This article is nearly 15 years old (2013). According to center on budget and policy priorities, the number of SSDI beneficiaries has fallen from is peak in 2014. So this article was written about a trend that peaked a year after its publication and had reversed over the past 15 years. Odd that it would be reposted today.
I think someone may have wanted to bring more attention to this because contrary to surface level opinion and the peak on the surface; there is actually a growing number of people who meet the requirements to be eligible for disability but who do not receive those benefits.
There's a longstanding fear, and one that seems well founded, where those that meet the requirements won't actually file for it because doing so will have an adverse effect on any potential future employment.
Disability discrimination during hiring is almost impossible to prove with AI these days.
I've heard horror stories from some people at the shelter where I volunteer. One guy apparently had a county representative check the wrong boxes on benefit documents by mistake during welfare processing, saying a person was disabled because of a health condition (sleep apnea iirc) when they weren't disabled or receiving disability, and those people couldn't even find retail work afterwards.
AI has opened the floodgates to all sorts of discrimination as a result of the weights and decision-making being a black box with no accountability.
> Fewer than 1 percent of those who were on the federal program for disabled workers at the beginning of 2011 have returned to the workforce since then, one economist told me.
Do they lose their "disabled" status if they go back to work? If so, that seems like a textbook poverty trap. Why risk losing lifetime free money for a minimum wage job that might not last?
I have a friend 'trapped' by government aid. They receive some benefits from being diagnosed with something as a minor and their father received a government aid that conferred to them. Its SSDI IIRC; the rules say they can't get married, can't own property, can't earn more than $X/unit of time.
The 27 years I've known them have been punctuated by my saying "what if you do this to solve your current issue" and the reply is "I'll lose my benefits"
I'm unfit to say if they need it; as in I am unsure if their life would be worse or better without.
Don't read too much into the setup, above; my memory is fuzzy unless I am directly talking to them about it, and even so they correct me like, "its not ssi it's ssdi," or whatever it is. This is to +1 with an anecdote.
I dated a disabled woman for a bit, and this is exactly how it was. Every possible solution to her situation had better be 100% guaranteed to work, because it was guaranteed to get her ejected from SSDI, never able to reapply unless she developed a new and unrelated disability.
She wasn't even allowed to save money for an emergency fund or a large purchase because there was a limit to how much liquid cash she could have at any time, and it was something like $2000. If she demonstrated an ability to save more than that, the bureaucrats would take that as irrefutable evidence that she was well enough off to not need help, and boot her from the program.
Every single thing about the way that program is administered actively prevents its users from bettering their situation.
I'll never forget the run-in I had with this corner of the labor market:
Back about 15 years ago I was running a small business in the auto industry. A guy who did deliveries for us (entire job: driving cars to people) who was in his early 20s found himself in a very minor fender-bender -- he rear-ended someone else. He claimed his twisted his ankle from the jolt (based on where he was resting his foot). Fine, no big deal.
He went to see a doctor shortly afterwards and immediately filed for a Worker's Comp claim. He then kept seeing that doctor and within a few weeks was given...permanent disability. Literally got a doctor to say he'd never be able to work again. Full sign-off. He of course was seen walking around just fine a few months later.
The problem with disability in the US is it is very easy to get kicked off of it, so nobody risks earning or saving too much money (I think you must maintain under $2000 at all times?) or pursuing a potentially viable career unless it is a 100% guarantee, because you can't go back on disability later for something you had when you were kicked off it, even if it is a progressive disease. You need to show new symptoms that by themselves are disabling or another qualifying ailment.
And also getting on disability in the first place is such a huge pile of bureaucratic nonsense and bullshit to start with that you have to learn how to "game" the system just to get approval. It isn't setup to try and help people who need it, it is setup to disincentivize everybody as much as possible, even if you have serious brain damage, are nearly blind, and only have 3 fingers.
This grossly understates the current 2025 financial impact of the problem, and is directly linked to the ~$36 trillion debt.
There is a target to reduce Medicaid recipients by 4.8 million by 2033, by requiring them to attend school or volunteer 80 hours per month. That's a lot.
In the next four years, nearly every state that has huge Medicaid obligations will be forced to restrict and reduce access simply due to budget constraints.
For example, California has 6.6 million enrolled in Medicaid and requires a staggering $85 billion federal assistance annual infusion for Medicaid. "People with disabilities composed 8% of Medi-Cal enrollees and accounted for 31% of spending".
California has 49% of the population on employer-provided health insurance. Only 5% purchase private insurance (Affordable Care Act). However, 22% of Californians are covered by Medicaid. That number is unsustainable, and Governor Newsom is already enacting measures to reduce enrollment and eligibility.
California is not a great example, since they pay out to the Fed so much more than they receive, so that infusion isn't really an infusion when you consider the overall budgets.
Nit: "the Fed" means the Federal Reserve Bank, which does not collect taxes. "The US treasury", "the Federal government" or "Fedgov" would work in your sentence.
It’s unfortunate that we can’t seriously consider universal basic income in the United States. If we provided every adult citizen with $13K annually during their working years, it could offer support to those unable to find meaningful employment without forcing them to declare themselves disabled just to survive. That label can take a real toll on a person’s psyche and limit their belief in their ability to grow or find better opportunities. We also have to be realistic and realize AI is positioned to replace a significant number of jobs in the next decade. A safety net like UBI will only become more essential moving forward.
I agree. Some libertarian economists noticed that endless growth demands slavery-like conditions and the economic collapse one way or another. They are trying to back away without using the s-word and invent half-baked solutions like UBI.
UBI by itself will not solve the problems. It will only drive exorbitant inflation. Implementing UBI requires socializing many institutions and nationalizing big companies. People who control the biggest portions of the economy will not give their power up without a war.
