# Applying to the Nanny State



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

It's now been 11 days since I managed to survive going to the local Social Security office with my brother & mother along for moral support.

I'm a disabled nut (quite obviously) and I'd damn well like to take full advantage our Nanny State's generosity. I can't collect SSI as my net worth exceeds SSI's $2,000 limit by roughly 650 fold.

I can't collect on the basis of income I've earned as that would total $1,995 according to their records in my entire lifetime.

I could potentially collect about $1,100 a month (not to mention Medicare) based upon my late father's SS earnings record *if* I were a disabled "child," disabled before the age of 22.

I can surely prove I'm a certified nut now and have been for the last decade. The prior to 22 part is the tough one. They have a signed medical release, written as broadly as any lawyer could write one, that lets them do virtually everything, including talk to my neighbors (hope they have fun with that.)

Milwaukee County was able to find for me 1986 (age 13) medical records proving I was locked up in their Child & Adolescent Treatment Center for 60 days. Their notes say some things that seem highly advantageous to my claim that I've been this way forever. Treatment Center is an extreme misnomer -- it's a prison and makes one think of Lord of the Flies.

My brother knew a "child" who won a similar disability case based upon OCD using records from a mental hospitalization many decades earlier, as this "child" was age 48 when he made the claim.

I'd like to collect $1,100 from the Nanny State, not to mention Medicare.


----------



## Mr K (Aug 18, 2010)

**** why would you do that? and you claim to be a libertarian. Lol.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

I don't know, man. I did the SSI route for my mom - it was a LONG road, and they took her off of it even quicker due to the net worth issue.

You are better off going to a doctor and practicing CBT.


----------



## Just Lurking (Feb 8, 2007)

SSI? Why even look at that if you have ANY other options? 

Start up your own business! Or maybe better yet for an SAer, buy one that's already established. With the amount of money you have to play with, you could afford to be completely hands-off. And your monthly income would be a hell of a lot better than anything you'd get out of SSI.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Still Waters said:


> UltraShy-This is simply WRONG-if in fact you are a millionaire as you claim to be. Can't believe your mom and brother had the audacity to accompany you on this ruse. Among the three of you,surely someone has a bit of a conscience??


Social Security isn't based upon assets. Warren Buffet at age 80 fully qualifies for SS & Medicare, even though he's one of the richest people in the world being worth $47,000,000,000 (36,000 times my own modest net worth).

There are literally millions of millionaires in America who collect SS. Seniors are one of the wealthiest age groups there is. They're also over 65 and virtually all are collecting a monthly check from the Social Security Administration and having Medicare pay a large portion of their (often large) medical bills.

There is absolutely no ruse here. I have a claim that is 100% legitimate and which should have been made decades ago (but wasn't due to ignorance) -- it simply has to be proven (which is the hard part). I cannot work due to mental disability that has been a life-long plague upon me. I have never been able to perform any substantial work due to the extreme constraints my overwhelming SA has placed upon me. My OCD that wastes countless hours every day dwelling on whatever my obsession of the day is doesn't help either. My depression that makes me want to do nothing but stay in bed makes work impossible as well. The number of people more severely depressed than me is limited, largely by the fact that a good portion of them are dead via suicide.

I truly wish others could spend a day within my mind to fully understand me. Within hours they'd be begging to get out of this level of hell that even Dante couldn't imagine.

What exactly do you think is wrong about what I did with the moral support and accompaniment of my brother & mother? The fact that I couldn't even manage to go to a SS office on my own due to my SA would seem to support my contention that my SA reaches the level of being a disability in that it prevents me from performing even this basic task without the help of others.

Does anyone here grasp how I got the assets I have? My father died in 2005, with most of his assets being divided between myself and my two brothers. Then our brother died the following year at age 45, resulting in myself and remaining brother receiving much of the money he had inherited when our father died.

Should I not receive benefits to which I'm lawfully entitled due to the timing of when my family dropped dead?:stu

The Social Security Administration got off quite easy I'd say. They'll never have to pay my dead brother a cent. They won't be paying my father when he's 80 or 90, as he was dead at 75. They didn't pay me yet as I failed to file a claim and start collecting 19 years ago as I should have (but failed to do as I didn't know).

If this claim fails, it means I will never receive any SS benefits nor Medicare when I'm elderly (in the unlikely event I live to see old age). At 65 I'd otherwise get nothing as I didn't pay into the SS system, as I didn't work, as I couldn't not work, as life-long disability prevented me from working.

