The recent Chevron ruling could make things more difficult for Social Security recipients. Previously, the Social Security Administration (SSA) had some flexibility to interpret vague or unclear rules in ways that made it easier for people to qualify for and receive benefits. This ruling limits that flexibility, meaning that SSA now has less power to make decisions that favor recipients when laws are unclear. Without this flexibility, SSA may face delays in updating or adjusting policies that could help people get benefits faster. It also means that courts, rather than the SSA, will now play a bigger role in deciding how to interpret certain rules and the courts are not experts on SSA. We're seen that with. For recipients, this could lead to longer waits and more steps to receive or maintain benefits, possibly making the process harder and even reducing the level of support available
Yes, I am sure at times the SSA used that power to make laws not made by elected lawmakers, to facilitate whatever end result it sought - at times easier for a win, at times easier to deny. Many times the SSA agency folks interpreted rules disadvantageously to disabled claimants - particularly when it finds itself under these endless concerns on future solvency and seeks to tighten the belt - at times, it does so b/c it could, due to that rather unfettered opening. Many argue that it has contributed to the overpoliticization of the agency, causing much of the acrimony we have seen when there are too many cooks in the kitchen. As such, it goes both ways it seems. Because there was no Congressional inclination to put x or y in (and as the legislative branch, it can and knows how to, so generally, the theory is had the Legilators wanted it in, it would have put it in - this can particularly be so when reviewing the legislative intent documents and the history of the evolution of the bill to law.) Also, many argue that when the SSA (and other agencies) wanted a particular sentiment, it would make it easier for a prevail, causing many non-disabled people to get benefits, thereby contributing to the tenuous solvency that so many claimants lose sleep over. They also argue that the 'up to now' ability to make new-fangled laws out of regs, that were not supported by the law and those elected by the people, as per Chevron - contributed TO the unheard of delays at initial and recon that we have been suffering now for a couple of years, although my thoughts are that it is the lack of funding for hiring and training at those levels that is the biggest contributor - those currently in the roles are overworked, underpaid, and the newer ones, under trained. But it is undoubtedly true that either way, the SSA (and other agencies) have used the Chevron power to tilt the agency in the direction it sought politically, and often to the weakening of the efficacy and reliability/consistency needed.
Hi again Grace, Here is one such expression of the positive: " Jeffrey Holmstead, a climate change lawyer at Bracewell who previously worked at the Environmental Protection Agency, notes that while the end of the Chevron deference might constrain some regulatory ambitions, it could also lead to clearer legislative intent and more consistent application of laws...: He stated: “It will mean that the [the federal agency] will have to be more circumspect, and live within the bounds that Congress intended, which will make a difference over time,” Similarly: "...attorneys are optimistic that going forward, the litigation playing field between regulators and the regulated has been leveled. For the last 40 years, says James Tysse, a Supreme Court and appellate partner with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Field, agencies had the primary power of interpreting statutes that were less than crystal clear. But after Loper Bright, he says, courts now have the responsibility to determine what interpretation is best." Because courts generally do not have to worry about getting fired for ruling contrary to a superior's desires (aka politics, power plays, profits), unlike those that work within each federal agency, who are ultimately controlled by their bosses, all they way up to the POTUS - the courts lack the influence, at least of that very immediate, controlling kind of influence that agency workers have. This reigning in of untoward conflicts and influences thereby PREVENTS the executive branch, such as new POTUSes going forward and their administrations, from usurping Congress' power as well as its duty to draft the most careful and thoughtful of legislation. In addition, It has been said that at times, Congress passes a law with intentional ambiguities so that the unspoken desired effect, not notable to the public b/c not in the law, could nonetheless be inflicted by the federal agency as desired by Congress if they are aligned, but by which Congress did not want to attach its name too - in a back-patting, profit-sharing venture behind the scenes (also known as corruption). www.abajournal.com/web/article/chevron-was-overturned-now-what
This whole issue being fascinating, particularly for those of us very involved in Constitution and its protections, I always try to look at what the world was saying years prior - ie to take current politics out of it (although of course left with prior political landscape! We just can't escape it, can we? Anyway, here is one Forbes' opinion: www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2013/03/14/the-epa-the-worst-of-many-rogue-federal-agencies/ that illustrates some of the overreach occurring due to Chevon allowances. The damage can be so very high. Such a balancing act we need for things to run perfect - but I don't know that we can ever reach perfection for all.
