![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
buggeryThe United States Supreme Court ruled today that lenders are now allowed to seize Social Security benefits from disabled persons with student loans never fully paid off. (Source: San Francisco Chronicle, but it's being reported everywhere)
Yes, that's right. People who become disabled sometime between starting school and paying off their loan in full can now look forward to the few hundred dollars they live on each month being dipped into by whichever loan-purchasing megabank now holds their loans. (It's common for student loan debts to be sold by the original issuing bank as little as a year after they're approved and disbursed, and not uncommon for the loan debts to be resold at least once later on.) How much will these companies be taking? Does it really matter when you're already living below the poverty line, as most people receiving Social Security benefits due to disability (as opposed to retirement) are?
It's almost scarier than the fact that formerly-protected-against-seizure-or-garnishment-for-payment-of-debts Social Security income has now been stripped of that protection, that the ruling is completely without legal basis.
Here's something you may not have known, something written into the laws governing federally subsidised student loans in the U.S.: "All loans received under programs authorized by Title IV, of the Higher Education Act can be canceled for several different circumstances including: (1) in the event of your death; or (2) if you become totally and permanently disabled after the loan is disbursed. ... If the holder of the loan determines that you have become totally and permanently disabled, your obligation, and the obligation of any endorser of your loan, to make any further payments on the loan is discharged." (Source: US Department of Education website, www.ed.gov)
This is the law. This is a protection written into the legislation that makes student loans possible.
As many of the people who read my journal know, I have multiple sclerosis (MS) and fibromyalgia (FMS) and have been disabled since January of 2000. I've had personal experience with the cancellation process. Here's what happened.
Once I had my diagnosis (I had already lost my job, and was in the process of losing a seven-year relationship as well the house we'd bought together, the latter because my income dropped from over $30K to zero at the same time that my medical and insurance costs went up -- I wouldn't actually start receiving my SSDI benefits until almost exactly six months after the foreclosure date, and I was in the fortunate minority of newly disabled Americans who get their determination without having to appeal) I learned about the loan cancellation process. I had each lender send me a form for each loan they held, each of which had to be filled out by my doctor, certifying my disability. There were two companies holding several loan accounts each, in my case. In one case, the lender processed the forms promptly, cancelled the loans they held, and refunded to me the small amount they had been paid after I became disabled. This was also the lender who I found out about cancellation from in the first place, when one good-hearted loan specialist finally (after months of my making hopeful deferral arrangements) asked me why I hadn't applied for it if becoming unable to work due to disability was the reason I'd fallen behind on my loan payments.
The other lender, however... They rejected the forms they received three times, always over some minor detail that did not affect the substance of the information, and I had to have the doctor fill them out yet again. Finally they couldn't come up with grounds to reject the form -- my doctor had grown quite as sick of the cycle as I had -- but they didn't cancel the loan. I contacted them several times about the status of the cancellation, and was always told it was still being reviewed or processed.
I figured, at the time, that this other lender simply didn't want to refund me the small amount they'd managed to get after the date I became disabled.
But now I'm not so sure, and here's why. The big corporations that buy up student loan accounts "donate" a lot of their profits to political campaigns. Not coincidentally, the politicians who accept such donations when running for re-election often vote to make it easier for their friends in the student loan business to collect more money from the students and former students who needed loans to go to college. I have to wonder if at least some of these companies weren't hoping to have the Social Security national disability refuge opened up for drilling all along.
Incidentally -- this is something else many people don't know -- under ordinary circumstances, Social Security payments, whether Disability Insurance payments (SSDI, the one specific taxes are taken out of Americans' pay for) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI, for those who wouldn't receive enough to live on from SSDI only), are exempt from seizure or garnishment, even by court order. If someone sued me, and won a judgment, they could not collect from my SSDI income; it's protected. If I signed up for a credit card, ran up a debt, and then didn't pay it, the credit card holder couldn't garnish my SSDI checks; they're protected. (Not to worry, though, folks -- I pay my doctors and other creditors on time, and the catastrophic loss of income that accompanied my onset of disability wrecked my credit rating so thoroughly I can't get a credit card anymore. Debit cards are as important an accessibility device as wheelchairs.) The only case in which SSI or SSDI income can be seized is if the entity owed is the government itself.
Or so it worked when I woke up this morning.
This is horrible. This is a travesty and an unconscionable betrayal of America's neediest citizens. But don't despair! For one thing, all wrong court decisions are reversed eventually (though note "eventually" may not occur in your lifetime). More importantly, THERE IS SOMETHING *YOU* CAN DO.