I hope that has cleared up any confusion regarding my situation.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Jacob Singer said:


> **** why would you do that? and you claim to be a libertarian. Lol.


That's an excellent question and one I suspected someone would likely bring up.

It's not at all difficult to make a libertarian argument that supports my actions. The Nanny State by confiscating money from me and my ancestors (which resulted in a greatly reduced amount to inherit) have substantially reduced the amount of assets I have.

This money was taken against my will and was (based upon how my late father complained about taxes) against his will as well. Any transfer of money to me from the Nanny State will simply help balance out the theft which the Nanny State has engaged in.

In short, it's like taking back your own stuff from a guy who robbed your house.

If anyone wishes to discuss the concept of property rights, that are at the heart of taxation, I'd invite them to start a thread in Society & Culture and I'd be happy to discuss such matters in greater detail.

I did not ask to be part of the Nanny State. The Nanny State forced me to be part of it, and I will do everything in my power to take any benefits provided by the Nanny State of which I was forced to be a member of. Benefits to which the Nanny State's own rules state I am entitled to.


----------



## Mr K (Aug 18, 2010)

It just seems selfish, you don't need the benefit regardless of whether you're entitled to it, and it's other taxpayer's hard-earned money you're taking.

The whole point of the welfare state is it's there to help the people who need it most. Taking what you can get undermines all that.

Anyway I don't think we are ever gonna agree


----------



## Lonely Hobbit (Aug 31, 2009)

Jacob Singer said:


> The whole point of the welfare state is it's there to help the people who need it most. Taking what you can get undermines all that.


And who needs it most?



Still Waters said:


> ^Bingo!! It makes no difference how your assets were acquired,you do have them,that's the point. This is about greed.


Tell that to everyone who's leeching off the system!


----------



## Still Waters (Sep 18, 2008)

Give me a break-leeching off the system?? Why don't you discuss that with the Downs Syndrome guy pushing carts in the heat at Target? Go ahead,talk it over with him while he's calculating the interest he'll earn this year with his "millions". Many people need SSI for basic survival -you know the luxuries,like food and shelter.


----------



## Typical Guy (Mar 30, 2009)

Still Waters said:


> Many people need SSI for basic survival -you know the luxuries,like food and shelter.


The same kind of people that Republicans and Libertarians usually go after. I don't think what the OP did is necessarily wrong. If it had led to a change of heart in his political thinking, that would be one thing. But taking the money while he has a million in assets and at the same time continuing to rail against the Nanny State is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

It reminds me of those Republican governors who were against the stimulus and against Obama's economic plan but took the Federal money anyway without acknowledging that it was desperately needed by their State. They still complained about the Stimulus and the growth of the Federal government while at the same time using money given to them by the Fed to shore up their failing state budgets.


----------



## Lonely Hobbit (Aug 31, 2009)

Typical Guy said:


> But taking the money while he has a *million *in assets and at the same time continuing to rail against the Nanny State is the ultimate in hypocrisy.


Maybe I missed something but I don't think the OP said he had a million is assets. If I had that much, I definitely wouldn't be applying for disability.


----------



## Typical Guy (Mar 30, 2009)

Socially Anxious said:


> Maybe I missed something but I don't think the OP said he had a million is assets. If I had that much, I definitely wouldn't be applying for disability.


UltraShy is a millionaire. That's why he's having to file this on his fathers social security.

I happen to like UltraShy. He makes thoughtful, intelligent posts that I look forward to reading. I don't have a problem with him, I just have a problem with Libertarian politics. That's where we don't see eye to eye.

I guess you could say that I'm a huge supporter of the Nanny State. I want socialism _for all of us_.


----------



## Lonely Hobbit (Aug 31, 2009)

Typical Guy said:


> UltraShy is a millionaire. That's why he's having to file this on his fathers social security.


Well, I don't support that.


----------



## GnR (Sep 25, 2009)

UltraShy said:


> I truly wish others could spend a day within my mind to fully understand me. Within hours they'd be begging to get out of this level of hell that even Dante couldn't imagine.


I really don't give a damn about your politics, or how ethical it may or may not be to chase SS benefits when you (apparently) are already a wealthy man. I just wonder if you see the incredible narcissism within this statement. I struggle with those same thoughts, so I'm not judging you. I simply enjoy your posts, and I hope you understand that that type of pride will only serve to block any chance of recovery from SA or depression. Sensationalizing the pain and hardship of this condition (and in turn belittling the challenges faced by others) is rather foolhardy, and you don't strike me as a fool.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Typical Guy said:


> *UltraShy is a millionaire. That's why he's having to file this on his fathers social security.*


Allow me to clarify, as there seems to be much confusion on this point by numerous posters.

