• 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 .
This is some sad parroting I'm seeing.
 
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?

The CEO may be getting paid but most of those raising the money aren't. And I never said someone wouldn't get paid, but pretty much all of those people you see walking down the street in pink are volunteers bringing over $1000 in donations with them. That's a lot more successful and efficient than the government.
 
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.

That is a sore point with me. People who assume they will never be disabled, unemployed for long period of time, or catastrophically ill to the point of losing their home and therefore think that people who are in any one of those circumstances are lazy, deceitful, dependent or drug addicted. I know people who did everything right (college, great job, a home and savings) but nearly or did lost it all when they were laid off and unemployed for a prolonged period or got sick. Firmly middle class people, or even upper middle in terms of earnings. They are none of that (lazy, deceitful, dependent, drug addicted). I don't ever wish bad fortune on anyone. As you have described, there may be no avoiding disability in old age and then they may finally understand why the social safety net is necessary.
 
The CEO may be getting paid but most of those raising the money aren't. And I never said someone wouldn't get paid, but pretty much all of those people you see walking down the street in pink are volunteers bringing over $1000 in donations with them. That's a lot more successful and efficient than the government.

Raising money? That's only part of it. The easiest part. How to pay it out. Who is qualified to receive benefits and who is not. That is the nuts and bolts of aid to those with disabilities.

There is no comparison to be made with respect to fund raising for charity and the government.
 
That is a sore point with me. People who assume they will never be disabled, unemployed for long period of time, or catastrophically ill to the point of losing their home and therefore think that people who are in any one of those circumstances are lazy, deceitful, dependent or drug addicted. I know people who did everything right (college, great job, a home and savings) but nearly or did lost it all when they were laid off and unemployed for a prolonged period or got sick. Firmly middle class people, or even upper middle in terms of earnings. They are none of that (lazy, deceitful, dependent, drug addicted). I don't ever wish bad fortune on anyone. As you have described, there may be no avoiding disability in old age and then they may finally understand why the social safety net is necessary.

I am proud to say that I have met so many disabled people who have taught me so much. I am truly grateful for all I have learned.

A couple of years ago I met a 38 year old actual rocket scientist, brilliant guy. He was married, 2 kids, great job. I assume he had a rocket scientist income. He slipped off a three step step ladder in his kitchen, hit his head on the counter on the way down and instantly became a high level quad - can't move anything below his neck. Because of government funded programs his life was saved, he was able to get a very sophisticated wheel chair, he was introduced to and trained to use extremely sophisticated assistive technology and software - and because his employer believed in him he was able to return to his job, with necessary accommodations. He got lucky after being very unlucky. His life changed in a blink of an eye.

Everyone thinks, "It will never happen to me."

Maybe I have simply had the incredible good fortune never to have met lazy, deceitful, drug addicted disabled people who enjoy being dependent. Certainly there are some out there, but damned if I have met them.
 
Raising money? That's only part of it. The easiest part. How to pay it out. Who is qualified to receive benefits and who is not. That is the nuts and bolts of aid to those with disabilities.

There is no comparison to be made with respect to fund raising for charity and the government.

Yeah, and the government's brilliant at paying it out!
 
That is a sore point with me. People who assume they will never be disabled, unemployed for long period of time, or catastrophically ill to the point of losing their home and therefore think that people who are in any one of those circumstances are lazy, deceitful, dependent or drug addicted. I know people who did everything right (college, great job, a home and savings) but nearly or did lost it all when they were laid off and unemployed for a prolonged period or got sick. Firmly middle class people, or even upper middle in terms of earnings. They are none of that (lazy, deceitful, dependent, drug addicted). I don't ever wish bad fortune on anyone. As you have described, there may be no avoiding disability in old age and then they may finally understand why the social safety net is necessary.

How do you know that I've never had a catastrophic incident happen to me? And why would you assume that I look at disabled people with disdain just because I have more faith in the private sector than the government? I think your righteous indignation is clouding your judgement.
 
I am proud to say that I have met so many disabled people who have taught me so much. I am truly grateful for all I have learned.