@@AllThingsSocialSecurity I hope I'm not exhausting you or sidetracking your intent, but as a professional who works closely with intellectually and developmentally disabled adults, I am deeply concerned about the recent Chevron ruling’s potential impact on disability determinations and how it might weaken critical input from professionals who understand clients’ nuanced needs. For example, I have a male adult client with a low-level intellectual disability, functioning at a 4th- to 12th-grade level depending on the complexity of the task. He can manage basic responsibilities like part-time work, household tasks, and parental duties, but only with significant, structured support, on-call assistance 24/7, weekly 1:1 intensive and sometimes direct support by staff, and frequent check-ins. For four years, we advocated for his parental rights, opposing arguments that his disability rendered him unfit (cultural biases worked against him too). Our success in supporting his ability to parent was largely due to our team’s long-standing, knowledgeable collaboration, and influence with SSA staffers, which has allowed us to effectively explain his varied needs, capacities, and limitations. SSA’s disability assessors were able to take our insight into account, ensuring a thorough understanding of his case. In contrast, a family court argued he was no longer disabled simply because he could care for his children and hold a part-time job-misunderstanding that these achievements depend heavily on ongoing support services. With the Chevron ruling, I worry that decisions may rely more on strict legal interpretations of disability rather than the professional insights that reveal how clients like mine manage functional tasks only through intensive support. Family members fear they will lose benefits essential for their loved ones’ stability. They need assurance that their cases will continue to consider input from qualified professionals, like social workers and nurses, rather than relying solely on judges or magistrates who may lack this specialized understanding. Ultimately, my concern is that without Chevron deference, SSA’s ability to weigh expert guidance on individual cases could be weakened, leading to more rigid and less-informed decisions that do not fully account for the unique challenges faced by people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. For these individuals, the ruling could risk critical supports simply because the functional ability they exhibit is misunderstood or oversimplified in assessments. I would appreciate any insights you have and thank you so much for fielding my questions and concerns.
@@GraceNotHaste Hi Grace, thanks for contributing! - from my SSD/SSI bubble, I understand your concerns - and different venues/tribunals, areas of law, each get their own 'power'. Ie. a family court says not disabled based on its rules, while SSA says disabled based on its definition. We see this a lot in VA disabled folks who then are not disabled under SSA's rules - largely b/c the legal criteria and definitions are different but also because neither is beholden to the other. I don't see removal of Chevron, however, interrupting the discretion and use of medical and non-medical professional opinions, sharing of observations, etc. The authority of the SSA to make rules is not gone, so long as rules stay within the law and the intent. It is the ability to circumvent the law by making rules outside any intent of the legislature, which I think was removed, for all the reasons noted in the case. For instance, the SSA's regulation makers disadvantageous removal of the Treating Provider rule under the Obama administration (applying to SSD/SSI case but no other venue, of course, thankfully) - which SSA regulators decided to do, made no sense to most of us other than a by-design way to tighten up on awards rather quieetly, without the need for loud and public Congressional action (and which Congress likely would not have wanted to micromanage, given the voter fallout that would ensue). This was done under Chevon of course. And may be legal actually without Chevron - depending on the language of the authority to rule make Congress gave the SSA. This regulation change may have been entirely fine (legally speaking) even had it been done after demise of Chevon, since it is likely (and I've not spent time delving deep on this) that Congress DID authorize the SSA agency to define the weighting or non-weighting of various forms of evidence (medical). So in this case, the SSA regulators, as they often do, took measures to reduce ease of award finding by adjudicators/ALJs, and one that I see as significant negative impact on awards, as intended by the SSA regulation makers. Now what if this was the result of a Chevron deference and wouldn't have been allowed post-Chevron? It is an example of how regulations can go both ways, depending on the motivation and agenda of those that direct the regulators. So the power of the regulation making