AFAIK in the US disability is $1,200/month, which is absolutely not enough considering rent <$500/month is rare even in rural areas.
And you can’t work on disability or you lose the $1200/month. Yes, disability is intended to provide income for those who can’t work, but why can’t it be a sliding scale, where more disabled (definitely
can’t work) = more income? Work isn’t just for income, and the government should be encouraging people to work wherever they can even if it’s part-time.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, most disabled people probably have a lot of medical bills too, which is ironic because inability to pay can make it hard to get routine care. The saving grace is that the debtors can't extract any money from those who are only relying on the $1200/month.
However, money isn't the only way to have access to markets, though it's perhaps the only thing that gives full access. I think EBT/food stamps and Section 8 help a lot with having people get their basic needs met and not spending it on other stuff*. If they have a sufficient monetary amount, they give people a lot of choices of whom to buy from.
You're also prohibited from having much in the way of savings for emergencies, which is especially cruel. It means you are intentionally put in a precarious situation forever.
That is only for the SSI program. Most Americans who cannot work for medical reasons qualify for the SSDI program, which has no limit on assets.
Also, the SSDI payment is not always $1,200 per month. It can go as high as about $2,000. It can also be a lot lower than $1,200 per month, including $0 (for those that have never worked). But if it is lower than $894 per month, then the SSI program kicks in and makes your total income from both programs $914 per month unless your SSDI payment is $0 because you've never worked, in which case your monthly income is $894 per month.
The $894 figure is the lowest one would get. Some states decide to increase it, so actually a California resident would get at least 1114.21 -- plus food stamps adds about $100 per month. (Social Security ignores income from food stamps when deciding how much to pay you.)
Also, roughly half of recipients also get subsidized housing, where they pay only 30% of their income (minus medical expense) for rent even if they live in an expensive area like SF or NYC.
Someone on a different branch of this comment tree, i.e., a "cousin" of this comment, implies that as soon as Social Security decides you are no longer disabled, you lose the health insurance aspect of Social Security, but that is not true: you continue to receive Medicare for another 3 years or so. If you want to know the exact length, query a search engine for "grace period". (But if you've never worked at all, you don't get Medicare, so you have to rely on Medicaid, which might not continue for 3 years after you are determined to be able to work.)
Exactly. The means testing around disabilities is insanity. Because your bank account went past $2000 you no longer need healthcare? Fun that a well meaning grandparent or cousin can kill their loved one with kindness simply by pushing them over an arbitrary limit with a present.
And you can’t work on disability or you lose the $1200/month. Yes, disability is intended to provide income for those who can’t work, but why can’t it be a sliding scale, where more disabled (definitely can’t work) = more income? Work isn’t just for income, and the government should be encouraging people to work wherever they can even if it’s part-time.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, most disabled people probably have a lot of medical bills too, which is ironic because inability to pay can make it hard to get routine care. The saving grace is that the debtors can't extract any money from those who are only relying on the $1200/month.