SSI (which I'm not applying for) is based upon being disabled & having assets of less than $2,000. Clearly, I don't qualify for SSI due to my asset level, though I'd surely meet the criteria for being disabled.

Actually, there is even a fully legal and commonly used way around that asset limit if one plans ahead (though this did not happen as my disability was not obvious upon birth the way a lack of limbs would be, nor like mental retardation that would quite rapidly become obvious.) There are disabled individuals with vastly more assets than I have who collect SSI. There are wealthy parents with a disabled child who will have their lawyer set up a "special needs" trust. Such a trust would exist to hold any assets they might wish to gift to their kid during their lifetime or give to this "child" (of any age) upon their death. Such a trust would be set up exclusively for the benefit of this disabled child, but would not technically be owned by this "child," thus not being counted as part of that "child's" assets. This would allow the "child" to take full advantage of any & all government programs for the disabled that require one to be virtually broke. The trustee could use money from such a special needs trust for anything that benefits the "child," such as sending them on on trips to every nation on earth via private plane (assuming we're talking about the uber-rich with one hell of a huge trust). And this disabled child could live in the lap of luxury, yet be "broke" by governmental accounting as they don't technically own the trust assets.

Social Security Disability (which I applied for) is based upon either how much you've paid in over the years, *OR* upon your parent's account if you're a disabled "child," disabled by age 22 or earlier. This disabled child part exists, obviously, for those who never had a chance to pay into the SS system due to being disabled before they even reached an age where they could work -- and that would be the case for me. The amount of assets or income one has is not in any way considered with regard to Social Security claims -- doesn't matter if you're deep in dept or sitting atop a mountain of gold. It's all the same to them.



Typical Guy said:


> I happen to like UltraShy. He makes thoughtful, intelligent posts that I look forward to reading. I don't have a problem with him, I just have a problem with Libertarian politics. That's where we don't see eye to eye.


I'm glad to hear you enjoy reading my posts and thank you for your kind comments, Typical Guy, even if I haven't managed to pull you over to the "dark side" yet.:lol


----------



## veron (Apr 29, 2009)

millenniumman75 said:


> I don't know, man. I did the SSI route for my mom - it was a LONG road, and they took her off of it even quicker due to the net worth issue.
> 
> You are better off going to a doctor and practicing CBT.


Once somebody makes up their mind that they are "disabled" - and can afford to be so - then they _will_ be disabled, and there's no talking them out of it. Btw, I'm not necessarily referring to the OP here.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

millenniumman75 said:


> You are better off going to a doctor and practicing CBT.


That makes the assumption that I'm capable of CBT or any form of therapy.

I see my psychiatrist only once a year. Why? Because, as my pdoc has correctly noted, I have "extreme difficulty functioning outside of the home and even coming to doctor appointments."

He's further noted that I am not a suitable candidate for therapy/rehabilitation because I "not stable enough to attend or participate in therapy."

When I last saw him I commented that I suspect I'm the most severe case of SA he's ever personally seen. I said I know there are certainly worse cases than me, but they're not at all likely to walk into his office. After all, I can barely force myself into his office. If I was any worse, I wouldn't be there at all.


----------



## vulgarman (Jul 4, 2010)

Ah, UltraShy, I to enjoy your posts for their views and... beautiful logic.

Taking those benefits is just like getting your stuff back from a thief!

To clarify, assets =/= cash. Assets are worth a sum of money, that appreciates in value. Houses, businesses, bonds, stocks, trusts, etc.

Ever notice that the stuff they teach in public school isn't all that useful? Betcha never heard the term Asset there. You probably think your car is an asset. It's not. It depreciates in value the second you drive it off the lot.

Or maybe you already knew what assets are. Like I said, it probably wasn't covered in a high school math class.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

vulgarman said:


> To clarify, assets =/= cash. Assets are worth a sum of money, that appreciates in value. Houses, businesses, bonds, stocks, trusts, etc.
> 
> Ever notice that the stuff they teach in public school isn't all that useful? Betcha never heard the term Asset there. You probably think your car is an asset. It's not. It depreciates in value the second you drive it off the lot.
> 
> Or maybe you already knew what assets are. Like I said, it probably wasn't covered in a high school math class.


