RE: Minorities

RE: Minorities (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Owner59 -> RE: Minorities (5/21/2012 7:31:42 AM)
Lying and committing fraud are completely other subjects than living as disabled or like many of us,the future disabled. Can we keep it on topic and take the subject seriously? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ When people are able and healthy,it`s very easy to avoid thinking about/dealing with those who`s abilities are diminishing.That`s not always wise. We`re born defenseless and without help,will die. As we grow and learn and become independent,we don`t need help but it`s pretty silly to believe that that`ll last forever. As we were born with growing(over time,w/ help) but diminished capacities,so will our capacities diminish over time as our bodies fall apart.And one day we`ll all(if we don`t drop dead)need help to survive.It`s another natural phase of life. How we treat the elderly and disabled now will greatly impact how we are treated, when those days arrive for us.

Moonhead -> RE: Minorities (5/21/2012 7:50:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder but it skews the numbers. Does it? Do you have a citation demonstrating that a significant percentage of the disabled in your country are perfectly healthy fakes?

truckinslave -> RE: Minorities (5/21/2012 7:55:33 AM)
quote: It's the disabled. Want to keep that population growing? Just keep lowering the threshold for joining.....

littlewonder -> RE: Minorities (5/21/2012 8:03:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder but it skews the numbers. Does it? Do you have a citation demonstrating that a significant percentage of the disabled in your country are perfectly healthy fakes? And all I'm saying is that a census really isn't a very good way to verify though. Anyone can say anything at all on a census. Doesn't make it true. Imo, censuses are a waste of time. I do genealogy work and when I look at a census I take it with a grain of salt. I've already found a ton of mistakes on them because either the census taker didn't understand the person and/or the person lied for various reasons.

Moonhead -> RE: Minorities (5/21/2012 10:16:18 AM)
Absolutely, but a census is probably a better starting point in this case than looking at people's hospital records. It won't get you sued, for a start...

DarlingSavage -> RE: Minorities (5/21/2012 11:57:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Can we just go ahead and presume that anyone who questions the validity of some percentage of those "disabilities," will be taken as hating all the people who legitimately are disabled? In what way are you "questioning the validity"? BTW, much of my information came from the 2000 Census brief on disability. http://www.disabilityfunders.org/webfm_send/70 I did the research after the topic came up in a training at work, though I don't think I'd be given that information at work if it were wrong, do you? I mean, I work for a respectable mental health agency. I have to wonder how much of this is the responsibility of the pharmaceutical companies and doctors prescribing medicines for a living. My sister is coming off of a whole lot of meds that have been prescribed to her by doctors and she probably shouldn't have been on any of them. She went to a therapist and told her how much she was taken and how many different meds she was on and they told her that was way, way too much for her size and that that group of doctors was known among the local medical community for doing that kind of thing. There is also a book out, which I've not read, but I'm dying to. Anatomy of an Epidemic. http://robertwhitaker.org/robertwhitaker.org/Anatomy%20of%20an%20Epidemic.html The link also provides access to the studies that were used to compile this book. IMO, very, VERY few people would claim to be disabled. Nobody wants to truly be disabled. The checks are a pittance and nowhere near enough to actually live on, according to the people I've known living this way. Also, they are not allowed to get any work while on disability, even though the money they get isn't enough to live on. Those are the sad facts.

Karmastic -> RE: Minorities (5/22/2012 2:47:33 AM)
thanks OP, i never would have thought of the disabled as a "minority group", although i realize they are protected similarly. and i don't mean that as debating what a disabled person is (or how many "real" ones), but rather, just thinking of them in those terms.

Mupainurpleasure -> RE: Minorities (5/22/2012 6:46:50 AM)
having a disability is not the same as being diasbled. i am dyslexic

Moonhead -> RE: Minorities (5/22/2012 8:27:45 AM)
I don't think they count dyslexia as a disability these days.

Mupainurpleasure -> RE: Minorities (5/22/2012 10:41:53 AM)
the thing is all these reports are dependent on what they do count and they don't say. makes me think it's hyperbole. 12 million recieved ss disability in 2010. Of those all but 3 million worked 40 quarters first. it comes out to between 3 and 4 percent total and about 1 percent who were always disabled.those getting a check less than 4 percent Of t hose many end up returning to work, others are terminal, others have conditions like AIDS and MS and severe mental illness( my brother heard satan often...did u want him working next to you or locked up on ssi?) we should be grateful not to have the problems they have and realize articles like this are false bloody flags meant to inflame you about those not actually getting over on you

Moonhead -> RE: Minorities (5/22/2012 12:10:56 PM)
Absolutely, but a lot of diseases (MS is an excellent example, kudos) aren't considered disablities either, at least until such time as they're actually universally regarded as a real disease. There's a lot (imo, much of it completely fucking ridiculous) debate about what is and isn't a disability. Also, there's quite a range within many disabilities: a lot of autistics are pretty functional, and you obviously have your own dyslexia (I'm well aware how crippling a bad case of that one can be) under control. Unfortunately, you twats who insist that because the functional end of some disabilities are able to work for a living, then anybody who claims to be disabled is obviously a lying fraud, even if they're a quadraplegic with spinal injuries so severe that they can't breathe on their own. My own attitude tends to be that if giving a few scamsters (and it's mostly a very few) a free ride means that people who actually need help and support get it, then that's a trivial price to pay. (But then I'm a European lefty who sees a welfare state as a good thing, rather than an American libertarian with a copy of Atlas Shrugged stuffed so far up their arse that they can taste it...)

