• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What does disability mean to you and who qualifies?

What does disability mean and who should get it?

  • who cares, it is unmanagable

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .
Who didn't the Federal government give money to?

Well, my husband is one. He is self employed.

He does however enjoy the use of the roads , the post office service , etc. Our children went to public schools but we also supported all of those Services with the taxes we pay.
 
Last edited:
Well, my husband is one. He is self employed and because of type of business he is in he does not pay into Social security so he will never receive SS or medicare benefits.

He does however enjoy the use of the roads , the post office service , etc. Our children went to public schools but we also supported all of those Services with the taxes we pay.

Just a note. Self employed people pay both ends of FICA taxes
 
You can consider my assessment of the government a platitude, but look at the Congressional approval ratings. Look at the constant reports of outrageous waste and corruption. I've never met a person who thought the government ran efficiently. And you're trying to use the current state of charities as what it would look like if there were no government assistance, but the charities would be much more widespread. Gleaners would expand to fill the void, and if they're doing such a great job, I would much rather give my money to them than the government anyway. And as far as the massive needs out there now, do you have a few examples?

I just can't believe that if the disabled weren't getting government checks anymore that they wouldn't be helped in one way or another. Why wouldn't an organization come about to give them aid, along with their family and friends? Why wouldn't you lead the charge to do something like that? Why could the Komen Foundation do it and you couldn't? I've said that if we didn't like a charity, then we wouldn't donate to it anymore, but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't donate to that cause, someone would come up with a better charity. That's how the free market works and why it would be more successful than the government who has no competition and very little concern as to whether you like them or not.

More platitudes. Congressional approval ratings are at historic lows over the shutdown. I've conceded that there is waste fraud and abuse, but it is 1% of the system and it has to do with people trying to defraud the government, not government workers stealing funds. Charities are at constant risk of theft. United Way has had numerous scandals over misuse of funds that went to pay personal expenses for staff or excessive spending on things like flowers and gifts for donors. Embezzlement is common in charities.

Here's the Charity Watch Hall of Shame: CharityWatch Hall of Shame - charitywatch.org

Your examples:

Food insecurity:

How Many People Lived in Food-Insecure Households?

In 2012:

49.0 million people lived in food-insecure households.
12.4 million adults lived in households with very low food security.
8.3 million children lived in food-insecure households in which children, along with adults, were food insecure.
977,000 children (1.3 percent of the Nation's children) lived in households in which one or more child experienced very low food security.

USDA ERS - Food Security in the U.S.: Key Statistics & Graphics

Although the number of people in poverty went up from 46.2 million in 2011, the national poverty rate was unchanged at 15 percent, the annual report said. The poverty threshold in 2012 was an income of $23,492 for a family of four.

U.S. poverty rises despite economic recovery | Reuters


I don't know why you would think people would charge in to fill the needs of the disabled. Not all of those with disabilities can live on their own as it is. Their checks help assist the family or friends they live with now. Why would the free market take an interest in charitably taking care of the needs of the disabled? The free market operates on profit. There is no profit in charity.

This is interesting about Komen:
Even $63 million is too little to support most of the worthy grant requests Komen receives: of the initial applications it receives, the group funds between 10 percent and 15 percent.

Of the full proposals - those deemed good enough that scientists were invited to submit an extensive description of their proposed research - it funds less than 20 percent, said a leading cancer researcher with close ties to Komen.

One last thought. Not every community will have the resources to charitably care for the disabled. Such is the case where I live, where businesses and the community are hit up for giving by dozens and dozens of worthy causes. There is already saturation for charitable giving and there isn't enough money to go around already. My leading a charge would be but one more hand out. Tax relief at the rate of 12% of taxes paid, would hardly make a dent, even if people were of the mind to donate every penny to the disabled. I'm curious, why wouldn't you lead the charge? You surely have ideas how to consistently raise funds to deliver services and money to the disabled, more efficiently than the government.
 
More platitudes. Congressional approval ratings are at historic lows over the shutdown. I've conceded that there is waste fraud and abuse, but it is 1% of the system and it has to do with people trying to defraud the government, not government workers stealing funds. Charities are at constant risk of theft. United Way has had numerous scandals over misuse of funds that went to pay personal expenses for staff or excessive spending on things like flowers and gifts for donors. Embezzlement is common in charities.

Here's the Charity Watch Hall of Shame: CharityWatch Hall of Shame - charitywatch.org

Your examples:

Food insecurity:

How Many People Lived in Food-Insecure Households?