Yes, lots of stuff covered in both high school & college is a load of useless junk. I remember a HS social studies teacher trying to teach us about the stock market. One problem: she knew as much about investing as most Americans do, which is almost nothing. She could teach investing as well as I could teach how to rebuild a transmission, a topic I know nothing about.

I don't own a car and I never have. For the last 21 years I've driven a car owned by a parent. The car I've been driving since 2003 is a base model Chevy Impala, hardly a luxury car. Blue book value is currently around $5,000.

I think I have a firm grasp of what an asset is, seeing how I graduated with a finance degree 15 years ago.

I fully agree that cars are not assets, though many people do indeed insist on counting them. Buy an $80,000 BMW today and in a decade one can be assured that it will have lost most of its value. With investments, one would hope that an $80,000 investment would be worth more after a decade (though there is absolutely no assurance of that, which is what makes all investments risky in one way or another -- especially when you look at real return -- after tax & inflation). The theoretical concept of a "riskless" asset (T-bills) as used in finance text books is 100% pure BS. There is no assurance that one will not lose purchasing power over time by owning "riskless" T-bills, and being able to maintain the purchasing power of your money would seem a true measure of risk. Finance texts do so love to look at standard deviation instead, as such simplistic mathematical measures of risk are so much easier that to delve into what risk really means.

BTW, a home is not an asset either. At least not in the same way that, say, a mutual fund is. Your home consumes considerable sums to maintain it. I've never yet had a mutual fund with a leaky roof that demanded piles of money to fix, nor do mutual funds suffer from basements that leak and so on. If you want to see what happens when owners fail to shell out vast sums to keep up their properties, just drive to any inner city in America to see home that are boarded up and unlivable due to neglect.

Have any more to say or ask regarding assets?


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Still Waters said:


> UltraShy-This is simply WRONG-if in fact you are a millionaire as you claim to be. *Can't believe your mom and brother had the audacity to accompany you on this ruse. Among the three of you,surely someone has a bit of a conscience??*


Here's what I can't believe:

That you, someone who I had long deemed a friend on SAS, would post what I deem a personal attack. I did something that was exceptionally difficult for me, and the response I get is an attack. How do you think that makes me feel? Guess I should remember not to share anything, for the negative judgement it may bring.

You have accused me and the only members of my immediate family who are not yet dead of engaging in a ruse and not having a "bit of a conscience."

What I further can't believe is that you continued your attack, even though I politely told you via PM how I felt regarding this and how I'd be forced to report any further attack that uses my net worth as a weapon against me.

Well, I reported your follow up posts to mods, and I can't believe that they do nothing.

Previously, I had been hesitant to call you out on this matter in public as I didn't want to risk an infraction for "conflicts," yet what am I supposed to do when mods have thus far failed to do anything to remove your post in which you call this pure "greed."

I don't know what I'm supposed to do on SAS. When WineKitty attacked me earlier this year on a similar basis, I got an infraction for daring to defend myself against her attack by firmly, yet politely, addressing all the points she made.

Now I find myself in the same position again. Not wanting an infraction for "conflicts" I did not publicly address your attack on me. Yet if mods fail to do anything to remove your attack, I fail to see any other options.

Am I simply supposed to sit back and be a target for all who wish to attack me, unable to respond as daring to defend myself risk a "conflicts" infractions?


----------



## LostPancake (Apr 8, 2009)

UltraShy said:


> That makes the assumption that I'm capable of CBT or any form of therapy.
> 
> I see my psychiatrist only once a year. Why? Because, as my pdoc has correctly noted, I have "extreme difficulty functioning outside of the home and even coming to doctor appointments."
> 
> ...


Try therapy by Skype - I've seen one therapist's website who offered therapy that way.

And I just don't believe that you're not stable enough to participate in therapy. You've been on this site for 7 years. What does he think would happen if you tried to do therapy?


----------



## Still Waters (Sep 18, 2008)

UltraShy-I do consider you a friend-you know I've long admired that incredible intellect of yours. However, even friends will at times disagree with one another. - I can't believe you,who seemingly adores debating and airing ones view would have a problem with this. Aren't you over-reacting a tad? Can't believe you'd report me,I've often seen you slice and dice so many here-people who quite obviously don't have those debating skills that you have in abundance. Could you answer Lostpancake's question? I thought he made a good point.