A couple of years ago I met a 38 year old actual rocket scientist, brilliant guy. He was married, 2 kids, great job. I assume he had a rocket scientist income. He slipped off a three step step ladder in his kitchen, hit his head on the counter on the way down and instantly became a high level quad - can't move anything below his neck. Because of government funded programs his life was saved, he was able to get a very sophisticated wheel chair, he was introduced to and trained to use extremely sophisticated assistive technology and software - and because his employer believed in him he was able to return to his job, with necessary accommodations. He got lucky after being very unlucky. His life changed in a blink of an eye.

Everyone thinks, "It will never happen to me."

Maybe I have simply had the incredible good fortune never to have met lazy, deceitful, drug addicted disabled people who enjoy being dependent. Certainly there are some out there, but damned if I have met them.

He is extremely lucky there is such a system in place to save his and his family's life. Who knows how they would have coped had there been nothing. Certainly not at the level he earned through a life time of schooling and work. That is a terrific example of the good the "inefficient" government does. Every day.

What would people who want to end disability payments have done with people like that? Hope that other people would come around to help him and his family at that level?
 
How do you know that I've never had a catastrophic incident happen to me? And why would you assume that I look at disabled people with disdain just because I have more faith in the private sector than the government? I think your righteous indignation is clouding your judgement.

Because you show absolutely no understanding of the hurdles the disabled face. What it takes to care for them. The intricacies of treatment, therapies (including occupational). Nothing you have written indicates you have any experience with it.

If you have been through a catastrophic incident, I don't know why you wouldn't have shared it by now. At least to shove it back at me that you overcame it, without help.
 
Because you show absolutely no understanding of the hurdles the disabled face. What it takes to care for them. The intricacies of treatment, therapies (including occupational). Nothing you have written indicates you have any experience with it.

If you have been through a catastrophic incident, I don't know why you wouldn't have shared it by now. At least to shove it back at me that you overcame it, without help.

Going to bed Gina, will resume tomorrow. Goodnight.
 
Depends. During the 19th century a socialist movement was created that didn't try to remove capitalism completely, but simply tried to relieve what they saw as unequal or unfair parts of it. You know, the whole relieve the world of it's suffering bull****. Still, the rest of it was all there, but they denied any association with socialist ideals and claimed themselves as capitalists. Of course, they didn't at all endorse a free market, free trade, and didn't really support private property or the private means of production. They set forth to control industry, control prices, control what people could bought, what they were buying it with, what people were paid. how they were paid, what they were to be provided, what could be sold, how it could be sold, they were interested in all of it. In the end, all that was left was the illusion that the property was private. In fact, much like it is today it was more true to say that government owned the property of the people than the people owned it. Much like it is today they lacked most of the ability to control it and where treated much like something is merely renting and allowed to enjoy the property as long as they obeyed the rules and paid the state. In the end, it was just another approach towards the same ends. A different strain of the same principles and goals, but without the obvious objectionables. What was interesting perhaps is the results were different in some regards.

I don't understand why people think there are two separate systems operating and only the extremes are possible? This country is mostly capitalism with a form of socialism. I don't think trying to create a system that benefits the most people is an attempt to relieve all suffering. Giving a majority an opportunity to earn a share of the pie benefits society as a whole, instead of allowing a small percentage at the top to use their position and leverage to rig the game. There's a point were success becomes more about ego and power at others expense than achieving anything positive.

I won't disagree that as a society we've raised a couple generations of lazy, self entitled brats with little work ethic. But on the other hand we've also created a huge swath of unemployment and disparaging income, which far outweighs any abuse of the social system.
 
Raising money? That's only part of it. The easiest part. How to pay it out. Who is qualified to receive benefits and who is not. That is the nuts and bolts of aid to those with disabilities.

There is no comparison to be made with respect to fund raising for charity and the government.

Exactly.
My youngest daughter was an unpaid intern helping with fundraising and interviewing needy families for the Salvation Army in her college town in Michigan while she was in college.
She contacted DJs and radio personalities to donate their time for many fund raisers, called local businesses for donations for auctions and other fundraisers, helped the marines with their toys for tots which they collected and stored in an uuheated ( In Michigan during November and December ) warehouse with no running water, she was a volunteer bell ringer.

She loved most of the work but the part of the work that really broke her heart was when she had to tell some of the truly needy families who asked for help that she was so sorry but that the Salvation Army had no funds left to help them.
 