Call your representatives in the United States Senate and House of Representatives. Call your representatives in your state's legislature, and call your governor. If you've called more than one state home, call them both, or all. You can use this page at congress.org to look up who your elected officials are and how to contact them. Tell them how outraged you are. Ask what they plan to do to protect disabled Americans in your state from having food and medicine taken out of their mouths by callous corporations.
(If you're not a U.S. citizen or resident, and want to and can afford to help, pick a state near you, or one in which a friend or family member lives. I live in Connecticut, if you can't pick a state any other way.)
Unfortunately, sending e-mail is close to useless, according to political insiders. Letters sent through the post have been problematic since the anthrax scare. Faxes are actually more effective in getting your message heard, at least in some politicians' offices, so by all means type something up if you have access to a fax machine. Going to a politician's office in person is very much hit-or-miss. But when you make a phone call, and give the staffer you speak with your name and tell them why you're calling, at a minimum, the politician whose office you've contacted gets a tally of how many people like you have called that day to express a similar view. At best, elected officials are moved by such calls to act, and that is our aim.
As with any grassroots lobbying campaign, use your own words as much as possible. If you and some friends want to fax in same text that one of you came up with, send one copy with all your signatures (and printed names in full). And it wouldn't be a grassroots lobbying campaign without you telling your friends, family, neighbours, co-workers, teachers, students, mail carriers, pizza delivery drivers, and anyone else you deal with what you're doing and why you're doing it and encouraging them to join you.
Because I know that most of the people reading this aren't made of money, and vanishingly few elected officials have toll-free contact numbers, I also have a way to help you make these calls, at least if you reside in most parts of the U.S.
When I refer new customers to my long-distance provider, they receive a$2 $5 credit* on their first bill, which is enough to cover a minimum of two calls and could easily cover as many as six calls of about three minutes each. There are no other fees -- no sign-up, monthly, or switching fees. Rather than turning this into a commercial, I'll just point you to the company's website and let you research how it works yourself. If you want the $2 credit, you'll need to call the number at the bottom of that page (877-499-2368) and, when signing up, tell the USA Datanet operator you were referred by Jackie Samen, registered phone number 203-574-2925. (No, you can't reach me at that number right now. I'm not much for publishing my home phone number where any unbalanced stalker or telemarketing-firm-owned webspider can find it.) Of course, I'm relying on good faith that anyone who uses my referral to get the credit will in fact make calls about this issue to the elected officials of their choice. But I have to trust in the fundamentally good nature of my fellow humans.
I mean, I literally have to. It's part of the definition of disability that there are some things I simply can't do by myself.
Yes, that's right. People who become disabled sometime between starting school and paying off their loan in full can now look forward to the few hundred dollars they live on each month being dipped into by whichever loan-purchasing megabank now holds their loans. (It's common for student loan debts to be sold by the original issuing bank as little as a year after they're approved and disbursed, and not uncommon for the loan debts to be resold at least once later on.) How much will these companies be taking? Does it really matter when you're already living below the poverty line, as most people receiving Social Security benefits due to disability (as opposed to retirement) are?
It's almost scarier than the fact that formerly-protected-against-seizure-or-garnishment-for-payment-of-debts Social Security income has now been stripped of that protection, that the ruling is completely without legal basis.
Here's something you may not have known, something written into the laws governing federally subsidised student loans in the U.S.: "All loans received under programs authorized by Title IV, of the Higher Education Act can be canceled for several different circumstances including: (1) in the event of your death; or (2) if you become totally and permanently disabled after the loan is disbursed. ... If the holder of the loan determines that you have become totally and permanently disabled, your obligation, and the obligation of any endorser of your loan, to make any further payments on the loan is discharged." (Source: US Department of Education website, www.ed.gov)
This is the law. This is a protection written into the legislation that makes student loans possible.
As many of the people who read my journal know, I have multiple sclerosis (MS) and fibromyalgia (FMS) and have been disabled since January of 2000. I've had personal experience with the cancellation process. Here's what happened.
Once I had my diagnosis (I had already lost my job, and was in the process of losing a seven-year relationship as well the house we'd bought together, the latter because my income dropped from over $30K to zero at the same time that my medical and insurance costs went up -- I wouldn't actually start receiving my SSDI benefits until almost exactly six months after the foreclosure date, and I was in the fortunate minority of newly disabled Americans who get their determination without having to appeal) I learned about the loan cancellation process. I had each lender send me a form for each loan they held, each of which had to be filled out by my doctor, certifying my disability. There were two companies holding several loan accounts each, in my case. In one case, the lender processed the forms promptly, cancelled the loans they held, and refunded to me the small amount they had been paid after I became disabled. This was also the lender who I found out about cancellation from in the first place, when one good-hearted loan specialist finally (after months of my making hopeful deferral arrangements) asked me why I hadn't applied for it if becoming unable to work due to disability was the reason I'd fallen behind on my loan payments.