----------



## Prodigal Son (Dec 11, 2005)

Well its the triumphs section not S&C, I don't know it just seemed like the early response was pretty negative and judgmental. Just maybe not the best place or situation for such reactionary posts especially when its something difficult for him to do and he is maybe looking for a bit of support.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

LostPancake said:


> Try therapy by Skype - I've seen one therapist's website who offered therapy that way.


You got me there. I had never thought of that. I didn't realize therapy was ever done over the net.



LostPancake said:


> And I just don't believe that you're not stable enough to participate in therapy. You've been on this site for 7 years. What does he think would happen if you tried to do therapy?


He earned an MD followed by training specifically in psychiatry followed by decades of real world work with patients. How do your credentials stack up against that?

You can believe what you wish, but I'd have to say I feel his expert opinion carries a tad more weight. I'd also give more weight to my own personal views than what you believe or don't as I clearly have much more knowledge of my own condition than you or anyone else could. After all, I've had to live inside this mutilated mind for 37 years.

Actually, as of October 10, I'll have been on SAS for 8 years. Haven't improved at all in that time.

I'd have to ask him what he thinks would happen. I can only guess he assumes I'd get basically no sleep due to severe anticipatory anxiety before every therapy session, as that's exactly what happens when I have to see him. And, as far a doctors go, he's like a teddy bear rather than a grizzly bear. And still seeing him terrifies me. Even seeing as nice and non-threatening a doctor as one could imagine scares the **** out of me!

CBT ultimately requires actual contact, not just cyber-babble. I'd note that if CBT was some cure that assured the ability to work, there would be nobody on SAS receiving SS disability nor SSI.


----------



## Nae (Nov 10, 2003)

Prodigal Son said:


> Well its the triumphs section not S&C, I don't know it just seemed like the early response was pretty negative and judgmental. Just maybe not the best place or situation for such reactionary posts especially when its something difficult for him to do and he is maybe looking for a bit of support.


 Seriously. I've seen quite a few threads lately where replies have overlooked that this is a support forum.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Still Waters said:


> I can't believe you,who seemingly adores debating and airing ones view would have a problem with this. Aren't you over-reacting a tad?


Don gave me an infraction in April for daring to simply respond to WineKitty when she decided to use my net worth as a weapon against me. With the risk of another infraction for "conflicts" hanging over my head I felt very much inhibited in "debating" you. I'd also point out that my frequent debates are limited to Society & Culture, that largely exists for the purpose of debate.

You accused me (and my family) of engaging in a ruse, having no consciences at all, and of pure greed. I strongly disagree with all three accusations.



Still Waters said:


> Can't believe you'd report me,I've often seen you slice and dice so many here-people who quite obviously don't have those debating skills that you have in abundance.


I've NEVER made any negative comments ever regarding any governmental benefits received by any SAS member due to their disability. There are numerous members who could be subjected to such attacks, but as they're broke, they are fully protected under SAS rules.

It appears SAS rules don't apply to personal attacks on me because I some positive net worth and it's open season on me. After years of such attacks by various people, I've grown quite sick & tired of being bashed for not being broke. It's as if I've committed some sin by being responsible with money. If I blew all my money in a matter of months living lavishly, then I could get handouts from the Nanny State and nobody would be able to dare utter a negative word about me as it would then be a personal attack.

But since I'm not broke all of you can fire away at will, since I'm not a protected species on SAS.



Still Waters said:


> Could you answer Lostpancake's question? I thought he made a good point.


As you see above, I can and I did.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Prodigal Son said:


> Well its the triumphs section not S&C, I don't know it just seemed like the early response was pretty negative and judgmental. Just maybe not the best place or situation for such reactionary posts especially when its something difficult for him to do and he is maybe looking for a bit of support.


Thank you.


----------



## LostPancake (Apr 8, 2009)

UltraShy said:


> You got me there. I had never thought of that. I didn't realize therapy was ever done over the net.
> 
> He earned an MD followed by training specifically in psychiatry followed by decades of real world work with patients. How do your credentials stack up against that?
> 
> ...


Well, it's true, I don't know much about your situation. I just hate to see people giving up before even trying. Screw what your doctor says. Ask any three doctors their opinion on something and you'll probably get three different answers. That shows they don't know what they're talking about. But they always act AS IF they know what they're talking about.

