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.
They could go to school and make enough money to take care of themselves, obviously, but the threat of losing the safety net is enough that they still never went to school, and have only worked for retail a few times over the years for maybe 6-12 hours a week, obviously at minimum wage.
^ just in case it seems that way.
I heard the same thing. Even if her condition were to be "cured", if it ever came back she'd be screwed. The system would take that as proof that her condition was fixable and was therefore not a disability.
But I'm from somewhere that has loads of people on benefits, but no one says "disability" it's medical retirement and they get around all the restrictions by doing gig work under other people's name, and then taking their split in cash 80/20.