Social Security Offers Vital Protection To Nearly All American Workers and Their Families

Social Security will celebrate it's 80th Anniversary in August.  Few Americans working today can remember a time when Social Security wasn’t part of the social fabric of America.

Since the Social Security retirement program was enacted under Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1935, it has expanded in important ways. In 1939, benefits for dependent survivors of wage earners were added. And in 1956, disability insurance benefits were added. Today, as in the past, millions of Americans rely on these Social Security programs for income in the event of their own retirement, disability or death of a family wage-earner.

While Social Security is a part of our social fabric, that doesn’t mean that we can take its future for granted. As we celebrate the 80th anniversary of Social Security on August 14, this is the time to ensure that the Social Security programs remain strong for the next generation. Now more than ever, as an increasing number of workers approach retirement, we cannot afford to jeopardize the stability it provides millions of families.  Social Security offers vital protection to nearly all American workers and their families, so that if they face serious disability, illness, or injury before reaching retirement age, they will receive a monthly benefit. And, in the event of death, it provides some financial protection to the surviving family members. It is funded by your payroll taxes – as you work, you buy premiums for this important insurance.

In addition to providing a foundation of economic security to millions of Americans, Social Security also boosts the economy, because when people receive this compensation, they spend it in their communities. In 2012, Social Security supported more than $1 trillion in economic output.

It is important to keep in mind that many of the people who rely on this program – seniors and people with disabilities – are barely scraping by. Social Security benefits make up at least 90 percent of income for half of all disabled beneficiaries, and it averages just around $1,130 per month ($35 per day). This doesn’t leave any room for cuts.

As part of the Social Security system, Disability Insurance is an important public structure, like our highways or water system that needs to be maintained. There are a few easy ways that Congress can make the program more efficient – including fully funding the Social Security Administration so they can hire more staff to process claims, and rebalancing the trust funds again to ensure there is adequate funding for years to come.

 

In the lead up to the 2016 election, we should all ask candidates where they stand on this critical program. Social Security belongs to the American workers who paid into it. Any of us could find ourselves disabled. That’s why it is so critical that our politicians work together to keep Social Security strong for generations to come.

Affordable Healthcare Upheld By Supreme Court - by Ezra Klein on June 25, 2015

1) This wasn't a "win for Obamacare." Obamacare is words written on paper. This was a win for the more than 6 million people who will keep their health insurance. It's a win for parents who can be sure their children can go to the doctor, and for minimum-wage workers who can call an ambulance without worrying about debt. Basic health security for millions of people was on the line in this decision. Everything else was secondary to that.

2) This was also a win for common sense, and for judicial restraint. On some level, what's most surprising about this case isn't that the Supreme Court upheld the subsidies, but that they ever took the case at all. This was a ridiculous case, based on a ridiculous argument, where the only hope of victory was that the Supreme Court had become an irreversibly partisan institution.

3) In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts put the fundamental absurdity of King v. Burwell's argument clearly: "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them." Indeed.

4) Something to note: The Supreme Court didn't take an easy out — they didn't use something like Chevron deference to split the difference or say it's simply not their role to second-guess the IRS. They didn't write an opinion that gave any shelter to the plaintiffs' argument. Instead, Roberts says that the Court's role in a case like this is to "determine the correct reading of the law." And that's what they did.

5) The correct reading of the law, Roberts writes, is the government's reading. The plaintiffs in King v. Burwell claimed that the law came down to five words: "an Exchange established by the State." Read on their own, those words suggested that only state-based exchanges could use subsidies. But the government argued that those words weren't on their own. The law also said, in the absence of a state-based exchange, the law tells the government to establish "such Exchange."

6) In the Court's opinion, the word "such" made all the difference. It makes clear that "the Act indicates that State and Federal Exchanges should be the same." If state exchanges got subsidies and federal exchanges didn't, then they wouldn't be the same.

7) But the Court goes further than that. They do not rest their decision on semantics. They rest it on clear legislative intent.

8) The decision begins with a lengthy description of Obamacare's "three-legged stool" — the way the law's subsidies, individual mandate, and regulations work together to create stable insurance markets. It then segues into the history of insurance death spirals in states that have tried to reform their health systems without building all three legs of the stool.