And I imagine if you have a real aversion to therapy, even Skype might be too stressful. But you could start gradually, with email conversations. Or if even that is too much, do self-therapy until you get to where you could handle that. The idea is to just take on ask much as you are capable of at the moment, even if it's a tiny thing.

And I can relate to your anxiety about dealing with even the nicest people - I project my dad onto all my professors and bosses, no matter how nice they are, and I react like they're *******s. It's just automatic. That's why I've always chosen female therapists - it at least cuts down on some of that anxiety.

And I realize I'm not exactly a poster child for successful therapy, but this stuff is pretty deeply rooted. I did CBT, thought I was cured, and then had all kinds of problems with relationships. Then I spent 12 years pretty much in limbo, having given up on improving. Now I wish I had been more persistent with therapy, instead of just saying **** it, I'm screwed. I've at least had glimpses of happiness lately, and my anxiety has gone WAY down. And this is not CBT, it's psychodynamic (and interpersonal) therapy, and it's taken a year and a half just to get this far. And that includes a lot of self-therapy on my own over the last few months - there are a lot of really good self-help books out there.

But honestly, if I had a million dollars in the bank, would I have started therapy? Probably not. I was sort of forced into it because of how much I utterly dreaded working with people, and depression made it too difficult to support myself through other means (I have lots of ideas for online businesses). Since I have to work to survive, I needed therapy in order to be able to deal with people. So I grudgingly forced myself into it. It took me several months to get up the nerve, and find someone online that I liked the looks of.

Anyway, I'm just trying to encourage you to do it, somehow, because I know how easy it would be to just stay locked away from the world when you have that kind of money.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

LostPancake said:


> Well, it's true, I don't know much about your situation. I just hate to see people giving up before even trying. *Screw what your doctor says.*


Those quotes regarding my condition are taken verbatim from what he's written on forms that get me free life insurance. Only worth $600 a year in waived premiums on a whole life policy that has a death benefit of $85K. The "death insurance" (as I call it) was taken out by my father when I was a small child and I take advantage of the policy's disability waiver where one gets to keep coverage without payment of premiums so long as they are disabled. My brother has the same policy and he too gets premiums waived as his GP confirms that he is disabled due to back problems that have been ongoing for the last 20+ years (five years ago he put his back out merely by standing up from his seat in a French class!), in addition to OCD.

The forms ask when I might be able to return to work at any job. He checks the indefinite box and then marks the 1 year box and puts a question mark after that. Either he's one hell of an optimist, or knowing that I will be reading the form, doesn't want to put down "NEVER" such as to potentially create a self-fulfilling prophecy. I.E. not wanting to say "never" to create in my own mind the view that I can never change as that's what he as an expert in psychiatry thinks. Next time I see him I think I'll ask him if he seriously thinks he's going to "fix me" or if the question mark is simply for my own benefit.

The insurance company makes me fill out a form myself in which I describe my condition. On that I indicate that I NEVER expect to return to work.

I fully understand your point about not wanting someone to give up when there is still hope, but I think a full examination & understanding of my condition would lead to the conclusion that I'm a lost cause. I don't say that lightly. This isn't a conclusion I jumped to quickly at all. I see others on SAS who think their life is totally over because OMG they're 18 and they haven't even kissed a girl yet! I roll my eyes when I see that and similar, thinking about how they're half my age, how I'd never kissed anyone at 18 either (I was 21 and 11 months), and how kissing is pretty insignificant when one looks at the big picture.

I went to college with the full expectation that I'd graduate, get a job and have a "normal" life. Well, I graduated. The getting a job and normal life part failed to materialize. Obviously, I wouldn't have subjected myself to the time, effort, cost, and social interaction required by college if I'd deemed myself to have no future.

It took many years (decades now) of endless failures to lead me to my current condition. If you drive down the road to nowhere you'll find me standing at the dead end of it after 37 years of slowly walking this hellish path.

At some point the rational choice is to simply give up. Fighting endlessly in a battle that can't be won is a frustrating endeavor that gets one nowhere. It is my own personal judgment, based upon decades of experience that nobody other than myself can fully know & understand, that I'm a lost cause. I tried and I don't have it within me to try further. This idea wasn't planted in my head by any doctor, who'd never say "you're a lost cause" even if he fully believed that to be the case.

You should also note, that I'm quite good at ignoring doctors. I've mocked docs regularly on the meds forum. I've criticized the Dr. God complex some have in which their ego has to reside in Texas as other states are simply too small to contain something so massive.



LostPancake said:


> But honestly, if I had a million dollars in the bank, would I have started therapy? Probably not.