NO VOTE
The selections are "overly fixed".
It is stupid to draw any sort of conclusion based on one anecdotal event.....or even ten......
But, I do agree, the system can be improved...
Both myself and my wife are on disability....believe me, life is NO endless picnic.
What we need is a far more tolerant society.
Lawyers advertising on TV ; at one time, they were above this......
TV advertising is repugnant enough as it is...
 
Working people that see these people taking advantage of the system care. The statute reads and I quote "IF you are physically able to perform ANY job you aren't qualified for disability"

Compromise then ...look it up - conservatives..
A 40-60 or 50-50 deal for those disabled...which may satisfy both liberal and conservative...
I'll admit, this is probably unworkable and a lousy idea...
But, as I say, we do need more tolerance.
 
Exactly.
My youngest daughter was an unpaid intern helping with fundraising and interviewing needy families for the Salvation Army in her college town in Michigan while she was in college.
She contacted DJs and radio personalities to donate their time for many fund raisers, called local businesses for donations for auctions and other fundraisers, helped the marines with their toys for tots which they collected and stored in an uuheated ( In Michigan during November and December ) warehouse with no running water, she was a volunteer bell ringer.

She loved most of the work but the part of the work that really broke her heart was when she had to tell some of the truly needy families who asked for help that she was so sorry but that the Salvation Army had no funds left to help them.

How heart breaking, minnie. It's all fun and good feelings while raising money. Doing the hard work of determining who gets what, and trying to keep out the riff raff too, that's where the rubber meets the road.

My hats off to your daughter for interning with them. Not the gig everyone is clamoring to get. Good on her!
 
Because you show absolutely no understanding of the hurdles the disabled face. What it takes to care for them. The intricacies of treatment, therapies (including occupational). Nothing you have written indicates you have any experience with it.

If you have been through a catastrophic incident, I don't know why you wouldn't have shared it by now. At least to shove it back at me that you overcame it, without help.

It's not that I don't understand the hurdles they face, it's that I have faith that the private sector can meet those needs. I think a person should have the freedom to choose whether or not to help and you don't. I believe that private sector enterprise and charity are much more efficient overall than the government and you don't. I think that's pretty much what it boils down to.

I don't want to share what I've been through with the entire forum, but I'll just say it hasn't been easy. I think I've earned the right to have an opinion on this not only as a person with empathy for the disabled but also as a taxpayer.
 
It's not that I don't understand the hurdles they face, it's that I have faith that the private sector can meet those needs. I think a person should have the freedom to choose whether or not to help and you don't. I believe that private sector enterprise and charity are much more efficient overall than the government and you don't. I think that's pretty much what it boils down to.

I don't want to share what I've been through with the entire forum, but I'll just say it hasn't been easy. I think I've earned the right to have an opinion on this not only as a person with empathy for the disabled but also as a taxpayer.

If you think that charity can replace the disability system, you do not have any idea what you are talking about. It has been explained, in great detail, what is required to service such a diverse population. You have yet to address that, to propose any kind of program in any capacity other than to repeat charity, private sector, efficiency. Faith does not make it so. The real world depends on planning, staffing and implementation.

If the private sector saw a dime's worth of value in the "disability market", they would be mining it. Komen does one thing, raise money for breast cancer. You would have to have dozens of charities the size of Komen to cover the broad spectrum that is the current disability program. Which you have also not acknowledged.

I understand not sharing with the forum and I'm sorry it hasn't been easy. I just doubt you comprehend what the rest of those with disability face.
 
I don't understand why people think there are two separate systems operating and only the extremes are possible? This country is mostly capitalism with a form of socialism.

Because the one naturally destorys the other and the principles it sets forth. That however has nothing to do with my argument. The argument was that the individuals in question where socialists that had the idea to control private property and the means of production instead of making their move transparent and remove it for all to see.

I don't think trying to create a system that benefits the most people is an attempt to relieve all suffering.
Giving a majority an opportunity to earn a share of the pie benefits society as a whole, instead of allowing a small percentage at the top to use their position and leverage to rig the game. There's a point were success becomes more about ego and power at others expense than achieving anything positive.