9) Roberts gives a very crisp definition of how these death spirals worked: "As premiums rose higher and higher, and the number of people buying insurance sank lower and lower, insurers began to leave the market entirely. As a result, the number of people without insurance increased dramatically."

10) In the Court's opinion, the plaintiffs' idea of how the law was meant to work is ridiculous. If they were right, then "the combination of no tax credits and an ineffective coverage requirement could well push a State's individual insurance market into a death spiral. It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner."

11) In the end, the basic finding here isn't very complicated: Obamacare was designed to work the way everyone understood Obamacare was designed to work — which is also the way Obamacare has been working, and is also the only way Obamacare actually will work.

12) The plaintiffs argued that Obamacare was designed to work in a way contrary to its fundamental goals — that it was, in essence, built to fail, at least in states that didn't establish their own exchanges. The plaintiffs argued this even though no member of Congress ever mentioned this insane plan, no state was ever told about it, and the Obama administration expressly denied it. The majority rightfully saw this as what it is: less a serious argument about the law than an effort to wound Obamacare by successfully pulling a Jedi mind trick on the Supreme Court.

13) As the Court says, quoting New York State Dept. of Social Servs. v. Dublino, "We cannot interpret federal statutes to negate their own stated purposes."

14) The majority's opinion ends on a philosophical note — not about health care, but about the role of the judiciary, and the role that the plaintiffs were trying to push the judiciary into playing. It's worth quoting at length:

In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—"to say what the law is." That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.

The plaintiffs, and many Republicans, were asking the Court to engage in judicial activism of breathtaking scale — using an unclearly worded sentence to upend the clear intent of one of the most significant laws passed in the last generation. In the end, the Court's four Democratic appointees, and two of its Republicans, refused. We should all be glad they did.

Protect Social Security Disability Benefits When Accepting Other Settlements

Workers' Compensation and other 

public disability benefits may reduce your 

Social Security Benefits

"Some attorneys and advocates of  

Social Security Disability clients are not aware that 

they can put your social security disability benefits 

in jeopardy by accepting public benefits or benefits

for Workers' Compensation."  

Gerald M. Welt, Esq.  (April 2015)

If you are receiving Social Security Disability benefits and benefits through the Medicare program you may be unaware that Workers' Compensation and other public disability benefits may reduce your Social Security Disability benefits so it is important that you consult a Social Security Disability attorney before you accept any other disability settlements.  If you are using another attorney for something other than Social Security Disability please let your attorney know that I will be happy to offer free consultation so that you receive the benefits you deserve for your disability, illness or injury.  

Much like the process for obtaining Social Security Disability benefits, the process for filing a Workers' Compensation claim involves many strict deadlines that can affect whether you obtain benefits and how much you receive. You also need information from your employer and a physician about your injury.  Our law office is familiar with the laws, the dates, the regulations and the policies that you need to know to receive your benefits.

You Must Meet Three 

Basic Requirements to be Eligible for 

Workers' Compensation 

 For a Job Related Injury or Illness

1. Your employer must provide Workers' Compensation insurance.
2. Your occupation must have played a role in your injury or illness.
3. You must be an official employee.

In most cases, Workers' Compensation only applies to employees. Freelancers, volunteers and some independent contractors cannot receive Workers' Compensation, though there are sometimes exceptions for volunteer firefighters. 

Even if your employer has designated you as an independent contractor, you may still be eligible for Workers' Comp benefits. If you filled out a W-4 instead of a 1099, there is a good chance that you qualify for Workers' Compensation. 

After filing your claim, there is another set of rules to follow if your employer refuses to comply. We can help you decide which forms you need.  

Contact my office at 702.382.2030 for more information. 

Your Disability Clients May Be Eligible For Additional Health Care Benefits

If you are an attorney with clients receiving disability benefits through the Medicare program, or are a recepient of disability benefits through the Medicare program, you may be unaware there are many free and low cost Medicare opportunities available. My office now has a dedicated health insurance professional who will assist you in helping your clients maximize their health coverage. Call 702.382.2030 and ask for our insurance professional who can help you navigate the health insurance maze free of charge. There is no cost to you and you are under no obligation to find out how to access these free and low cost benefits. 
http://www.lasvegassocialsecuritydisability.com/