agencies can be used for both easing the burden of proving SS disabiilty and tightening it, and I don't see that as changed with or without Chevron. I see it only as the regulators NOT taking the quick and powerful method of actually making law (vs. regs to follow the law) instead of taking the Constitutionally sound method of getting Congress to pass a law that is has not passed but needs to be passed. The abuses have really gone on for such a long time - and we saw the largely in many other federal agencies. It can also bend with the wind of who is in power. When they want to tighten up on awards but don't' want the public to realize it (for political reasons) they often push the regulators to do it, so it is not a "political" things vis a vis the voting public. I was just talking to someone about the use of evidence of a needed structured home environment and routine, to keep a seriously mentally ill person stable enough (along with MH treatment/therapy and medications) to remain out of the hospital. The concern was 4 years of stability and an upcoming CDR. The concern being that "now that you are stable, you can work a simple, low stress unskilled job" - but often it is the LACK of pressure from a full time job, even the simplest of jobs, the calms structured routine at home with few demands, that is critical to that "stability". I think it is difficult to get the evidence, beyond family's statements but at times some medical professionals are graciously cooperative (but not most). That sheltered home living is just about mandatory for their successful maintenance of "stability."
Great answer thanks! Does the President control taking social security away? Kind of sort of Maybe: This is the opinion bing ai copilot: Question: which adminstration change the ssad rules that gave weight to the treating doctor vs the ssad examiner? Answer: The change to the Social Security Administration's (SSA) rules regarding the weight given to the treating doctor's opinion versus the SSA examiner's opinion occurred during the Obama administration. Specifically, the final rules were published on January 18, 2017, and became effective on March 27, 2017. These changes were part of the "Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence," which aimed to simplify the rules and ensure that all medical opinions are considered equally, regardless of the source. This became effective under President Trump.
I already shared that to you :) but I see this particular BOT found the more accurate info - see what I am saying. Notice that one AI BOT drew one more vague and incorrect answer while this one properly give credit to Obama for making it less a favorable to each claimant. This treating provider rule was CRUSHING, actually. While the President doesn't change the rule, he arguably has the power to encourage a result from his agency, right? So yes, SSA under Obama change the rule but also ruled that it would not be effective until Obama was out and Trump was in. Never underestimate politics :)
This is the opinion bing ai copilot: Question: was there any other changes under President Trump? Answer: Sure thing! Here’s a summary of the changes: New Rules for Evaluating Symptoms The SSA introduced new rules for evaluating symptoms to ensure a more consistent and thorough assessment. These rules emphasize that: Symptoms alone are not enough to establish a disability. There must be medical signs and laboratory findings to support the existence of a medically determinable impairment. The evaluation process involves a two-step approach: first, determining if the impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms, and second, considering the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms in relation to the evidence. Stricter Criteria for Continuing Disability Reviews (CDRs) The SSA also implemented stricter criteria for Continuing Disability Reviews (CDRs) to ensure that only those who continue to meet the disability criteria receive benefits. Key changes include: More frequent reviews for individuals with conditions expected to improve. Enhanced use of electronic medical records to streamline the review process. A focus on both medical and non-medical factors, such as income and living arrangements, to determine continued eligibility. AI is good as its sources. me
AI sadly, is not as accurate as the real thing and takes on, perhaps the intent of its designers :). We mus always use AI like we do Wikepedia - a starting point to hustle the basics along, then we have to do our actual vetting of the source and the info, quadruple checking things :) The Trump Admin cannot take credit for this policy change. What the BOT didn't mention was that the SSA final rule was created before the Trump administration, was finalized 2 days before on 1/18/2017, but the SSA chose to make it effective after the change of federal administration was done, effective 3/27/2017. See here: www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/revisions-rules.html.