Giving people services at the expense of fellow citizens is not providing them an opportunity to do anything nor does it benefit society. It simply allows the government to violate its mission and violate the rights of people. It is not the mission of government to provide people what they need to survive at other peoples expense, nor is it in line with capitalist principles or the principles of a free society.

I won't disagree that as a society we've raised a couple generations of lazy, self entitled brats with little work ethic. But on the other hand we've also created a huge swath of unemployment and disparaging income, which far outweighs any abuse of the social system.

I don't really care about any of this.
 
"Can the law, whose necessary sanction is force, be reasonably employed upon anything beyond securing to every one his right? I defy anyone to remove it from this circle without perverting it, and consequently turning force against right. And as this is the most fatal, the most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined, it must be admitted that the true solution, so much sought after, of the social problem, is contained in these simple words—LAW IS ORGANIZED JUSTICE.-Frederic Bastiat

This idea you can take from someone and give to others will forever be theft and therefore a violation of ones property and as it is the duty of the state to protect the property of the citizens it can therefore not in turn take part in acts of theft without violating it's duties and it's mission. Socialism is incapable with a government upholding it's mission and carrying out justice. It really doesn't matter if you are going to simply take part in it half way or all the way as no matter the amount the government is taking part in injustice.
 
Last edited:
If you think that charity can replace the disability system, you do not have any idea what you are talking about. It has been explained, in great detail, what is required to service such a diverse population. You have yet to address that, to propose any kind of program in any capacity other than to repeat charity, private sector, efficiency. Faith does not make it so. The real world depends on planning, staffing and implementation.

If the private sector saw a dime's worth of value in the "disability market", they would be mining it. Komen does one thing, raise money for breast cancer. You would have to have dozens of charities the size of Komen to cover the broad spectrum that is the current disability program. Which you have also not acknowledged.

I understand not sharing with the forum and I'm sorry it hasn't been easy. I just doubt you comprehend what the rest of those with disability face.

And that's what the private sector does much more efficiently than the government, do you doubt that? Here's what would more than likely happen if there were no more welfare: Local churches and charities would take over and pick up any slack that the families and friends of the disabled couldn't handle. The poorer communities would receive funding from the huge national charities. As far as corruption goes, the whistle blowing media is much more wide spread and effective than it was before welfare, so they will expose much of it. And the citizens will have a much better shot at fixing the corruption as you can easily shut off the funding to a corrupt organization or fire corrupt workers where you can't with the government, or at least it's not nearly as easily. A disabled person would visit an office designed to help the poor and disabled and would receive an extensive interview and check up by a doctor and that would determine if they would receive any help and how much.
 
And that's what the private sector does much more efficiently than the government, do you doubt that? Here's what would more than likely happen if there were no more welfare: Local churches and charities would take over and pick up any slack that the families and friends of the disabled couldn't handle. The poorer communities would receive funding from the huge national charities. As far as corruption goes, the whistle blowing media is much more wide spread and effective than it was before welfare, so they will expose much of it. And the citizens will have a much better shot at fixing the corruption as you can easily shut off the funding to a corrupt organization or fire corrupt workers where you can't with the government, or at least it's not nearly as easily. A disabled person would visit an office designed to help the poor and disabled and would receive an extensive interview and check up by a doctor and that would determine if they would receive any help and how much.

1. Fraud is makes up 1% of disability system.
2. Defrauding employees in the government, are not that common. Fraudulent spending and embezzlement are constant problems with charities.
3. What office would they go to? Who staffs it? Pays employees? Who determines what needs the disabled person has? What if it's not medical assistance but funds to pay living expenses?
 
1. Fraud is makes up 1% of disability system.
2. Defrauding employees in the government, are not that common. Fraudulent spending and embezzlement are constant problems with charities.
3. What office would they go to? Who staffs it? Pays employees? Who determines what needs the disabled person has? What if it's not medical assistance but funds to pay living expenses?

Gleaners seem pretty successful, maybe we could use them as a model. You would have an administrative staff to handle these things, just like any charity. And if the disabled need funds, they may get them, who's to say they wouldn't?

Also, please give this video a try if you have time: Disability, USA - 60 Minutes - CBS News
 
Back
Top Bottom