I'm not offended by that comment, since I know you didn't say it with any malicious intent.

But this is exactly the sentiment so many others have expressed to me on SAS over the years. I don't brag about my net worth, because I'm not going to brag about something I don't think is impressive at all. The issue of how much money I have comes up when people hear that I haven't worked ever, doing nothing since college graduation 15 years ago. Naturally, they ask "how do you get by without working?" I can't blame them for asking, since if I heard that from someone I too would ask the same question. I openly and honestly answer the question, which is how my financial position becomes known.

Unfortunately, I've found that what I say can & will be used against me. Countless times over many years I've had to endure from others on SAS comments that basically say I don't work because I'm "rich" (I don't consider myself rich at all).

I find such comments highly insulting. They're effectively saying: "Karl could work, but he just sits on his lazy *** because he can afford to." How is that any different from saying to somebody who's broke, on SSI, and has parents who let them live at home providing them with support being told: "You could work, but you just sit on your lazy *** because the government and your parents support you." They sure sound the same to me. Both statements say the disability isn't real and the lack of work is simply because one can get away with it economically due to financial support of one kind or another. Anybody who dared to attack someone on SAS for being on SSI would be crucified by other members and be banned at least for a while. Yet, I seem to be held to a different standard. If someone says I don't work because of economics (instead of disability) mods take no action at all, and only a few people come to my support against such attacks. (Support which I greatly appreciate, BTW.)


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

UltraShy said:


> You got me there. I had never thought of that. I didn't realize therapy was ever done over the net.
> 
> He earned an MD followed by training specifically in psychiatry followed by decades of real world work with patients. How do your credentials stack up against that?
> 
> ...


 * Are you sure about that? 
* Maybe for the first session, but not any after that. I would look forward to seeing him. I still look forward to giving an update. Progress has been slow for me - only picking up in the last three years. I would say that you are making a step in the right direction. It may have taken you eight years, so what. 
* It won't over time. If it takes medication at first, that is okay. It will allow you to focus on what you need to do. He is a person just like you.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

UltraShy said:


> Those quotes regarding my condition are taken verbatim from what he's written on forms that get me free life insurance. Only worth $600 a year in waived premiums on a whole life policy that has a death benefit of $85K. The "death insurance" (as I call it) was taken out by my father when I was a small child and I take advantage of the policy's disability waiver where one gets to keep coverage without payment of premiums so long as they are disabled. My brother has the same policy and he too gets premiums waived as his GP confirms that he is disabled due to back problems that have been ongoing for the last 20+ years (five years ago he put his back out merely by standing up from his seat in a French class!), in addition to OCD.
> 
> The forms ask when I might be able to return to work at any job. He checks the indefinite box and then marks the 1 year box and puts a question mark after that. Either he's one hell of an optimist, or knowing that I will be reading the form, doesn't want to put down "NEVER" such as to potentially create a self-fulfilling prophecy. I.E. not wanting to say "never" to create in my own mind the view that I can never change as that's what he as an expert in psychiatry thinks. Next time I see him I think I'll ask him if he seriously thinks he's going to "fix me" or if the question mark is simply for my own benefit.
> 
> ...


People are always going to throw BS. I am learning this now. People do not understand your situation fully and never will - only you do. Make the most of it. I always figured you have your degree in Finance and would know how to invest. Not enough people do. I wish I had more knowledge than my "second concentration in business" provided.

We do take action - you have seen it before. We can't be everywhere at once.

You can't let your money or anything else become a crutch. Part of overcoming SA is to have the confidence and knowledge in oneself to improve. You are getting that.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

millenniumman75 said:


> *You can't let your money or anything else become a crutch.* Part of overcoming SA is to have the confidence and knowledge in oneself to improve. You are getting that.


Would you expect someone who was broke & disabled to get a job since basically the only other options at that point is living on the streets or death? Would you tell them money from SSI is a crutch?

I'd love to read a post in which you tell all the SSI recipients on SAS that SSI is a crutch. I'm not thinking that will go well.

As I recall, Brian (Thunder) who used to own this forum was (and I assume still is) collecting SS disability. Would ever dare to tell him he was using SS as a crutch if you met him in person or do you think doing so would risk him inflicting physical harm upon you?


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

millenniumman75 said:


> * Are you sure about that?




Sure about my join date? I'm reasonably confident it was Oct 10, 2002.