The other lender, however... They rejected the forms they received three times, always over some minor detail that did not affect the substance of the information, and I had to have the doctor fill them out yet again. Finally they couldn't come up with grounds to reject the form -- my doctor had grown quite as sick of the cycle as I had -- but they didn't cancel the loan. I contacted them several times about the status of the cancellation, and was always told it was still being reviewed or processed.
I figured, at the time, that this other lender simply didn't want to refund me the small amount they'd managed to get after the date I became disabled.
But now I'm not so sure, and here's why. The big corporations that buy up student loan accounts "donate" a lot of their profits to political campaigns. Not coincidentally, the politicians who accept such donations when running for re-election often vote to make it easier for their friends in the student loan business to collect more money from the students and former students who needed loans to go to college. I have to wonder if at least some of these companies weren't hoping to have the Social Security national disability refuge opened up for drilling all along.
Incidentally -- this is something else many people don't know -- under ordinary circumstances, Social Security payments, whether Disability Insurance payments (SSDI, the one specific taxes are taken out of Americans' pay for) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI, for those who wouldn't receive enough to live on from SSDI only), are exempt from seizure or garnishment, even by court order. If someone sued me, and won a judgment, they could not collect from my SSDI income; it's protected. If I signed up for a credit card, ran up a debt, and then didn't pay it, the credit card holder couldn't garnish my SSDI checks; they're protected. (Not to worry, though, folks -- I pay my doctors and other creditors on time, and the catastrophic loss of income that accompanied my onset of disability wrecked my credit rating so thoroughly I can't get a credit card anymore. Debit cards are as important an accessibility device as wheelchairs.) The only case in which SSI or SSDI income can be seized is if the entity owed is the government itself.
Or so it worked when I woke up this morning.
This is horrible. This is a travesty and an unconscionable betrayal of America's neediest citizens. But don't despair! For one thing, all wrong court decisions are reversed eventually (though note "eventually" may not occur in your lifetime). More importantly, THERE IS SOMETHING *YOU* CAN DO.
Call your representatives in the United States Senate and House of Representatives. Call your representatives in your state's legislature, and call your governor. If you've called more than one state home, call them both, or all. You can use this page at congress.org to look up who your elected officials are and how to contact them. Tell them how outraged you are. Ask what they plan to do to protect disabled Americans in your state from having food and medicine taken out of their mouths by callous corporations.
(If you're not a U.S. citizen or resident, and want to and can afford to help, pick a state near you, or one in which a friend or family member lives. I live in Connecticut, if you can't pick a state any other way.)
Unfortunately, sending e-mail is close to useless, according to political insiders. Letters sent through the post have been problematic since the anthrax scare. Faxes are actually more effective in getting your message heard, at least in some politicians' offices, so by all means type something up if you have access to a fax machine. Going to a politician's office in person is very much hit-or-miss. But when you make a phone call, and give the staffer you speak with your name and tell them why you're calling, at a minimum, the politician whose office you've contacted gets a tally of how many people like you have called that day to express a similar view. At best, elected officials are moved by such calls to act, and that is our aim.
As with any grassroots lobbying campaign, use your own words as much as possible. If you and some friends want to fax in same text that one of you came up with, send one copy with all your signatures (and printed names in full). And it wouldn't be a grassroots lobbying campaign without you telling your friends, family, neighbours, co-workers, teachers, students, mail carriers, pizza delivery drivers, and anyone else you deal with what you're doing and why you're doing it and encouraging them to join you.
Because I know that most of the people reading this aren't made of money, and vanishingly few elected officials have toll-free contact numbers, I also have a way to help you make these calls, at least if you reside in most parts of the U.S.
When I refer new customers to my long-distance provider, they receive a
I mean, I literally have to. It's part of the definition of disability that there are some things I simply can't do by myself.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-08 02:14 am (UTC)I will receive a credit of $1 or $2 for every customer I refer to USA Datanet. This will be a credit, not cash, and it won't show up until the next billing period, but I'm willing to PayPal funds to people calling from outside the US to cover the cost of their international long-distance charges to American elected officials, up to the total amount of credit I receive.
