• 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 .
Look, if I had someone randomly come up to me and claim that I did not deserve the accommodations or benefits I receive under a completely different program or institution (as I never applied for this program), because I did not "look" disabled to them, I would tell them to "get f*cked."

You may do it, but that would mean little to the people in the room shaking their head as you take advantage of programs made for people who really have diseases and handicaps that prevent them from waorking.
 
I am on a computer now, do excel, ppt, and various word documents and did learn it in college



Not really relevant, since I wasn't talking about you or anything you learned in college.

We're talking about some guy who isn't going to able to retrain as The Computer Guy, and who is too physically limited to do those jobs he's qualified for.
 
You may do it, but that would mean little to the people in the room shaking their head as you take advantage of programs made for people who really have diseases and handicaps that prevent them from waorking.

Except to me, you'd just be some non-disabled yahoo who came across a newsletter once some years ago and thinks they know what they are talking about. There's no shortage of local morons who think they actually know something. It's happened to me quite often.

You haven't access to my medical records, you have no expertise, no professional qualifications, and you run up in people's business telling them they aren't disabled when most of the time they are. They don't have to explain themselves to you, but you think they do, because you read something once.
 
Was he by himself or possibly have a disable passenger. It doesn't have to be the driver that disabled.

Wasn't it Larry the Cable Guy that had a joke about that?

It is like someone complaining because someone like my aunt is loading stuff into her van parked in a handicap spot about how she's not disabled, and then behind her comes my uncle, a quadriplegic in a wheelchair or perhaps she was dropping him off somewhere (for being quadriplegic, he's pretty independent) while she "runs" errands in the area. It's like people simply assume they are seeing the whole picture just because they see a snapshot.
 
Wasn't it Larry the Cable Guy that had a joke about that?

It is like someone complaining because someone like my aunt is loading stuff into her van parked in a handicap spot about how she's not disabled, and then behind her comes my uncle, a quadriplegic in a wheelchair or perhaps she was dropping him off somewhere (for being quadriplegic, he's pretty independent) while she "runs" errands in the area. It's like people simply assume they are seeing the whole picture just because they see a snapshot.
Okay but if she's running errands while he's not with her, hence his mobility isn't an issue, she should, imo, park normally.
 
no it is correct, they are milking the system

Are you a doctor who has examined the person? If not your uneducated opinion is irrelevant.
 
Not really relevant, since I wasn't talking about you or anything you learned in college.

We're talking about some guy who isn't going to able to retrain as The Computer Guy, and who is too physically limited to do those jobs he's qualified for.

why should people only be considered good for one career? That right there is one of the higher cost of business when a union is involved. Some of the contracts state that they can home if the machine they are assigned goes down and can't be fixed in an hour. There is NO logical reason someone can't learn a new job. It would be cheaper to retrain that pay them to sit at home and drain our already fragile economy
 
Are you a doctor who has examined the person? If not your uneducated opinion is irrelevant.

I guess it doesn't, I have turned two in so far this year and both lost their benefits, there will be more
 
Okay but if she's running errands while he's not with her, hence his mobility isn't an issue, she should, imo, park normally.

I'm saying more along the lines of she leaves him at a Starbucks or other restaurant while she grocery shops and does other things in that same place/area. That's what I was trying to say with the quotes around run. Basically, not moving the car, just returning to it because she has many things going on. She shouldn't have to move it just because she might be coming back to it without my uncle.

I agree that if they don't have someone with them when they drive to park, then they shouldn't park there. But then it would also depend on whether the person will be picking the handicapped person up too.
 
Except to me, you'd just be some non-disabled yahoo who came across a newsletter once some years ago and thinks they know what they are talking about. There's no shortage of local morons who think they actually know something. It's happened to me quite often.

You haven't access to my medical records, you have no expertise, no professional qualifications, and you run up in people's business telling them they aren't disabled when most of the time they are. They don't have to explain themselves to you, but you think they do, because you read something once.

If you are biking, boating, and mowing your yard while working cash jobs and drawing disability, you are a ****ing fraud......PERIOD.
 
why should people only be considered good for one career? That right there is one of the higher cost of business when a union is involved. Some of the contracts state that they can home if the machine they are assigned goes down and can't be fixed in an hour. There is NO logical reason someone can't learn a new job. It would be cheaper to retrain that pay them to sit at home and drain our already fragile economy

Vocational Rehabilitation.......
 
If you are biking, boating, and mowing your yard while working cash jobs and drawing disability, you are a ****ing fraud......PERIOD.

Ah, no. Period.
 
Under the ADA and the related (Federal Employees) Rehabilitation act, disabled means suffering an impairment that substantially limits a major life function such as walking, sleeping, working etc. The Democrats in Congress modified existing Court interpretations (Sutton and Williams) to expand the definition allowing more people to claim protected status under those two acts and thus sue under the twin theories of a "failure to accommodate" or "disparate treatment based on status".

having litigated dozens of such cases there are as many legitimate cases where employers either failure to accommodate or subject the individual to disparate treatment as there are cases where lousy employees try to avoid the consequences of their poor performance. I note that the USPS has something nearing 30% of its workers engaged in Limited (due to on the job impairments) or Light (due to impairments not involving workers compensation implications) duty. Many of those people are not "disabled" within the meaning of the two federal laws but are being accommodated due to alleged impairments

Its a huge racket and we need to be far more careful in evaluating such claims and far more rigorous in rooting out fraud
 
yes you would be and should be called out on it

Apparently the disabled aren't afforded the right to maintain their homes or have recreational activities.
 
