I've considered it. I'm Jewish and qualify for Israeli citizenship, and theoretically I could keep SSDI while living abroad. I'd prefer Spain though honestly. There's a Puerto Rico loophole that allows US citizens to move there under their former colonies program. You just have to learn Spanish and live in PR for a year before applying.

It's a lot to consider though.

Your comment seems to me somewhat unsubstantiated declaraction of stereotypical evil. That is, it isn't really saying anything we haven't already heard a lot, nor providing any additional context nor basis for it.

Complaing about downvotes is among the surest ways to accumulate more downvotes, on HN. It's explicitly discouraged by the guidelines [0]:

> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

As someone with a close friend who has a childhood disability, the parent poster is pretty on the money. It does seem to depend which state you're in, because disability is administered by the state. Deep red states tend to make it miserable to work with them so people will just give up. I've heard so many stories of disabled people getting yelled at and told they're faking their very real conditions. It's disgusting.

"you're just saying people are evil!" is a rather banal dodge of the entire thesis of the article, that the system is indeed ineffective and cruel. It's using rules-lawyerism to suppress a point that you find too uncomfortable to address with an actual argument.

Frankly this is sort of a recurring theme on HN, where people tend to lapse into meta-argument or tone argument as a substitute for substantive discussion. It's a matter of degree but at some point these tactics do become a logical fallacy, it's a very enticing way to shut down an argument that you can't directly counter.

> a rather banal dodge of the entire thesis of the article

But I wasn't addressing the article, I was addressing the comment.

> people tend to lapse into meta-argument or tone argument as a substitute for substantive discussion

Like what we're doing right now?

Can I make the presumption that you’re not somebody with a significant disability & also don’t regularly find themselves talking at length with quite an amount of others in the disabled/disability support community? My deepest apologies if I’m incorrect about that, but it’s hard for me to imagine that coming out of one who is/does.

& yes, typically I’m not one to go “muh downvotes” but there is something quite unironically hilarious about speaking up about the disabled from a position of decade+ experience & then being downvoted to invisibility without a singular reply on a hyper-capitalist forum.

Btw. If you feel it’s unsubstantiated, please perhaps try reading the title of the article we’re commenting about…

> If you feel it’s unsubstantiated, please perhaps try reading the title of the article we’re commenting about…

If a comment's substance can be acquired by reading the title of the article, then by definition it adds nothing of substance.

Look, if the article's title is "1+1", it's just pointless to comment "that's 2 btw".

Notice how I'm ignoring all the ad hominems and just answering the core?