In 2012:

49.0 million people lived in food-insecure households.
12.4 million adults lived in households with very low food security.
8.3 million children lived in food-insecure households in which children, along with adults, were food insecure.
977,000 children (1.3 percent of the Nation's children) lived in households in which one or more child experienced very low food security.

USDA ERS - Food Security in the U.S.: Key Statistics & Graphics

Although the number of people in poverty went up from 46.2 million in 2011, the national poverty rate was unchanged at 15 percent, the annual report said. The poverty threshold in 2012 was an income of $23,492 for a family of four.

U.S. poverty rises despite economic recovery | Reuters


I don't know why you would think people would charge in to fill the needs of the disabled. Not all of those with disabilities can live on their own as it is. Their checks help assist the family or friends they live with now. Why would the free market take an interest in charitably taking care of the needs of the disabled? The free market operates on profit. There is no profit in charity.

This is interesting about Komen:


One last thought. Not every community will have the resources to charitably care for the disabled. Such is the case where I live, where businesses and the community are hit up for giving by dozens and dozens of worthy causes. There is already saturation for charitable giving and there isn't enough money to go around already. My leading a charge would be but one more hand out. Tax relief at the rate of 12% of taxes paid, would hardly make a dent, even if people were of the mind to donate every penny to the disabled. I'm curious, why wouldn't you lead the charge? You surely have ideas how to consistently raise funds to deliver services and money to the disabled, more efficiently than the government.

Congressional approval ratings have been very low for a long time: RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Congressional Job Approval

Charities do have scandals, as I've said before, but the difference between them and the government is that you can chose to give to another charity, but you have no choice with the government.

As far as your poverty stats, doesn't that prove that the War on Poverty has been a failure? It seems like you're making my point for me. And I live near Detroit, one of the model cities for the War on Poverty. I'm sure you've heard of their problems.

I think people would help because I see how we come together for things like natural disasters, the events after 9/11, etc... . I think we have a very compassionate nation. I know you're downplaying the effect that Komen has, but a lot of people don't donate to charities because they believe the government is already taking care of it, I mean, who doesn't the Federal government give money too?

Once again, you're 12% and my 12% may not amount to much, but a wealthy persons 12% sure does. And why couldn't you lead the charge to a great charity if Komen could? As for me, maybe I would. I certainly would if no one else did.
 
Rocketman, if you are going to presume people are frauds, and some undoubtedly are, you can't really do it off the basis that you saw some guy and he didn't "look" disabled. It doesn't (nor should it) work that way.

I would address your thread, but you have no options that are worth a dang.

FT, at the essential core of the matter, disability does merely come down to an eyeball test. It just depends on who is doing it.
 
Well, my husband is one. He is self employed.

He does however enjoy the use of the roads , the post office service , etc. Our children went to public schools but we also supported all of those Services with the taxes we pay.

If those were the ONLY services that any government was offering, I would be direhard "pro-government" everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.
 
Congressional approval ratings have been very low for a long time: RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Congressional Job Approval

Charities do have scandals, as I've said before, but the difference between them and the government is that you can chose to give to another charity, but you have no choice with the government.

As far as your poverty stats, doesn't that prove that the War on Poverty has been a failure? It seems like you're making my point for me. And I live near Detroit, one of the model cities for the War on Poverty. I'm sure you've heard of their problems.

I think people would help because I see how we come together for things like natural disasters, the events after 9/11, etc... . I think we have a very compassionate nation. I know you're downplaying the effect that Komen has, but a lot of people don't donate to charities because they believe the government is already taking care of it, I mean, who doesn't the Federal government give money too?

Once again, you're 12% and my 12% may not amount to much, but a wealthy persons 12% sure does. And why couldn't you lead the charge to a great charity if Komen could? As for me, maybe I would. I certainly would if no one else did.

I shouldn't have even entertained congressional approval ratings. It has little to nothing to do with whether to fund or not people with disabilities.

Indeed you can choose another charity which is why depending on them to deliver basic services, is foolish.

We aren't discussing the War on Poverty. We are discussing aid to those with disabilities. You asked me to show you need, so I showed you a need that the private sector is not filling. Let us stick to the topic.

I think that is a naive position. Aid to those with disabilities doesn't go away unlike the majority of the work that is accomplished in putting lives back together after a disaster. There is no plan for ongoing lifetime funding.