@@justventing 200% incorrect. How do you think social media platforms were able to manipulate false news in a motivated fashion, to get a large chunk of the low information public to only be able to see/hear the false information? They use AI, aka algorithms, bots, etc. Rampantly.
Hello ma'am someone told me that because now Donald Trump is now the President elect she's convinced that he will take her social security away. I mentioned he didn't do it In his first term and why would he do it on his second term. Does the President control taking social security away? I usually don't get into politics but I'm just curious. Thank you
Hi Valerie, thank you for asking - the disinformation perpetuated out there is astoudning. No, the elect-POTUS does not. It is so sad the media disinformation is swallowed hook, line and sinker but those who do not know how to find the facts. And I agree that are not super easy to find - you often have to close an eye to the headlines and go right to the BILLS passed by Congress. Moreover, this elect-POTUS has emphasized loudly and repeatedly that he is not going to reduce SS at all - in fact, if what he did 4 years ago, recurs, he EXPANDED, via creating a motivated, better paid middle class working population, the solvency of the SSD fund - from about 2022-24 to 2065. Yes, 2065. After the change to the current regime, and the policies that against limited the labor force motivation, it has since shrunk back again, predictably. Remember, the SS trust funds are FUNDED by workers and corporations - about 85%+ of it. Workers pay their SS tax (aka pay 1/2 to all of their premiums) while if employed by a company, including big corps, the big corp foots the bill for their OTHER half of the premiums, with every single paycheck. Motivate workers and motivate companies to HIRE workers, and we have a strong SS fund. We have a strong EVERYTHING when we have an eager and motivated work force - strong national security, improved infrastructure, secure SS and Medicare, high GDP, healthier happier population. She may also be reminded that it was under the Obama admin that the Spousal retirement strategy option was removed, and deprived a large portion of soon to be retired spouses (usually females) the opportunity to collect in that manner - I believe I read that it averaged about $60k in retirements being erased per such person. That admin also effectuated the removal (for SSD claimants) of the treating doctor rule. It also put in a temporary measure when the solvency in 2015 was to end by 2016 (yes!) to move incoming funds to the retirement fund to give to SSD fund, so it would not be about to go under in a year. Desperate moves when they can't figure out solid Working policy - we need better business people in charge when it comes to money. Period. So, while we can't know what will happen per se, those that choose to look at history, tend to learn what is more likely or less likely. You may want to give her the mental hug of telling her that it is the elect-POTUS who plans to STOP taxation on her SS benefits altogether. Now, generally all these things require CONGRESS to pass them as law, so the POTUS can then make them final and effective by passing them. SO the POTUS cannot generally make it happen unilaterally, but can encourage it and then facilitate it once Congress does its job, or chooses not to. She may also be interested in the fact that if the conceding candidate won, she had a big agenda to thin down Medicare by stretching it to cover ALL people, not just the ones (workers) who pay for it; (aka "medicare for all"); as you may know, Medicare insurance, like Social Security, is worked, earned and paid for by WORKERS, on every dollar. For those who did not work the minimum in their lifetime to secure it, but who of course will eventually need health care, if they are POOR, they can generally get MEDICAID. So why take from the workers and their families the MEDICARE they paid for, to give it to others (that would be socialism, which is kissing cousins with communism) when we as taxpayers already pay for them to have Medicaid (which means no copays for them too, generally), is inexplicable.
@@user-zl1bh2gk1b Actually it seems the majority of voters felt otherwise. Can you be more specific? I believe we saw promises made promises kept during that first admin, so unless he vastly changes, I'd expect history to repeat itself, which would be nice.