*
Date: 2005-12-08 08:10 pm (UTC)It never occurred to me I might wind up with this kind of opportunity, when I decided to make my account referral information available. I'm open to suggestions, folks...
no subject
Date: 2005-12-08 02:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-08 02:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-08 03:18 am (UTC)And this was on an SF resident, wasn't it? Good god almighty, the poor bastard was managing to survive on $874 in one of the most expensive cities in the country and now they want to knock off an extra $100 a month? What, his life wasn't difficult enough as it was?
I have too many friends and relatives on SSDI not to give my rep an earful. Egads, what fuckheads.
Best of luck with Creditor 2. Here's hoping you manage to continue flying under the radar.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-08 04:05 am (UTC)I am going to eviscerate my congressmen.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-08 06:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-08 07:12 am (UTC)My Congressbeings will notified. There is rage. Unbefuckinglieveable.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-08 08:30 am (UTC)Will call and pass it on.
Um...
Date: 2005-12-08 03:33 pm (UTC)The aformentioned case was in regards to a man who defaulted on his government "Guaranteed Student Loan". This means, that the government had to pay for those loans, the tax payer, you and I, and everyone else reading this who pays taxes.
Hence, it falls under "The only case in which SSI or SSDI income can be seized is if the entity owed is the government itself." clause of your above argument.
The main problem in this case is that this man was not in repayment ever. He took the loans, and apparently never attempted to pay them back. His disability was not a contributing factor to him not paying the loans back. He simply wanted a free ride. A policy that allowed this behavior, is simply irresponsible to future generations. (Notably because I could simply refuse to pay my debts, and after 10 years, all would be forgiven and I would be able to go about my business. Sacking the tax payers with another $50,000 - $100,000 in debt.)
While I feel for your situation, I do not believe it would apply to you or anyone else in your situation. I admit, from your story above, that you do seem to be having some issues getting a forbearance on your loans. That is a separate issue. Where you may want to check is with the Social Security Administration to see if you can get a letter of forgiveness from them so that this doesn't occur to you.
I am almost certain that some attorney out there might try to make this apply to someone in situation similar to yours. So in regards to that possibility, I hope that this is at least reviewed so it cannot ever apply to someone that had been in good standing (repayment, and paying) prior to becoming disabled. Other than that, I do not see the problem.
A-hem.
Date: 2005-12-08 11:33 pm (UTC)Loan account holders *can* use the new ruling as a basis for asking the Department of Education to authorise garnishing borrowers' SSI and SSDI checks. Again, the website can explain this better than I can. Furthermore, if the account holder decides it's not worth the effort on their part to try to collect a now-disabled borrower's outstanding student loan, responsibility for/ability to do so devolves to the government -- which is the sort of situation which could well affect me, with the two loans for which I submitted a complete and qualified cancellation packet that the bank left in limbo rather than processing.
His disability was not a contributing factor to him not paying the loans back. He simply wanted a free ride.
That kind of attitude and language are not welcome in this journal. Please feel free to exercise your freedom of expression elsewhere if you cannot comport yourself like a decent human being.
Regardless of James Lockhart's repayment history and his reasons for not repaying his loans before he became disabled -- and neither you nor I know whether he qualified for deferrment or forbearance, nor whether he applied for authorised periods of non-repayment, much less whether any such applications were handled properly, and there's actually nothing in the coverage I've seen which rules out his having been granted deferrment, forbearance or even cancellation at some point -- he is, right now, trying to live on less than $900 per month, in a city with a high cost of living, while also continuing to manage two serious life-threatening illnesses. If you think he should just move someplace more affordable, I earnestly encourage you to research handicapped-accessible subsidised housing availability in Washington state, or even in your own area; the waiting lists are long, and the lower the cost of living in an area, the fewer services (like medical transportation, and paratransit for going to the store to get groceries) tend to be available for disabled people. Diabetes management is expensive; there are testing supplies, there is medication, there is a more expensive diet that must be maintained.
Should Mr Lockhart lose his sight, or his legs, or his life, so that a few thousand more dollars can disappear into the massive, 8+ *trillion*-dollar federal debt that the United States has accrued, of which over 300 billion dollars was added by the budget deficit last year alone?
Consider, also, that the Court authorised no more than 15% of Lockhart's Social Security income be garnished. He's 67 years old now. It would take over fifty years for his $77,000 worth of student loans to be repaid through garnishment. If he only lives to be 74 (the average life expectancy for males in the United States) -- and surely he's less likely to live even that long if he has to choose between food, medical care and housing -- and his checks are garnished at the fifteen percent rate for the full seven years until his death ends any further possibility of collection, that would recoup for "the tax payer" barely more than a tenth of the student loans he has outstanding.