Not just a total rethinking, but rather a total redevelopment to find an economic system that is just as stable as capitalism in a free market (without fiat).
Socialism fails 100% of the time given sufficient time, UBI is tied to socialism.
If your food production yield is dependent on maintaining your supply chain which fails under socialism, you basically run into a hysteresis trap under socialism where this fails, and everyone starves to death.
Its like the ending of Daybreakers, where blood becomes increasingly scarce, and the dynamics of it all force some unwilling sacrifices which start a chain reaction.
Just an FYI, Money-printing/non-reserve debt issuance is a catalyst for war/ revolution.
Even with 100k / month basic income, the landlords would simply raise their rents to 200k / month. Because why would they give up their generational wealth?
In this model, does the current existence of people in poverty basically serve as a ballast that gives everyone else's "above poverty" money a higher, stable value?
Would it ever be possible to not have poverty without making everyone's money worthless?
Someone at my work posted that because they have ADHD they were able to get a free lifetime pass to National Parks because being in nature calms them. I can’t believe some people. If you have the money to support national parks, pay for the pass. Don’t you realize if everyone does this we won’t have any more National Parks? They are at a Director level, they can travel, and somehow ADHD is a disability? You wouldn’t know it if they didn’t tell you every time they introduced themselves. They’re like, “Ugh ADHD made me so driven I got to the Director level it’s so stressful…”.
Readit News
https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/social-securit...
There's a longstanding fear, and one that seems well founded, where those that meet the requirements won't actually file for it because doing so will have an adverse effect on any potential future employment.
Disability discrimination during hiring is almost impossible to prove with AI these days.
I've heard horror stories from some people at the shelter where I volunteer. One guy apparently had a county representative check the wrong boxes on benefit documents by mistake during welfare processing, saying a person was disabled because of a health condition (sleep apnea iirc) when they weren't disabled or receiving disability, and those people couldn't even find retail work afterwards.
AI has opened the floodgates to all sorts of discrimination as a result of the weights and decision-making being a black box with no accountability.
Dead Comment
Do they lose their "disabled" status if they go back to work? If so, that seems like a textbook poverty trap. Why risk losing lifetime free money for a minimum wage job that might not last?
The 27 years I've known them have been punctuated by my saying "what if you do this to solve your current issue" and the reply is "I'll lose my benefits"
I'm unfit to say if they need it; as in I am unsure if their life would be worse or better without.
Don't read too much into the setup, above; my memory is fuzzy unless I am directly talking to them about it, and even so they correct me like, "its not ssi it's ssdi," or whatever it is. This is to +1 with an anecdote.
She wasn't even allowed to save money for an emergency fund or a large purchase because there was a limit to how much liquid cash she could have at any time, and it was something like $2000. If she demonstrated an ability to save more than that, the bureaucrats would take that as irrefutable evidence that she was well enough off to not need help, and boot her from the program.
Every single thing about the way that program is administered actively prevents its users from bettering their situation.
Deleted Comment
Back about 15 years ago I was running a small business in the auto industry. A guy who did deliveries for us (entire job: driving cars to people) who was in his early 20s found himself in a very minor fender-bender -- he rear-ended someone else. He claimed his twisted his ankle from the jolt (based on where he was resting his foot). Fine, no big deal.
He went to see a doctor shortly afterwards and immediately filed for a Worker's Comp claim. He then kept seeing that doctor and within a few weeks was given...permanent disability. Literally got a doctor to say he'd never be able to work again. Full sign-off. He of course was seen walking around just fine a few months later.
Absolute insanity.
And also getting on disability in the first place is such a huge pile of bureaucratic nonsense and bullshit to start with that you have to learn how to "game" the system just to get approval. It isn't setup to try and help people who need it, it is setup to disincentivize everybody as much as possible, even if you have serious brain damage, are nearly blind, and only have 3 fingers.
There is a target to reduce Medicaid recipients by 4.8 million by 2033, by requiring them to attend school or volunteer 80 hours per month. That's a lot.
https://www.nola.com/news/politics/impact-on-louisiana-of-me...
In the next four years, nearly every state that has huge Medicaid obligations will be forced to restrict and reduce access simply due to budget constraints.
For example, California has 6.6 million enrolled in Medicaid and requires a staggering $85 billion federal assistance annual infusion for Medicaid. "People with disabilities composed 8% of Medi-Cal enrollees and accounted for 31% of spending".
California has 49% of the population on employer-provided health insurance. Only 5% purchase private insurance (Affordable Care Act). However, 22% of Californians are covered by Medicaid. That number is unsustainable, and Governor Newsom is already enacting measures to reduce enrollment and eligibility.
https://calmatters.org/health/2025/05/medicaid-work-requirem...
https://www.chcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/MediCalFacts...
https://calmatters.org/health/2025/05/medi-cal-assets-newsom...
UBI by itself will not solve the problems. It will only drive exorbitant inflation. Implementing UBI requires socializing many institutions and nationalizing big companies. People who control the biggest portions of the economy will not give their power up without a war.
Socialism fails 100% of the time given sufficient time, UBI is tied to socialism.
If your food production yield is dependent on maintaining your supply chain which fails under socialism, you basically run into a hysteresis trap under socialism where this fails, and everyone starves to death.
Its like the ending of Daybreakers, where blood becomes increasingly scarce, and the dynamics of it all force some unwilling sacrifices which start a chain reaction.
Just an FYI, Money-printing/non-reserve debt issuance is a catalyst for war/ revolution.
Would it ever be possible to not have poverty without making everyone's money worthless?
I don't want to pay to feed freeloaders. If you want to, that's what charities are for.
And afterwards introduce genetic screening so that only Ubermensch are born.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_C._Conn