You are playing up Komen. They raise a lot in comparison to other non-profits, but they can only fund 10-15% of all valuable research requests. 90-85% of requesting researchers have to go find another entity for funding. Often, that's the government. If you read the link to Komen, they grant the most money for breast cancer research, $63 million in 2011 compared to American Cancer society's $17 million for breast cancer research. Obviously they are not filling 90-85% of those unfunded grants. Charity cannot do it all on its own and neither can the government.

You know, I have never once thought of not donating to something, hello breast cancer research, because the government took care of it. If they are asking, then there is a need to be fulfilled.

Maybe you would? How would you approach it? What would be your goal in helping people with disabilities? How would you determine if someone was eligible to receive your help and at what level?
 
I shouldn't have even entertained congressional approval ratings. It has little to nothing to do with whether to fund or not people with disabilities.

Indeed you can choose another charity which is why depending on them to deliver basic services, is foolish.

We aren't discussing the War on Poverty. We are discussing aid to those with disabilities. You asked me to show you need, so I showed you a need that the private sector is not filling. Let us stick to the topic.

I think that is a naive position. Aid to those with disabilities doesn't go away unlike the majority of the work that is accomplished in putting lives back together after a disaster. There is no plan for ongoing lifetime funding.

You are playing up Komen. They raise a lot in comparison to other non-profits, but they can only fund 10-15% of all valuable research requests. 90-85% of requesting researchers have to go find another entity for funding. Often, that's the government. If you read the link to Komen, they grant the most money for breast cancer research, $63 million in 2011 compared to American Cancer society's $17 million for breast cancer research. Obviously they are not filling 90-85% of those unfunded grants. Charity cannot do it all on its own and neither can the government.

You know, I have never once thought of not donating to something, hello breast cancer research, because the government took care of it. If they are asking, then there is a need to be fulfilled.

Maybe you would? How would you approach it? What would be your goal in helping people with disabilities? How would you determine if someone was eligible to receive your help and at what level?

I'm betting JC has zip experience working for/with charities. His let the other guy do it is likely a position of ignorance.

Nationally, something JC doesn't seem to know, most local charities are tapped out and have been since 2008. But, let's suppose for a minute they aren't. Where in the world would charities find the diverse expertise to qualify applicants and determine what precisely is needed. JC doesn't know that most physicians don't know how to write prescriptions for assistive technology or DME. And really they shouldn't know. Assistive technology and DME is often post medical.

The "let other people do it" mentality is often dismissive and almost always a position of ignorance. How will these "other people" working in charities do it? Who will cover them for liability? JC never thought about that? Will one person in a charity be responsible for evaluating, proscribing and training ALS patients with augmentative communication devices? Will that same person provide evaluations, training, etc. eye gaze technology for quads or people who have CP? Will that same person provide the same services for screen readers for people who are blind? Will that same person provide audiological services for people with hearing loss? Of course that person would have to be fluent in ASL as well. Is this same person going to provide workplace evaluations for all of the above and more? Of course this same person working for the charity would also have to have had training in seating and positioning as well. I'm betting JC has no idea that wheelchairs are not at all alike. Improper seating and positioning can cause serious problems. JC's charity person would also need to be able to evaluate the need for and install environmental controls. Not to mention the fact that as with much of the technology environmental controls often need to be engineered per person, per environment. That same person in JC's charity will need to be able to assess a hard of hearing person's work environment to determine what telecommunication device(s) would be required. That would include installing magnetic induction loops, interfacing FM systems with sound boards and making all that compatible with various levels of hearing aid/cochlear implant technology - and training staff and hard of hearing people how to use the technology.

JC's charity person will have to be able to trouble shoot untold issues such as figuring out how to get an employed person in a motorized wheelchair who have limited range of motion to the 11th floor of a building when that person cannot reach the elevator buttons.

Of course one person could not do all of the above by a long shot. It requires many specialists, trained and educated and current in their knowledge of technology and in disability law as well. How is all that going to be funded by JC's charity? What area will that charity cover? How many charities will overlap in coverage in large cities? How will little villages and burgs in the hinterlands have any coverage at all? What would be the continuity of service for place to place? State to state and how would you even know? Who would work for all those charities when employment would depend on the ebb and flow of donations?

Those are a few questions I have concerning the "let someone else do it" mentality.
 
I'm betting JC has zip experience working for/with charities. His let the other guy do it is likely a position of ignorance.

Nationally, something JC doesn't seem to know, most local charities are tapped out and have been since 2008. But, let's suppose for a minute they aren't. Where in the world would charities find the diverse expertise to qualify applicants and determine what precisely is needed. JC doesn't know that most physicians don't know how to write prescriptions for assistive technology or DME. And really they shouldn't know. Assistive technology and DME is often post medical.

