For a period of time in the 90's, drug and alcohol addicts received

[Snoggera]

limited time benefits from SSI so long as they remained in treatment.

I thought it was a good program, but of course, it fell by the wayside.

If I saw that program floated today by the * team, I would immediately suspect they were trying to collect a data base on people with these problems to be used for dispicable purposes at a later date.

Have I gone over the edge of cynicism and have become so negative about this administration that I can't possibly think of anything positive to come out of it? Or is it that they are truly capable of anything, and all have to be wary?

I can't wait until this national nightmare is over.

[WilliamPitt]

1. Little bit of this and a little bit of that

We are all absolutely barmy, around-the-bend tinfoil-wrapped terminal doubters after almost four years of this shit. We're insane.

But we're insane because they have proven themselves capable of anything - and I'm not talking about 9/11 conspiracies, but the bald-faced crap they've dumped in full public view - and thus we have to be wary.

Most people aren't like us. I wrote an essay a while back called 'All Along the Watchtower.' That's how I see people like us. Wall guards staring into the darkness have been known to see things that don't exist in the dark. But the wall guards *always* see the stuff that is actually there.

We do, anyway.

[H2O Man]

2. People with addiction issues

had actually recieved SSDI and/or SSI benefits. These were granted in cases where the individuals had addictions that left them disabled from seeking and/or maintaining gainful employment. For decades, this included a life-time of benefits, with no strings attached -- such as seeking treatment.

Most professionals who deal with clients with addiction issues find that it can be treated succesfully. The success does not, of course, imply that relapse will not occure .... rather, that addiction is a treatable "illness" or "disorder."

Because of this, Social Security "moved" addictions to the realm of "temporary disability." Hence, even a severely addicted person is encouraged to seek -- and cooperate -- with treatment. The idea is two-fold: to encourage wellness and increase sobriety, and to stop paying people to avoid treatment and paying for their supply of drugs.

Those people who have a dual-diagnosis, such as the MICA population (mentally ill, substance abuser) can still get SSDI and/or SSI for the long-term disabling disease or condition.

Encouraging treatment and refusing to foot the bill for long-term intoxication is not simply a republican idea. Everyone except those who want to maintain a treatable illness should support it.

[Snoggera]

3. There must be a co-occuring illness

for benefits to be received.

My understanding is that, for a period of time, there was a recognition that drug and alcohol addictions stood, by their own merit, as disabling and elibible for benefits, and therefore able to seek treatment. This lasted for approximately 3 years, if my memory serves me. Now, there must also be a diagnosis of severe and disabling mental illness (a much higher bar to cross). Of course, it is impossible to tell the chicken from the egg in this type of case, and dual diagnosis has become the "consumer" of choice for many in the field.

[H2O Man]

5. Actually, there is a lower bar to benefits.....

addictions with any co-morbitity is enough for temporary SSd/SSI benefits. All addiction includes "mood disorders," hence anyone with a diagnosis of addiction is eligible for temporary benefits. Of course, the majority of individuals with addictions are capable of holding full-time employment .... and so it's not automatic.

Only people with a co-morbid disabling disease are eligible for the permanent disability benefits, which is exactly as it should be. Addiction should never be grounds for long-term benefits.

I worked as a psychiatric social worker for decades. I am retired, but have relatives and friends with relatives that I still give some assistance in navigating the Social Security system. No bureaucracy is fun or perfect. But the rules for addiction-related benefits are exactly as they should be. Society should not encourage people to be irresponsible. Addiction is possible to treat, if the addict has sufficient pressures to invest in treatment.

[Snoggera]

6. Thanks for your input and information

I am coming from the perspective that those with simple addictions rarely seek treatment until forced to do so by law enforcement, but for a time, they were encouraged to do so without threat of imprisonment or needing to prove mental illness. They were able to receive temporary benefits while receiving only treatment for their addictions without having to show they also had depression or a psychotic illness. This is obviously not the case today.

If those with addictions were encouraged to come forward to receive treatment with benefits today, I wouldn't encourage anyone to do so because of my now deeply ingrained distrust of the "system."

[H2O Man]

7. Part of most ADAS services

includes social workers and psychiatrists. The mental health and alcohol and drug abuse services are rarely separate any more. No one will receive an "addiction" diagnosis that would have previously entitled them to benefits who will not get a diagnosis that entitles them to the exact same benefits today. That has not changed at all, except the diagnosis is (for example) Axis Two: Substance Dependence w.depression. But the entitlements are the exact same.

All that has changed is that benefits are temporary (three years) as opposed to life-long. Social security benefits remain there for anyone who needs them. The three-year limit does not serve as an excuse for anyone not getting treatment.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. Have I gone over the edge of cynicism

Look at it this way.... they can be labeled defective... and forced to take "Prozac". $$ for the drug cos.

Look at it another way.... they are capable of ANYTHING. Think CIA agent outed.

Look at it another way.... Rush would already be on the list. Not a bad thing from that perspective. :)