I'm saying more along the lines of she leaves him at a Starbucks or other restaurant while she grocery shops and does other things in that same place/area. That's what I was trying to say with the quotes around run. Basically, not moving the car, just returning to it because she has many things going on. She shouldn't have to move it just because she might be coming back to it without my uncle.

I agree that if they don't have someone with them when they drive to park, then they shouldn't park there. But then it would also depend on whether the person will be picking the handicapped person up too.
Then we agree. As I said so long as mobility isn't an issue and that would include picking up and dropping off, and going with. I was thinking drop off, take vehicle to run errands, then return to pick up. The in-between errands shouldn't be parked in handicap.
 
Apparently the disabled aren't afforded the right to maintain their homes or have recreational activities.

if they are truly disabled how can they maintain anything, why not maintain a job?
 
Someone should be put on disability if they have a condition that makes it impossible (or at least especially difficult) to work. If someone is injured in a way that they are still able to work, but no longer in their current job field, they should be retrained to work in a field that they are able to work in. For example if I lost the use of my legs, I couldn't do my job any more, since it requires me to drive a lot, but I could still do some jobs.
 
Then we agree. As I said so long as mobility isn't an issue and that would include picking up and dropping off, and going with. I was thinking drop off, take vehicle to run errands, then return to pick up. The in-between errands shouldn't be parked in handicap.

I agree, I just couldn't quite get put in that first post what I was trying to say. You should have the person with you or be picking them up when parking in handicapped parking if you aren't the person. But that shouldn't mean that you can't go back to the vehicle and happen to be there when someone else notices you alone doing something at the handicapped placarded vehicle. To me, it is like people are assuming that someone is scamming the system just because they don't necessarily have all the details. Some people may do this, but it doesn't mean all are just because a person happens to see only a "snap shot" of the event that has them in handicap parking.
 
Someone should be put on disability if they have a condition that makes it impossible (or at least especially difficult) to work. If someone is injured in a way that they are still able to work, but no longer in their current job field, they should be retrained to work in a field that they are able to work in. For example if I lost the use of my legs, I couldn't do my job any more, since it requires me to drive a lot, but I could still do some jobs.

Sorry about your loss. I have alot of respect for people like you that always see the rainbow or white lining.
 
You're joking, right?

Why can't they maintain a job? mowing climbing on the house, changing the oil is all intensive labor, can't work?
 
My stance on this has changed dramatically since my father became disabled after his traumatic brain injury.

He cannot wipe his own ass because he cannot use his hands. He cannot walk without support. He needs to be watched constantly in case he wanders off or falls down, or decides to eat raw sausage again because, for some reason that even he didn't understand, he thought it was an ice cream sandwich.

He doesn't always remember me. He tells the same stories 100 times a day. He forgets conversations while he's having the conversation. He's lost the ability to express any emotions at all (his sister died two and a half years ago and he had slightly less of an emotional reaction to it than a sock would have learning it's partner sock had been lost in the dryer). He tends to drool.

That's definitely disabled. We can use that as a baseline. Any piece of **** "gaming" the system is making it harder for people like him to get care they need and deserves to be given a disability. You might be surprised by this, but the scrutiny my father gets subjected to is quite extensive. Caseworkers seem to want to believe that he's faking his brain injury. Never mind that he spent nearly a year in a coma. Never mind that anyone who isn't dealing with brain damage can take one look at him and see in just a few seconds that something is definitely "off" with him.

You see, his actual symptoms are considered "red flags" for fraud on paper. When a person can't answer a simple question like "can you spell dog backwards", they might be yucking it up to get a measly little check (because it's really **** all money) or they might just have severe brain damage that prevents them from accomplishing that simple task because their ****ing brain does not function correctly anymore. When the medical documents all say "this person is permanently brain-damaged and cannot perform simple tasks that most people take for granted", maybe it's better to use some ****ing common sense.

But instead, he gets scrutinized to a high degree while some jackasses are "milking" the system. Not many, mind you, because it really is just a pittance that one gets from disability, but some.

and here's the news flash. Those people who are milking the system are still going to get their money when the cuts happen. They know how to get the system to work for them. Cuts will only end up affecting the people who need it, like my father, because the people who actually need it don't usually know how to work the system. They don't want to be a part of the system, they have to be. the choice was taken away from them. So they rely on others to use their ****ing heads, but sadly, very few people can do that. Even with his brain damage, my father is still smarter than most government officials. In fact, the only job I think he could hold these days is congressman, because you certainly do not need a functioning brain in that job.
 
Back
Top Bottom