The "let other people do it" mentality is often dismissive and almost always a position of ignorance. How will these "other people" working in charities do it? Who will cover them for liability? JC never thought about that? Will one person in a charity be responsible for evaluating, proscribing and training ALS patients with augmentative communication devices? Will that same person provide evaluations, training, etc. eye gaze technology for quads or people who have CP? Will that same person provide the same services for screen readers for people who are blind? Will that same person provide audiological services for people with hearing loss? Of course that person would have to be fluent in ASL as well. Is this same person going to provide workplace evaluations for all of the above and more? Of course this same person working for the charity would also have to have had training in seating and positioning as well. I'm betting JC has no idea that wheelchairs are not at all alike. Improper seating and positioning can cause serious problems. JC's charity person would also need to be able to evaluate the need for and install environmental controls. Not to mention the fact that as with much of the technology environmental controls often need to be engineered per person, per environment. That same person in JC's charity will need to be able to assess a hard of hearing person's work environment to determine what telecommunication device(s) would be required. That would include installing magnetic induction loops, interfacing FM systems with sound boards and making all that compatible with various levels of hearing aid/cochlear implant technology - and training staff and hard of hearing people how to use the technology.

JC's charity person will have to be able to trouble shoot untold issues such as figuring out how to get an employed person in a motorized wheelchair who have limited range of motion to the 11th floor of a building when that person cannot reach the elevator buttons.

Of course one person could not do all of the above by a long shot. It requires many specialists, trained and educated and current in their knowledge of technology and in disability law as well. How is all that going to be funded by JC's charity? What area will that charity cover? How many charities will overlap in coverage in large cities? How will little villages and burgs in the hinterlands have any coverage at all? What would be the continuity of service for place to place? State to state and how would you even know? Who would work for all those charities when employment would depend on the ebb and flow of donations?

Those are a few questions I have concerning the "let someone else do it" mentality.

Spot on Risky! These are the obstacles any charity would have to face in taking over funding for those with disability, which he clearly does not understand. Disability covers such a broad spectrum of issues. It's not a one size fits all proposition and the details of how to provide for each different person with disabilities, is as varied as each person is from another.

He fails to recognize that many of the people in government and outside of it, who help in administering aid, have degrees specializing in the field. What good is helping someone if the giver doesn't know exactly how to help? I have small experience in dealing with disabilities, but this kind of issue has comes up in charitable works I have been involved in. People come in with money and then are like huh? We can't just throw money at it?

To the point and well done and well done, Risky.
 
I'm betting JC has zip experience working for/with charities. His let the other guy do it is likely a position of ignorance.

Nationally, something JC doesn't seem to know, most local charities are tapped out and have been since 2008. But, let's suppose for a minute they aren't. Where in the world would charities find the diverse expertise to qualify applicants and determine what precisely is needed. JC doesn't know that most physicians don't know how to write prescriptions for assistive technology or DME. And really they shouldn't know. Assistive technology and DME is often post medical.

The "let other people do it" mentality is often dismissive and almost always a position of ignorance. How will these "other people" working in charities do it? Who will cover them for liability? JC never thought about that? Will one person in a charity be responsible for evaluating, proscribing and training ALS patients with augmentative communication devices? Will that same person provide evaluations, training, etc. eye gaze technology for quads or people who have CP? Will that same person provide the same services for screen readers for people who are blind? Will that same person provide audiological services for people with hearing loss? Of course that person would have to be fluent in ASL as well. Is this same person going to provide workplace evaluations for all of the above and more? Of course this same person working for the charity would also have to have had training in seating and positioning as well. I'm betting JC has no idea that wheelchairs are not at all alike. Improper seating and positioning can cause serious problems. JC's charity person would also need to be able to evaluate the need for and install environmental controls. Not to mention the fact that as with much of the technology environmental controls often need to be engineered per person, per environment. That same person in JC's charity will need to be able to assess a hard of hearing person's work environment to determine what telecommunication device(s) would be required. That would include installing magnetic induction loops, interfacing FM systems with sound boards and making all that compatible with various levels of hearing aid/cochlear implant technology - and training staff and hard of hearing people how to use the technology.

JC's charity person will have to be able to trouble shoot untold issues such as figuring out how to get an employed person in a motorized wheelchair who have limited range of motion to the 11th floor of a building when that person cannot reach the elevator buttons.