The recent Chevron ruling could make things more difficult for Social Security recipients. Previously, the Social Security Administration (SSA) had some flexibility to interpret vague or unclear rules in ways that made it easier for people to qualify for and receive benefits. This ruling limits that flexibility, meaning that SSA now has less power to make decisions that favor recipients when laws are unclear. Without this flexibility, SSA may face delays in updating or adjusting policies that could help people get benefits faster. It also means that courts, rather than the SSA, will now play a bigger role in deciding how to interpret certain rules and the courts are not experts on SSA. We're seen that with. For recipients, this could lead to longer waits and more steps to receive or maintain benefits, possibly making the process harder and even reducing the level of support available
Yes, I am sure at times the SSA used that power to make laws not made by elected lawmakers, to facilitate whatever end result it sought - at times easier for a win, at times easier to deny. Many times the SSA agency folks interpreted rules disadvantageously to disabled claimants - particularly when it finds itself under these endless concerns on future solvency and seeks to tighten the belt - at times, it does so b/c it could, due to that rather unfettered opening. Many argue that it has contributed to the overpoliticization of the agency, causing much of the acrimony we have seen when there are too many cooks in the kitchen. As such, it goes both ways it seems. Because there was no Congressional inclination to put x or y in (and as the legislative branch, it can and knows how to, so generally, the theory is had the Legilators wanted it in, it would have put it in - this can particularly be so when reviewing the legislative intent documents and the history of the evolution of the bill to law.)
Also, many argue that when the SSA (and other agencies) wanted a particular sentiment, it would make it easier for a prevail, causing many non-disabled people to get benefits, thereby contributing to the tenuous solvency that so many claimants lose sleep over. They also argue that the 'up to now' ability to make new-fangled laws out of regs, that were not supported by the law and those elected by the people, as per Chevron - contributed TO the unheard of delays at initial and recon that we have been suffering now for a couple of years, although my thoughts are that it is the lack of funding for hiring and training at those levels that is the biggest contributor - those currently in the roles are overworked, underpaid, and the newer ones, under trained. But it is undoubtedly true that either way, the SSA (and other agencies) have used the Chevron power to tilt the agency in the direction it sought politically, and often to the weakening of the efficacy and reliability/consistency needed.
Hi again Grace, Here is one such expression of the positive: " Jeffrey Holmstead, a climate change lawyer at Bracewell who previously worked at the Environmental Protection Agency, notes that while the end of the Chevron deference might constrain some regulatory ambitions, it could also lead to clearer legislative intent and more consistent application of laws...: He stated: “It will mean that the [the federal agency] will have to be more circumspect, and live within the bounds that Congress intended, which will make a difference over time,”
Similarly: "...attorneys are optimistic that going forward, the litigation playing field between regulators and the regulated has been leveled. For the last 40 years, says James Tysse, a Supreme Court and appellate partner with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Field, agencies had the primary power of interpreting statutes that were less than crystal clear. But after Loper Bright, he says, courts now have the responsibility to determine what interpretation is best."
Because courts generally do not have to worry about getting fired for ruling contrary to a superior's desires (aka politics, power plays, profits), unlike those that work within each federal agency, who are ultimately controlled by their bosses, all they way up to the POTUS - the courts lack the influence, at least of that very immediate, controlling kind of influence that agency workers have. This reigning in of untoward conflicts and influences thereby PREVENTS the executive branch, such as new POTUSes going forward and their administrations, from usurping Congress' power as well as its duty to draft the most careful and thoughtful of legislation.
In addition, It has been said that at times, Congress passes a law with intentional ambiguities so that the unspoken desired effect, not notable to the public b/c not in the law, could nonetheless be inflicted by the federal agency as desired by Congress if they are aligned, but by which Congress did not want to attach its name too - in a back-patting, profit-sharing venture behind the scenes (also known as corruption).
www.abajournal.com/web/article/chevron-was-overturned-now-what
This whole issue being fascinating, particularly for those of us very involved in Constitution and its protections, I always try to look at what the world was saying years prior - ie to take current politics out of it (although of course left with prior political landscape! We just can't escape it, can we?
