CW: Poverty
The socioeconomic system is often described as “broken.” However, when viewed through the lens of disability, it becomes clear that it functions exactly as intended. Disabled people face higher rates of poverty, not due to oversight, but because the systems are designed this way.
Workplaces are often exclusionary by design. Many workplaces have rigid schedules, inaccessible environments, and fail to provide accommodations. This exclusion limits employment opportunities and often relegates disabled people to lower-wage jobs Even those who do find work face discrimination and systemic bias that hinder their chances of achieving economic stability.
Social programs further reinforce this exclusion. They are set up in a way that traps disabled people in poverty by penalizing them for earning too much or saving beyond strict limits. These rules promote dependency rather than encouraging independence. The system keeps disabled people economically vulnerable, which is not an oversight but a deliberate choice.
For me, Massachusetts Medicaid plays a crucial role in my life. It funds my personal care assistants (PCAs), who assist me with daily activities such as bathing, dressing, and toileting. Without Medicaid, I would not be able to afford PCA services, which cost approximately $60,000 each year.
Unfortunately, Medicaid has strict income and asset limits. Often, people are limited to having less than $2,000 in assets. While there are ways to work around these limits, like ABLE accounts, Medicaid buy-in programs, and special needs trusts, these also have strict rules.
This shows how the system forces disabled people to rely on public programs for survival. However, people are also trapped in poverty due to restrictive eligibility rules. These antiquated rules are seldom changed.
Accessibility is often regarded as a luxury. Assistive technology, accessible housing, and transportation tend to be expensive, with limited support from insurance or subsidies. Disabled people must pay more simply to participate in everyday life, while the system treats accessibility as optional rather than essential.
This is why calling the system “broken” is misleading. It suggests that it once functioned fairly, yet history suggests that disabled people were never meant to thrive within it. Poverty is not an error; it is the expected result of a system that values certain bodies and minds more than others.
Acknowledging this truth changes the discussion. Instead of asking how to fix what is broken, we start questioning who designed the system, who benefits from its persistence, and what it would take to create something entirely new. Independence must be intentional, just as exclusion has been. This requires redefining work to recognize diverse contributions, restructuring benefits to promote independence, and making accessibility the norm, not an exception.
Sources:
Carino, Jerry. “NJ Forces Disabled Howell Student to Make Brutal Choice: Internship or Health Aide Money.” Asbury Park Press, Gannett, 21 May 2018, http://www.app.com/story/news/local/values/2018/05/21/disabled-howell-student-nj-forces-choice-internship-health-aide/610909002/.
Goodman, Nanette, et al. “The Extra Costs of Living with a Disability in the U.S. — Resetting the Policy Table.” National Disability Institute, National Disability Institute, Oct. 2020, http://www.nationaldisabilityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/extra-costs-living-with-disability-brief.pdf.
Romig , Kathleen, et al. “The Case for Updating SSI Asset Limits.” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 25, July 2023, http://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/the-case-for-updating-ssi-asset-limits?fbclid=IwAR0wZj-zM_VqbPoQ4RV3WZUbOBCKVbnxXlV9lJeWo4GLEVAx2EomA5klzoo_aem_AfEqv7yxyHvw-DLrwMkFZ4LovFDDWokEDXSN5qdX6LwdCd85JZbF0gQkswCdVv1LpVA.
Shapiro, Joseph. “These Disabled People Tried to Play by the Rules. It Cost Them Their Federal Benefits.” NPR, NPR, 8 June 2024, http://www.npr.org/2024/06/08/g-s1-3475/social-security-ssi-asset-limits.