Of course one person could not do all of the above by a long shot. It requires many specialists, trained and educated and current in their knowledge of technology and in disability law as well. How is all that going to be funded by JC's charity? What area will that charity cover? How many charities will overlap in coverage in large cities? How will little villages and burgs in the hinterlands have any coverage at all? What would be the continuity of service for place to place? State to state and how would you even know? Who would work for all those charities when employment would depend on the ebb and flow of donations?

Those are a few questions I have concerning the "let someone else do it" mentality.

You're accusing me of having a "let other people do it" mentality....where do you get that from? I'm saying people shouldn't be forced to give, they should give if they want to. You're the one forcing other people against their will to pay for your programs! And how could you have such a low opinion of the potential of the average American when you think that no one could possibly compare in efficiency to our government. What kind of hell hole was this country before entitlements in your opinion?
 
I shouldn't have even entertained congressional approval ratings. It has little to nothing to do with whether to fund or not people with disabilities.

Indeed you can choose another charity which is why depending on them to deliver basic services, is foolish.

We aren't discussing the War on Poverty. We are discussing aid to those with disabilities. You asked me to show you need, so I showed you a need that the private sector is not filling. Let us stick to the topic.

I think that is a naive position. Aid to those with disabilities doesn't go away unlike the majority of the work that is accomplished in putting lives back together after a disaster. There is no plan for ongoing lifetime funding.

You are playing up Komen. They raise a lot in comparison to other non-profits, but they can only fund 10-15% of all valuable research requests. 90-85% of requesting researchers have to go find another entity for funding. Often, that's the government. If you read the link to Komen, they grant the most money for breast cancer research, $63 million in 2011 compared to American Cancer society's $17 million for breast cancer research. Obviously they are not filling 90-85% of those unfunded grants. Charity cannot do it all on its own and neither can the government.

You know, I have never once thought of not donating to something, hello breast cancer research, because the government took care of it. If they are asking, then there is a need to be fulfilled.

Maybe you would? How would you approach it? What would be your goal in helping people with disabilities? How would you determine if someone was eligible to receive your help and at what level?

You really shouldn't continually discount the massive failures of our government and then assume beyond the shadow of a doubt that our citizens couldn't do a better job. As far as what I would do if it were my charity, I would determine exactly what's wrong with them, drug test them, and schedule regular visits with them to start.
 
Spot on Risky! These are the obstacles any charity would have to face in taking over funding for those with disability, which he clearly does not understand. Disability covers such a broad spectrum of issues. It's not a one size fits all proposition and the details of how to provide for each different person with disabilities, is as varied as each person is from another.

He fails to recognize that many of the people in government and outside of it, who help in administering aid, have degrees specializing in the field. What good is helping someone if the giver doesn't know exactly how to help? I have small experience in dealing with disabilities, but this kind of issue has comes up in charitable works I have been involved in. People come in with money and then are like huh? We can't just throw money at it?

To the point and well done and well done, Risky.

Don't you think that anyone outside of the government has a degree or any expertise in running anything?

Just curious, what would you do if the government cut out all entitlements tomorrow?
 
You're accusing me of having a "let other people do it" mentality....where do you get that from? I'm saying people shouldn't be forced to give, they should give if they want to. You're the one forcing other people against their will to pay for your programs! And how could you have such a low opinion of the potential of the average American when you think that no one could possibly compare in efficiency to our government. What kind of hell hole was this country before entitlements in your opinion?

Well, people were more polite; they looked out for each other; they weren't looking to race bait and divide; children were free to do children things ike playing baseball all day in the summer, or sledriding half the night in the winter without adults worrying about their safety; and most people minded their own business and obeyed the laws....yeah, it was a real hellhole back in those days! Too bad it's gone....

Good evening, JC. :2wave::
 
Well, people were more polite; they looked out for each other; they weren't looking to race bait and divide; children were free to do children things ike playing baseball all day in the summer, or sledriding half the night in the winter without adults worrying about their safety; and most people minded their own business and obeyed the laws....yeah, it was a real hellhole back in those days! Too bad it's gone....

Good evening, JC. :2wave::

Evening Pg :2wave:

Well said!
 
You're accusing me of having a "let other people do it" mentality....where do you get that from? I'm saying people shouldn't be forced to give, they should give if they want to. You're the one forcing other people against their will to pay for your programs! And how could you have such a low opinion of the potential of the average American when you think that no one could possibly compare in efficiency to our government. What kind of hell hole was this country before entitlements in your opinion?