Anyway, here is one Forbes' opinion: www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2013/03/14/the-epa-the-worst-of-many-rogue-federal-agencies/ that illustrates some of the overreach occurring due to Chevon allowances. The damage can be so very high. Such a balancing act we need for things to run perfect - but I don't know that we can ever reach perfection for all.
@@AllThingsSocialSecurity I hope I'm not exhausting you or sidetracking your intent, but as a professional who works closely with intellectually and developmentally disabled adults, I am deeply concerned about the recent Chevron ruling’s potential impact on disability determinations and how it might weaken critical input from professionals who understand clients’ nuanced needs. For example, I have a male adult client with a low-level intellectual disability, functioning at a 4th- to 12th-grade level depending on the complexity of the task. He can manage basic responsibilities like part-time work, household tasks, and parental duties, but only with significant, structured support, on-call assistance 24/7, weekly 1:1 intensive and sometimes direct support by staff, and frequent check-ins.
For four years, we advocated for his parental rights, opposing arguments that his disability rendered him unfit (cultural biases worked against him too). Our success in supporting his ability to parent was largely due to our team’s long-standing, knowledgeable collaboration, and influence with SSA staffers, which has allowed us to effectively explain his varied needs, capacities, and limitations. SSA’s disability assessors were able to take our insight into account, ensuring a thorough understanding of his case. In contrast, a family court argued he was no longer disabled simply because he could care for his children and hold a part-time job-misunderstanding that these achievements depend heavily on ongoing support services.
With the Chevron ruling, I worry that decisions may rely more on strict legal interpretations of disability rather than the professional insights that reveal how clients like mine manage functional tasks only through intensive support. Family members fear they will lose benefits essential for their loved ones’ stability. They need assurance that their cases will continue to consider input from qualified professionals, like social workers and nurses, rather than relying solely on judges or magistrates who may lack this specialized understanding.
Ultimately, my concern is that without Chevron deference, SSA’s ability to weigh expert guidance on individual cases could be weakened, leading to more rigid and less-informed decisions that do not fully account for the unique challenges faced by people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. For these individuals, the ruling could risk critical supports simply because the functional ability they exhibit is misunderstood or oversimplified in assessments.
I would appreciate any insights you have and thank you so much for fielding my questions and concerns.
@@GraceNotHaste Hi Grace, thanks for contributing! - from my SSD/SSI bubble, I understand your concerns - and different venues/tribunals, areas of law, each get their own 'power'. Ie. a family court says not disabled based on its rules, while SSA says disabled based on its definition. We see this a lot in VA disabled folks who then are not disabled under SSA's rules - largely b/c the legal criteria and definitions are different but also because neither is beholden to the other.
I don't see removal of Chevron, however, interrupting the discretion and use of medical and non-medical professional opinions, sharing of observations, etc. The authority of the SSA to make rules is not gone, so long as rules stay within the law and the intent. It is the ability to circumvent the law by making rules outside any intent of the legislature, which I think was removed, for all the reasons noted in the case.
For instance, the SSA's regulation makers disadvantageous removal of the Treating Provider rule under the Obama administration (applying to SSD/SSI case but no other venue, of course, thankfully) - which SSA regulators decided to do, made no sense to most of us other than a by-design way to tighten up on awards rather quieetly, without the need for loud and public Congressional action (and which Congress likely would not have wanted to micromanage, given the voter fallout that would ensue). This was done under Chevon of course. And may be legal actually without Chevron - depending on the language of the authority to rule make Congress gave the SSA. This regulation change may have been entirely fine (legally speaking) even had it been done after demise of Chevon, since it is likely (and I've not spent time delving deep on this) that Congress DID authorize the SSA agency to define the weighting or non-weighting of various forms of evidence (medical). So in this case, the SSA regulators, as they often do, took measures to reduce ease of award finding by adjudicators/ALJs, and one that I see as significant negative impact on awards, as intended by the SSA regulation makers. Now what if this was the result of a Chevron deference and wouldn't have been allowed post-Chevron? It is an example of how regulations can go both ways, depending on the motivation and agenda of those that direct the regulators.
