I see many comments here - as is almost universally the case - that indicate that people are complaining about how thngs work with total absence of any knowledge of how the do work. (Or it might be more accurate to say how they don't work since the benefits available are poorly administerd.)

In the US, and individual can apply for Social Security disability if there is a valid reason why the individual can no longer perform income earning work.

Without disability, a person can "retire" and receive Social Security benefits at age 62 or in some cases 58, based on that persons history of payments of Social Security and Medicare withholdings while employed. The benefit is reduced so that the total amount received from the time of retirement up to the "expected life" of the person at the age of retirement is the same as would be received if the person retired at "full retirment age," and received the maximum monthly payments for which the persons work/earnings history qualified them.

If disabled and unable to work at an earlier age, the recognition of a Disability allows the person to collect the same monthly benefit for which the applicant's personal history of employment and payment of withholdings for SSA and Medicare would qualify them if they were at full retirement age. The only "cost increment" to Social Security is the few years prior to normal retirement.

If a person has NOT WORKED in an occupation covered by SSA, and has NOT PAID his/her share into the SSA program, there IS NO SSA DISABILITY BENEFIT available to them.

A person now is automatically enrolled for Medicare coverage for normal health care at age 65. This is some help for those who don't have access to any other insurance, but for persons who retire at normal age, on average Medicare pays about 20% - 30% of "ordinary" medical bills. An advantage - sometimes a disadvantage - of Medicare coverage is that Medicare specifies the amount providers can charge, pays its 20%. The patient remains responsible for the remaining (average 80%), but the providers are NOT permitted to require the patients to "make up the difference" between the providers "normal" charges and the Medicare specified allowable charge.

IF YOU DO HAVE decent other insurance, most major insurance providers have similar "agreements" with providers of medical care, requiring them to accept the "standard charges" allowed by the insurer. For the better insurers, the maximum charges are similar to what Medicare specifies.

Without Medicare or another insurance, typical charges claimed by providers run around 150% (sometimes much more) of what they accept from those who are insured by Medicare or some other good policy.

A person who is declared disabled by Social Security is automatically enrolled in Medicare two years after the award of the SSA disability benefit. (There is no choice of whether to convert from another policy to Medicare, although most people "on Medicare" require supplemental insurance.)

Medicare coverage IS NOT FREE. The Medicare Insurance payment is deducted automatically from the SSA retirement benefit you receive and it IS A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF YOUR SSA INCOME. You cannot be on Medicare unless you also recieve a retirement benefit.

Additionally, the misconception that some have that Social Security Retirment benefits are not taxed IS A LIE. They must be reported as income, and although there are some differences in "brackets" applied they are taxable income for most who receive them.

There is an additional "welfare" program called the SSI (Supplemental Security Income?) benefit for which any persons can qualify to receive benefits due - in essence - to "poverty." Medicaid insurance for medical care is generally considered a part of SSI, although rarely there is a technical difference.

An individual generally cannot qualify for SSI benefits.

A couple living together, married or unmarried, cannot qualify for SSI benefits unless they are the sole support of a child who lives with them.

In some cases, IF the child qualifies for an SSI benefit, after demonstrating that a specific disability of the "parent" who cares for the child who receives benefits would prevent the child from receiving care, some necessary and confirmed medical care for the "parent" may also be paid by SSI/Medicaid.

There is NO OTHER Federal support for childless persons or family groups who are "just too poor to survive."

Social Security retirement benefits are paid, and the deductions for Medicare premiums are deducted by the Federal Government. The Medicare premiums are forwarded to the states.

Medicare is administered entirely by each state. One recent survey cited THREE states as "nominally providing the Medicare benefits as provided for in Federal regulations." ALL OTHER STATES have been described as "withholding, evading, diluting, or otherwise failing to provide the full benefits to which recipients are entitled under Federal law and Federal Medicare regulations.

All SSI benefits are administered by each state. Medicare funding is intended to cover SSI benefits, and in some cases separate SSI funds, in addition to Medicare premiums, have been passed from Federal budgets to the states. The observations about state's performance of the administration of SSI are much the same as for Medicare.

Although there are Federal laws/regulations specifying some conditions that "Unemployment Insurance" must meet, all Unemployment programs are administered entirely by each individual state, from determination of the amount of premiums to be paid in and collection of the "premiums" to disbursement of funds to those who qualify. One of the very few enforceable rules in the Federal statutes is the specification of a "minimum period of unemployment" for which benefits must be paid. That one clause is the only thing permitting Congress (the Federal one) to "extend benefits in times of crisis."

Some, but not all, states have additional programs for assisting persons in need. The best that can be said about any of them is that they are "capriciously created, obstructively administered, and underfunded for what they're intended to do." No state that I've heard of has any benefit that any person qualifies to receive "because there are no jobs to be had" or because "I just can't find a job."

"Food stamps" are a Federal program and the stamps are distributed by the Fed (now in the form of debit cards), but qualifying individuals to receive them is left largely to the states. Generally, it's difficult to qualify unless one has "a child in need of feeding."

NO PROGRAMS are available that do not involve support of children, to anyone who has not previously worked productively and paid the specified contributions via taxes (including the FICA/Medicare ones). Existing programs intended to assure the the care of disadvantaged children should be adequate to detect dysfunctional familes, alcoholism, or drug use. Demanding a drug test where there is reasonable evidence of drug use is perfectly appropriate. Since the benefits available are nearly all are "in the name of the children" removing the child if the test is positive is one of several possible remedies, and in most cases "removes the benefit."

Assuming that "everyone who applies for help" is a drug addict is simple IGNORANT BIGOTRY.

Sorry if the summary above is superficial. It isn't a simple subject, and there isn't a "magic bullet" that bigots can enforce that will solve all the problems.

Poor people are not all criminals, despite what (apparently most here and elsewhere) people seem to think. They're just poor.

John