As I have mentioned, I've actually been involved in this area for years and years. My knowledge is based on experience. We know that people with the "let other people do it mentality" contribute very little to improve the quality of life for other people.

Tell me how your program would work.
 
As I have mentioned, I've actually been involved in this area for years and years. My knowledge is based on experience. We know that people with the "let other people do it mentality" contribute very little to improve the quality of life for other people.

Tell me how your program would work.

I don't care how much experience you have, I propose to let everyone give of their own free will, you propose forcing everyone. Now who really has the "let other people do it" mentality?
 
Don't you think that anyone outside of the government has a degree or any expertise in running anything?

Just curious, what would you do if the government cut out all entitlements tomorrow?

Of course there are, but that's a ridiculous question. Do you think a charity could run a national program to replace the disability program that exists today? Do you think a well qualified staff will volunteer? Do you understand the overhead in staffing the varied specialists and administrators who understand the associated laws? Did you have any idea of the intricacies of aiding people with disabilities?

No, what would all those people were throw off disability tomorrow? I am not on any kind of entitlement program. I'd be fine, but those who are would be devastated.
 
Of course there are, but that's a ridiculous question. Do you think a charity could run a national program to replace the disability program that exists today? Do you think a well qualified staff will volunteer? Do you understand the overhead in staffing the varied specialists and administrators who understand the associated laws? Did you have any idea of the intricacies of aiding people with disabilities?

No, what would all those people were throw off disability tomorrow? I am not on any kind of entitlement program. I'd be fine, but those who are would be devastated.

They do at the Komen Foundation. Has your town ever been visited by them? Have you ever seen the White House turned pink or and NFL football game with players wearing pink? I'd say it takes some pretty savvy people to put those kinds of events together, wouldn't you?

And when you say people would be "devastated", what do you mean....what would happen to them?
 
I don't care how much experience you have, I propose to let everyone give of their own free will, you propose forcing everyone. Now who really has the "let other people do it" mentality?

You. You either don't have any idea of a workable program or you don't care (because you don't want anyone forced into paying for disabilities, at all), in either case, "let other other people do it" is appropriate.
 
Of course there are, but that's a ridiculous question. Do you think a charity could run a national program to replace the disability program that exists today? Do you think a well qualified staff will volunteer? Do you understand the overhead in staffing the varied specialists and administrators who understand the associated laws? Did you have any idea of the intricacies of aiding people with disabilities?

No, what would all those people were throw off disability tomorrow? I am not on any kind of entitlement program. I'd be fine, but those who are would be devastated.

Exactly.

JC assumes that people with disabilities do not want to work. He assumes TABs (temporarily able bodied), such as himself, are virtuous and inherently good, while at the same time assuming that people with disabilities are lazy slackers who would rather live in near poverty than work.

JC's world: Able bodied = Virtuous, Worthy; Disabled = Lazy, Deceitful, Dependent, Drug addict

Therefore when the day comes that JC becomes disabled, he will transition from virtuous and worthy to lazy, deceitful, dependent and drug addicted. Unfortunately JC is not alone in subscribing to this belief. It is why attitudes disable. It is also a major reason why adventitiously disabled people often required mental health assistance.
 
They do at the Komen Foundation. Has your town ever been visited by them? Have you ever seen the White House turned pink or and NFL football game with players wearing pink? I'd say it takes some pretty savvy people to put those kinds of events together, wouldn't you?

And when you say people would be "devastated", what do you mean....what would happen to them?

No, people get paid at Komen. The CEO gets $400k +.

They also focus on ONE diagnosis, breast cancer. This is what you are not understanding. Re-read Risky's post. There needs to be specialists for a broad spectrum of disabilities. Someone skilled in working with the blind, is not appropriate for a person with high functioning autism. Someone skilled in working with amputees, is not appropriate for a deaf person.

No, my town has not been visited by Komen. If I want to participate in an event with the Komen brand, I have to drive to Portland.

Aso their savvy, those savvy people raised enough money to fund only 10-15% of the requests deemed worthy.

What do you think would happen? The same as if you were fired without savings or investments. Without their payments, no rent, no therapies or treatments or meds. Is it that difficult to comprehend what disability funds pay for?
 
You. You either don't have any idea of a workable program or you don't care (because you don't want anyone forced into paying for disabilities, at all), in either case, "let other other people do it" is appropriate.

He is unable to conceptualize what is required, Gina.
 
Back
Top Bottom