PeonForHer -> RE: Minorities (5/22/2012 12:17:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead But then I'm a European lefty who sees a welfare state as a good thing, rather than an American libertarian with a copy of Atlas Shrugged stuffed so far up their arse that they can taste it... Now that was rather rude, Moonhead. [:D] PS: "[UK government] statistics show that fraud accounted for just 0.5 per cent of spending on Disability Living Allowance and 0.3 per cent of spending on Incapacity Benefit." http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2011/10/are-disabled-people-swinging-the-lead/ Still, those low figures should not lead us to be complacent. After all, it's not far short of the percentage of government ministers who've been found guilty of fraud.

Moonhead -> RE: Minorities (5/22/2012 12:26:47 PM)
If I'm honest, the hysteria in the red tops about benefits fraud (a tiny chunk of the annual budget), as compared to tax evasion by high rollers really pisses me off.

PeonForHer -> RE: Minorities (5/22/2012 12:55:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead If I'm honest, the hysteria in the red tops about benefits fraud (a tiny chunk of the annual budget), as compared to tax evasion by high rollers really pisses me off. Likewise. How long before some even zanier righty starts talking about concentrating all the benefits claimants into camps?

LadyHibiscus -> RE: Minorities (5/22/2012 1:04:27 PM)
Does that study say that "disabled" and "collecting disability" are the same thing? Does it include people off on worker's comp claims? Very wibbly-wobbly. I've worked a lot of quarters, and my SSDI would amount to enough to pay for groceries and a tidy cardboard box. Not something that people willingly go into, unless they have a fairly low bar for a contented existence.

Mupainurpleasure -> RE: Minorities (5/22/2012 1:44:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Absolutely, but a lot of diseases (MS is an excellent example, kudos) aren't considered disablities either, at least until such time as they're actually universally regarded as a real disease. There's a lot (imo, much of it completely fucking ridiculous) debate about what is and isn't a disability. Also, there's quite a range within many disabilities: a lot of autistics are pretty functional, and you obviously have your own dyslexia (I'm well aware how crippling a bad case of that one can be) under control. Unfortunately, you twats who insist that because the functional end of some disabilities are able to work for a living, then anybody who claims to be disabled is obviously a lying fraud, even if they're a quadraplegic with spinal injuries so severe that they can't breathe on their own. My own attitude tends to be that if giving a few scamsters (and it's mostly a very few) a free ride means that people who actually need help and support get it, then that's a trivial price to pay. (But then I'm a European lefty who sees a welfare state as a good thing, rather than an American libertarian with a copy of Atlas Shrugged stuffed so far up their arse that they can taste it...) were you channeling me when yhou wrote that? It's so very true and ssi is generally under 1k a month so it's not like they are living large on their disability despite perceptions otherwise. Social security is actually quite difficyulty to get on. They refuse 2/3 the first two times around and of those who push on for a few yrs to courtt a third loose. Two yrs no income kind of drives the scammers into the job market

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Minorities (5/22/2012 1:51:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Absolutely, but a lot of diseases (MS is an excellent example, kudos) aren't considered disablities either, at least until such time as they're actually universally regarded as a real disease. There's a lot (imo, much of it completely fucking ridiculous) debate about what is and isn't a disability. Also, there's quite a range within many disabilities: a lot of autistics are pretty functional, and you obviously have your own dyslexia (I'm well aware how crippling a bad case of that one can be) under control. Unfortunately, you twats who insist that because the functional end of some disabilities are able to work for a living, then anybody who claims to be disabled is obviously a lying fraud, even if they're a quadraplegic with spinal injuries so severe that they can't breathe on their own. My own attitude tends to be that if giving a few scamsters (and it's mostly a very few) a free ride means that people who actually need help and support get it, then that's a trivial price to pay. (But then I'm a European lefty who sees a welfare state as a good thing, rather than an American libertarian with a copy of Atlas Shrugged stuffed so far up their arse that they can taste it...) I do think that anytime you have any system of support for people, it is to be expected that there will be some % of fraud, and it is simply a choice society has to make whether to still have the system of support. I am one who stands completely behind the notion of having a system of support for the "weaker" in society - and I think weaker has a broad definition in my mind that would include children, the old, the unemployed, the disabled, and many other categories. I think the true measure of a society is based on how that society treats the weakest in the system. One cannot speak of having a just, honorable, good society if one does not take care of one's "weak". To reject support for the "weak" due to definitional quibbles or the small amount of fraud that will inevitably occur, seems to be a bit throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You know, not all of us on this side of the pond are libertarians with a copy of Atlas Shrugged stuffed up our arses. Just saying. [&:]

LadyHibiscus -> RE: Minorities (5/22/2012 1:53:39 PM)
In my line of work I do see people on disability of various types, but I also have worked to help people get claims through. NOT an easy task, and not that splendid a payoff, though SSI and SSDI often bring eligibility for medicaid and food stamps and other government programs. It's a crazy game for those who can work, but perhaps not full time. My godson has cerebral palsy, and while he is very high functioning, there are things he will never be able to do, so there are many hoops to jump through just so he can get the most basic things. My bff's boyfriend is terminally ill, and he was able to get his disability claim pushed through because he had to stop working due to his illness. He gets to die in genteel poverty.

Moonhead -> RE: Minorities (5/22/2012 1:55:30 PM)
Mea culpa, FTP: there should be a "get" between "you" and "twats" in that post. Not even us British lefties like to paint with quite that broad a brush. [;)]

MileHighM -> RE: Minorities (5/22/2012 1:58:25 PM)
To the issue of the disabled, are we ever going to make a distinction as to self-inflicted disability (drug addiction, spoon in mouth sydrome, etc) vs. fate disability (autism, getting hit by a drunk, muscular dystrophy, etc)?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.711914E-02