, and people who have a beef with the SSA would presumably not be considered reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.65 (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that there are annual cost of living increases for those on SSDI. They are not guaranteed. There were no increases in 2009 or 2010 because there was no increase in the cost of living.GraysonEG (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ EllenCT (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cantaloupe2 (talk · contribs), can we have a discussion about the recent reverts, or should I go straight to a noticeboard such as WP:RS/N? Some opening points:

1. I added a section on payments; you removed the source which this new section is based upon and added your own source (while removing a bit of the section on the distribution of payments). Your source does not support the existing language - it says nothing about disability. You've been around 5 years and should know better. Further, it is primary source which talks in terms of "bend points" and other jargon. The Nolo.com article is a down-to-earth secondary source which gives context and is from a well-known and respected self-help legal publisher.
2. You need to be more specific about your issues and also show that you've done a little bit of due diligence on your own. It's not reasonable to expect others to spoonfeed you information. For example, if you have an issue with the word "controversial", you could have done a Find (CTRL-F) search on the document and found "controversial" on page 7. If you have other issues, you should specifically list them. Preferably, you would make your edits specific to your issues rather than just deleting unrelated stuff.

I may not be available to respond for a few hours. II | (t - c) 18:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I looked at the page on nolo.com. The sources within do not look too solid to me. If it's a self-help guide meant to advocate for those claiming for benefits and written to side with the claimants, it is not a neutral point of view. This is the same issue I have with referencing a site like allsup.com, a commercial service which stands to gain from representing claimants. Their advisory resources are in-line with advancing their business interests which is where conflict of interest and biased view comes into issue. I think its a good idea to ask if these sources are appropriate at RS/N.

You've been around a while as well. should know better to use a good in-line citation showing page numbers relevant to prose especially when the source is so long. It's not reasonable to expect others to rummage through the source to find the information.

First page of cited reference says "This report was prepared by the Office of the Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Council, the members of the Conference, or its committees.".

Several legal scholars have described SSA, in the early 1980s, as “adopting a series of controversial policies and practices to restrict benefits,”These are opinions, so its editorializing it to phrase it as factual "it is controversial" just as "eating meat is harmful" and referencing "several experts" who spoke for vegetarianism.

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since you are unwilling to compromise or, apparently, search for a better source than the invalid SSA one you've presented, I will look into RS/N or something. The question for sources is not whether the source is neutral but whether the article is neutral. Understanding this is fundamental to Wikipedia: see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality which notes that "Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral". Note additionally that Nolo is not a questionable source as noted in that policy; indeed, it has been the leading self-help legal publisher for probably decades, and this is a field where inaccurate information is highly costly. As far as the Administrative Conference and page numbers, one didn't have to dig very deeply, but I'll admit that page numbers would be better. As far as "controversial", this does not mean that something is wrong of negative, it just means that it generated controversy - meaning relatively high-profile disagreements ("Disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated") and it is not editorializing when it is described as such by reliable sources. I notice that you've recently gone through a RfC/User about similar issues with misinterpreting policy and so I'll probably be dropping a note to the certifying editors of that RfC about this incident. II | (t - c) 20:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that an editor has included a link to the original Social Security Act. But according to a 60 minutes interview, US Sen. Tom Coburn said that SSDI was not enacted until sometime in the Eisenhower Presidency. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jtekHrfq3w  ??? According to Coburn, the program was meant for people that couldn't do ANY kind of work due to a disability. Coburn has also stated that it is being "gamed" by lawyers to use it for a long-term unemployment program. Is he correct???User:JCHeverly 18:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the text was copied from a government site verbatim, shouldn't that be OK? I thought there was no copyright on government documents. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the tag because (a) the comparison was to Social Security's own website (a U.S. government work, thus public domain), and (b) the report generated by that tag found matches ONLY on technical terms (SSDI, SSI, SSA, etc.) that are necessary in this type of article. It is clearly NOT a copy-paste job. --RBBrittain (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess I am looking for something more than I can get off the SSA's website. I come to wikipedia for answers to questions that official websites leave unanswered.User:JCHeverly 02:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what about some info about getting off disability and income limits? Michael Ten (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Working while on SSDI 2603:3005:1536:41C0:4C7E:57D6:B162:53B2 (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Working SSDI 2603:3005:1536:41C0:4C7E:57D6:B162:53B2 (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I change my address and direct deposit 100.14.7.124 (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am on SSDI and my children were approved to receive auxiliary benefits. They received back pay checks in the mail. What can the back pay checks be used for? Can I use it to pay off a vehicle and credit card debt that was gained due to not enough income before approval? I e had to use credit cards to make bill payments. 142.215.114.17 (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A recent Washington Post article (unpaywalled copy available here) is critical of the Social Security administration's use of a 1970s vintage database of obsolete job descriptions to unreasonably deny applicants for disability payments. It further criticizes the authority for wasting money and time in fruitless efforts to update the database. I'm not quite sure where to place this information in the article. It may be a good idea to watch relevant media to see if the news story shows any further development. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]