So the power of the regulation making agencies can be used for both easing the burden of proving SS disabiilty and tightening it, and I don't see that as changed with or without Chevron. I see it only as the regulators NOT taking the quick and powerful method of actually making law (vs. regs to follow the law) instead of taking the Constitutionally sound method of getting Congress to pass a law that is has not passed but needs to be passed. The abuses have really gone on for such a long time - and we saw the largely in many other federal agencies. It can also bend with the wind of who is in power. When they want to tighten up on awards but don't' want the public to realize it (for political reasons) they often push the regulators to do it, so it is not a "political" things vis a vis the voting public.
I was just talking to someone about the use of evidence of a needed structured home environment and routine, to keep a seriously mentally ill person stable enough (along with MH treatment/therapy and medications) to remain out of the hospital. The concern was 4 years of stability and an upcoming CDR. The concern being that "now that you are stable, you can work a simple, low stress unskilled job" - but often it is the LACK of pressure from a full time job, even the simplest of jobs, the calms structured routine at home with few demands, that is critical to that "stability". I think it is difficult to get the evidence, beyond family's statements but at times some medical professionals are graciously cooperative (but not most). That sheltered home living is just about mandatory for their successful maintenance of "stability."
Great answer thanks! Does the President control taking social security away? Kind of sort of Maybe: This is the opinion bing ai copilot: Question: which adminstration change the ssad rules that gave weight to the treating doctor vs the ssad examiner? Answer: The change to the Social Security Administration's (SSA) rules regarding the weight given to the treating doctor's opinion versus the SSA examiner's opinion occurred during the Obama administration. Specifically, the final rules were published on January 18, 2017, and became effective on March 27, 2017. These changes were part of the "Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence," which aimed to simplify the rules and ensure that all medical opinions are considered equally, regardless of the source. This became effective under President Trump.
I already shared that to you :) but I see this particular BOT found the more accurate info - see what I am saying. Notice that one AI BOT drew one more vague and incorrect answer while this one properly give credit to Obama for making it less a favorable to each claimant. This treating provider rule was CRUSHING, actually. While the President doesn't change the rule, he arguably has the power to encourage a result from his agency, right? So yes, SSA under Obama change the rule but also ruled that it would not be effective until Obama was out and Trump was in. Never underestimate politics :)
Good morning from Texas 🤠 have a great day ❤
This is the opinion bing ai copilot: Question: was there any other changes under President Trump? Answer: Sure thing! Here’s a summary of the changes:
New Rules for Evaluating Symptoms
The SSA introduced new rules for evaluating symptoms to ensure a more consistent and thorough assessment. These rules emphasize that:
Symptoms alone are not enough to establish a disability. There must be medical signs and laboratory findings to support the existence of a medically determinable impairment.
The evaluation process involves a two-step approach: first, determining if the impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms, and second, considering the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms in relation to the evidence.
Stricter Criteria for Continuing Disability Reviews (CDRs)
The SSA also implemented stricter criteria for Continuing Disability Reviews (CDRs) to ensure that only those who continue to meet the disability criteria receive benefits. Key changes include:
More frequent reviews for individuals with conditions expected to improve.
Enhanced use of electronic medical records to streamline the review process.
A focus on both medical and non-medical factors, such as income and living arrangements, to determine continued eligibility. AI is good as its sources. me
AI sadly, is not as accurate as the real thing and takes on, perhaps the intent of its designers :). We mus always use AI like we do Wikepedia - a starting point to hustle the basics along, then we have to do our actual vetting of the source and the info, quadruple checking things :) The Trump Admin cannot take credit for this policy change. What the BOT didn't mention was that the SSA final rule was created before the Trump administration, was finalized 2 days before on 1/18/2017, but the SSA chose to make it effective after the change of federal administration was done, effective 3/27/2017. See here: www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/revisions-rules.html.
@@AllThingsSocialSecurity Yep good catch.
@@alexdinero8284 I know I am old school about AI. Maybe it is getting better, but it sounds inhuman, lol.