As for no improvement in that time, oh yeah, I'm 100% certain about that. Those were the good old days when I was so positive that I never even seriously considered ending my life. For the last several years termination of my hellish life has been a daily thought.




millenniumman75 said:


> * Maybe for the first session, but not any after that. I would look forward to seeing him. I still look forward to giving an update. Progress has been slow for me - only picking up in the last three years. I would say that you are making a step in the right direction. It may have taken you eight years, so what.


Seeing a doctor doesn't get more comfortable with me over time, at least not to any meaningful extent. I sure don't look forward to seeing any doctor. You might, and that's nice for you. I'm not like you and lack the good fortune of developing such a level of comfort.

The best you or anyone else can do is guess how I am likely feeling. Guesses can and often are wrong, as in this case.


----------



## LostPancake (Apr 8, 2009)

I can't argue against collecting disability, as I've basically done that by borrowing money from my parents a lot over the years. But I think people who collect disability should at least be trying to help themselves get off of it. Self-help books are cheap. Mind Over Mood is a great place to start - it won't solve everything but it might alleviate your symptoms a bit, to where you could deal with therapy. 

I mentioned the money though because I've always wished I had enough money so I could just shut myself off from the world and not have to deal with people. Given the choice between death and full time work, I would have chosen death, due to the anxiety it caused. Or at least that's what I thought. I imagine if I did not have the option of borrowing money, I would have wound up forcing myself into working full time, even with all the anxiety. And then have done a lot of therapy to try to deal with it. And I think that would have ultimately been better for me than trying to avoid the problem, as I did for 12 years. 

I don't think anxiety is an irreversible condition. It can be really difficult to get out of, depending on how deeply rooted it is - especially with depression also, which just saps all your motivation. Being forced to deal with people in the workplace has been my ultimate motivation. So I do think having money can be a hindrance. But I would encourage you to use it to buy a lot of self-help and psychology books - learn about how the brain works, where anxiety comes from, and different ways of alleviating it. Psychology is making a lot of progress as it incorporates findings from neuroscience, and understanding how the brain works has helped me a lot with therapy. I think you would get a lot of out it also. 

I just don't think it's rational to give up. I think you're afraid of dealing with your problems, as they seem to be overwhelming, and you rationalize it by saying there is no hope. That's where I was a couple of years ago. If terminal illness was an option I would have gladly taken it. 

And in defense of Still Waters and others in this thread, the title of this thread and the contents of the initial post seemed mostly political, so I understand their reactions - it seemed more about economic policies. I didn't even realize it was in the Triumphs section, as I rarely notice what section a thread is in.


----------



## LostPancake (Apr 8, 2009)

anymouse said:


> i would agree that anxiety is not irreversable. but OCD is a much more strenous journey which is much more medication/therapy resistant and dependent on genetics, and i think that's why he's insisting it's a hard road and has been. you have to consider that.


Oh... somehow I never knew UltraShy had OCD. Sorry - I know next to nothing about that. :um


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

There has to be some job you could do. Have you ever thought about writing a book or something that is a sole proprietorship? There has to be some libertarian think tank that would like some help.  Being successful and having something to do will help a lot.

And I would look into reading books on psychology, CBT therapy, and SA. Start with a psychotherapist to help get over the basic fears of showing up at doctors offices and dealing with other people. Then look into figuring out what you want to do with your life. What could make you happy, and what would need to change.

It won't be easy, but it is better.

And I will say that you probably won't be happy trying hard to game the system just to get some money from the government. And the taxes paid on the initial income to SS went towards other projects since Al Gore didn't put SS into a 'lockbox'.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Classified said:


> *There has to be some job you could do.*


Again, "Karl has money therefore he can't actually be disabled." What part of disabled do you fail to comprehend? Just staying alive till the next miserable day is quite enough for me to manage and I have to put up with this endless ****!



Classified said:


> And I will say that *you probably won't be happy trying hard to game the system* just to get some money from the government. And the taxes paid on the initial income to SS went towards other projects since Al Gore didn't put SS into a 'lockbox'.


Playing by the rules set forth by the SS Administration in an attempt to gain benefits for a legitimate disability is gaming the system? Again, something you'd never tell somebody who was broke.

Please do tell me something personal about you such that I may bring it up as often as humanly possible to attack you.

I will not respond to any further posts, nor even read them, so go wild and bash me all you guys want. I give up. All of you can BLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP!


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

You deserve what you're legally entitled to. End of story.


----------