Granted, I'm no expert in cost-benefit analysis, but I can't see how any amount of money -- much less the amount, insignificant on any larger scale than James Lockhart's monthly budget, that could actually be taken from him -- is worth crippling or killing a human being.
Re: A-hem.
Date: 2005-12-09 10:21 pm (UTC)The case clearly states that the disability occurred well after years of employment with the US Postal Service. During which time, he could have been making payments on the outstanding loans. The case provides no evidence that Mr. Lockhart ever applied for a forbearance, a forgiveness, or any sort of differements, and clearly states that he defaulted on the loan.
My statement regarding this gentlmen's disability was in no way intended to be derogatory. It was not implying that disabled persons desire a free ride, it was stating that this particular man, presumably knew exactly what he was doing, when he decided not to repay the loans. I'm sorry if my statements offended your sensibilities. It was not intended to do so.
Re: A-hem. part 2
Date: 2005-12-09 10:21 pm (UTC)Since Supreme Court attorney's don't exactly come cheaply, and those attorney's aren't likely to miss such an evidence, the second seems implausible, which indicates either the first or third choice as being the case.
I understand the desire to protect life, limb, and dignity. I also understand that the reason we have an 8+ trillion dollar deficit is because we refuse to increase our revenue (i.e. taxes) and decrease are services (free student loand repayment plans after 10 years). I realize that I seem heartless, and probably a little cruel. It is not intended. But the question must be asked. When do we start making ourselves accountable? Is it right to make my child, or my grandchild or my child's grandchild pay for Mr. Lockhart's debt?
Yes, there are better cases to be made. Unfortunately it was Mr. Lockhart who's case came up. Personally, the better persons to persue are those who obtain their PHD's or their JD's and then decide not to repay their loans. It is also a poor time of choosing, for them to enforce the terms of repayment back.
Do I feel for Mr. Lockhart's position? Yes. Do I feel horrible about it? No. I did not put Mr. Lockhart in this position. I did not ask Mr. Lockhart not to pay back his loans while he had the opportunity and health to do so. Mr. Lockhart chose this course of action. Would I wish to see this done to anyone doing their best to survive, and then become unable due to illness to pay back their debt? Not at all. This is exactly why I stated that it needs to be addressed in order to prevent it from occuring to anyone that in good faith, has attempted to repay their debt, but due to health or unforseeable circumstance became incable of doing so.
I do not hate Mr. Lockhart. I feel bad, only that this has occurred to him at this point in his life. I do not wish to see someone lose their life, limb, vision, sight, or ability because of such as this. But I also don't wish to have my children not be able to get an education because the Mr. Lockharts failed to even attempt to repay their loans.
So, the otherside ofthe coin? If Mr. Lockhart did attempt to repay his loans, or gain debt relieft at some point, and they can prove this, then yes, this needs to be amended, it needs to be fixed so it cannot be applied to people in these situations.
I'm sorry if my opinions offend you.
Re: A-hem. part 2
Date: 2006-01-19 01:51 pm (UTC)Re: A-hem. part 2
Date: 2006-02-25 01:29 am (UTC)(sarcasm on) Oh right, the poster is advocating eugenics! Right, let's sterilize all disabled people! Oh wait, fuck that, let's just put two bullets in their head. It's quicker, and less costly.
Hey wait a minute, fuck that, bullets cost money, how about we just gas them! Yeah, that's a good idea, and its much more efficient. Besides we'll need those bullets so we can invade our neighbors to pursue cleansing them too!
You know, what, let's just do it with gas chambers. Simply march a lot of them in, close the doors, and gas 'em. Oh no wait, there's the problem of clean up, and that costs too. Well shoot, I know, let's just tell 'em it's a medical building, and we'll actually make it an incinerator. That way it gets rid of them all at once, cause you know, after all they're not human or anything.
And then you know what? Let's just choose some other group while we're at it and blame all of our woe's on them. Heck, we can build compounds to put them in, and heck we can call them 'camps' to make it sound like fun. This way we keep them segregated from society so that they don't 'infect' the rest of us with their proximity. And shoot, why stop there? Let's march them into our incinerators too! Cause you never know when they're shifty coniving little minds might lead them to escape... we can't have that.
(sarcasm off)
You're a fucking idiot. Comparing these posts to fucking facism. You know nothing you dumbass.
Re: Um...
Date: 2005-12-09 02:21 am (UTC)Sorry for butting in.
Re: Um...
Date: 2005-12-09 09:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-08 05:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-08 06:59 pm (UTC)Will write my senator.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-08 09:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-08 09:39 pm (UTC)