@@AllThingsSocialSecurity.. But AI doesn't censor people when you prove them wrong, hmm..🙄
@@justventing 200% incorrect. How do you think social media platforms were able to manipulate false news in a motivated fashion, to get a large chunk of the low information public to only be able to see/hear the false information? They use AI, aka algorithms, bots, etc. Rampantly.
Hello ma'am someone told me that because now Donald Trump is now the President elect she's convinced that he will take her social security away.
I mentioned he didn't do it In his first term and why would he do it on his second term.
Does the President control taking social security away?
I usually don't get into politics but I'm just curious. Thank you
Hi Valerie, thank you for asking - the disinformation perpetuated out there is astoudning.
No, the elect-POTUS does not. It is so sad the media disinformation is swallowed hook, line and sinker but those who do not know how to find the facts. And I agree that are not super easy to find - you often have to close an eye to the headlines and go right to the BILLS passed by Congress.
Moreover, this elect-POTUS has emphasized loudly and repeatedly that he is not going to reduce SS at all - in fact, if what he did 4 years ago, recurs, he EXPANDED, via creating a motivated, better paid middle class working population, the solvency of the SSD fund - from about 2022-24 to 2065. Yes, 2065. After the change to the current regime, and the policies that against limited the labor force motivation, it has since shrunk back again, predictably. Remember, the SS trust funds are FUNDED by workers and corporations - about 85%+ of it. Workers pay their SS tax (aka pay 1/2 to all of their premiums) while if employed by a company, including big corps, the big corp foots the bill for their OTHER half of the premiums, with every single paycheck. Motivate workers and motivate companies to HIRE workers, and we have a strong SS fund. We have a strong EVERYTHING when we have an eager and motivated work force - strong national security, improved infrastructure, secure SS and Medicare, high GDP, healthier happier population.
She may also be reminded that it was under the Obama admin that the Spousal retirement strategy option was removed, and deprived a large portion of soon to be retired spouses (usually females) the opportunity to collect in that manner - I believe I read that it averaged about $60k in retirements being erased per such person. That admin also effectuated the removal (for SSD claimants) of the treating doctor rule. It also put in a temporary measure when the solvency in 2015 was to end by 2016 (yes!) to move incoming funds to the retirement fund to give to SSD fund, so it would not be about to go under in a year. Desperate moves when they can't figure out solid Working policy - we need better business people in charge when it comes to money. Period.
So, while we can't know what will happen per se, those that choose to look at history, tend to learn what is more likely or less likely.
You may want to give her the mental hug of telling her that it is the elect-POTUS who plans to STOP taxation on her SS benefits altogether. Now, generally all these things require CONGRESS to pass them as law, so the POTUS can then make them final and effective by passing them. SO the POTUS cannot generally make it happen unilaterally, but can encourage it and then facilitate it once Congress does its job, or chooses not to. She may also be interested in the fact that if the conceding candidate won, she had a big agenda to thin down Medicare by stretching it to cover ALL people, not just the ones (workers) who pay for it; (aka "medicare for all"); as you may know, Medicare insurance, like Social Security, is worked, earned and paid for by WORKERS, on every dollar. For those who did not work the minimum in their lifetime to secure it, but who of course will eventually need health care, if they are POOR, they can generally get MEDICAID. So why take from the workers and their families the MEDICARE they paid for, to give it to others (that would be socialism, which is kissing cousins with communism) when we as taxpayers already pay for them to have Medicaid (which means no copays for them too, generally), is inexplicable.
@@AllThingsSocialSecurityBut we all know that you can't believe anything Trump says, so prepare for the worst and hope for the best!
@@user-zl1bh2gk1b Actually it seems the majority of voters felt otherwise. Can you be more specific? I believe we saw promises made promises kept during that first admin, so unless he vastly changes, I'd expect history to repeat itself, which would be nice.
@AllThingsSocialSecurity I just hope you're right. I'm in panic mode.