SC proposes to cut funding for the disabled
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100303/...F5Z3V0cHJvZw--

According to this article, many developmentally disabled and autistic children and adults would have to be institutinalized as a result of the spending cuts. This seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Surely, the cost of institutional care is far more than day care. And cutting prescription benefits will only make people sicker and more likely to turn up in ER's. :eyebrow:

South Carolina : we'd rather fight than switch.

seriously, though. South Carolina. A leader in national disasters.

This doesn't seem like the best place to look for savings. Which area of services do you think should take the hit though?

If this is what they come up with as the least necessary expenditures, they should bite the bullet and raise taxes.

I'll agree to that if that is seriously the least vital service they have that hasn't been taken back to bare bones. I'm willing to bet there is still plenty of bullshit in their budget though.

If they could selectively delete the junkies and alcoholics from the disability roles whose only "disability" is being unable to engage in ongoing substance abuse, there would be plenty of money to fund people who actually need these services.

South Carolina is too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum.

How about a 3 strikes and you're dead rule?

Only if I can choose my own lethal method.

seems fair. 3 strikes, you're dead, you choose the method but it can't take any longer than 30 minutes or cost more than $10.

Make it twenty dollars and you're on.

wait, are we talking about my man-whoring or the price of death?

For the record, if her 11-year-old son is receiving state services, she's already got it better in SC than some places. In Texas, the Medicaid Waiver List (which is what allows one to receive the type of state-funded care services this woman is afraid of losing) is currently 12 years and a few months long. For real. And you can't put your kid on the list until they have a formal diagnosis, so you're looking at a minimum age of about 14 before any state-funded services become available. And they recommend that you call in once a year to make sure everything's still okay, because if your contact information ever goes out of date, you lose your spot. They also recommend that you keep your original letter notifying you of your list spot in a safety deposit box, because if their records are ever destroyed by natural disaster, it will be the only evidence you have of ever having been on the list.

On the other hand, I don't know why her son only attends school "a few days a week." Federal law says the school district has to educate him for a full school day, in an appropriate environment. Maybe he's got other medical care (seizures, for example,) that precludes being in school all day long, I don't know.

Seriously y'all, this stuff is already funded so badly, this additional cut is almost meaningless. I guess funding 26,000 people is better than nothing, but you can't even imagine how many tens of thousands are already getting zero funding to begin with. The whole thing's a clusterfuck.

I believe the law is UP TO a full-day and until age 21. I know it varies from state to state.

As far as why... Depending upon the condition/situation the child is in, he/she may not have the endurance or attention span to last a whole day. Many times they start at 30 mins in-home 1 or 2 times a week and work up to going back into the school. Some schools are outstanding and others are terrible.

One other reality that isn't so pretty -
They gotta spread the money around. By having 8 kids for an hour a day versus 1 kid for 8 hours the gov't can claim to be helping 8x as many kids.

Not just where you are, clod. It is another crystal clear example of a gov't program that is horribly disorganized, inefficient and poorly run.
After wasting months talking to the people at the state, I went another route - It took a bunch of arm-twisting/complaining/calling/threatening to elected people, but I got it done. Being a dick CAN have its benefits. :eyebrow:

Oh, I hear that. We got really lucky (wasn't entirely luck, we picked the neighborhood for the school district, but we didn't know at the time which part of the school we'd be needing.)

Absolutely. My daughter's in a program that's complete bullshit, but we can't even take her out of the program and effectively "give" our 45 minutes to someone else, because this program is indirectly a prerequisite for getting into the school district's program, which is definitely worth fighting for in our case.

I fear this is just the beginning. New healthcare boondoggle bill or not. The states are going broke. They are now talking about major cuts in college funding by the states. In our state alone they are talking about cutting every single extra service that is not directly related to the actual education of the student. A lot more people are about to be out of work. They estimate they would have to raise tuition by 75% to cover the shortfall.

It does not surprise me that the same cuts are being made for the the disabled or mental health. This is just the beginning.

Let's face it, the disabled/those on Medicaid are the least able to speak for themselves. They don't have the big bucks to throw at the legislature to save their programs.

This all seems so self-defeating. If parents are forced to stay home with disabled children, they are going to have to go on welfare to make ends meet. Where is the ultimate savings? And to deny low income folks their medicines is just outrageous. There's your government death panels.

[devil's advocate] I've heard, as the health care debate rages, a lot of people say things to the effect that we shouldn't have to pay for people in poor health due to bad personal choices (smoking, drinking...etc)

So, I wonder if these people also think the same when it comes to disabled people: if a person is "permanently disabled" because they weigh 5000 pounds, is that any different than a person who was born with a disability? What about the person who is paralyzed because they were on PCP and fell off the house, or who blew their mind out while playing with acid? Or the kid who fell off the railroad trestle because someone dared him to cross? Who gets to make these judgment calls?

Of course, I'm of the opinion that we should help those we can. I just wonder if those who don't think the taxpayers should have to fund health care for those they believe brought it on themselves also believe this applies to the next step, which is caring for them long after the bad choice was made.

[/devil's advocate]

Sure, let's go for it. No health care for the obese until they get down to the right weight. Hard attack victims, ditto. They were probably eating bad foods and not getting enough exercise. Autistic kids because their parents allowed them to get vaccinated. Women who get cervical cancer because they could have abstained from sex and been like the nuns who are sexually abstinent and have an almost non-existance rate of cervical cancer. Born with a genetic defect? Two bad, your parents should have had DNA testing before they tried to conceive a child. Cancer? Tough shit. You should have been smarter about avoiding carcinogens.

Money will be directed where it will benefit the politicians with the best chance of getting the most votes in return. R, D, or I doesn't matter.

Those with the smallest voices will suffer the worst. Thats just the way it is and will be.

The smart people in South Carolina got a mistress in Argentina - and stayed there.

Well, that is pretty fatalistic of you. I would like to think that it is possible to have a more humane government and the people to go with it. Dreamer that I am.

The continual question <elephantintheroom> at what cost to all other needs...

I think you are taking that a bit too far but yes, this questions is no doubt a slippery slope. The fact is that a healthier lifestyle will usually result to lower health care costs and that is something that will most likely be of high debate in the future, whether insurance is covered by government or private companies.

That is what I was getting at, sam and pierce: those whose indignance over "paying for others' bad choices" resembles proverbial peasants with pitchforks...who decides what the bad choices are? Do we get a certain number of bad choices before we should suffer for the rest of our lives? Is our society able to let go of personal indignance over what they consider to be their money enough to help those who we don't know, whose disability is the result of what our own morals label "bad decisions" or is it only relevant when it's staring us right in our face, or only really a valid issue if the disability has nothing whatsover to do with life choices?

(The words "our" and "us" and "we" are just meant as catch-all pronouns...we all have differing views on the subject.)

We can walk over the homeless, certainly many of them made a bad choice with drugs or drinking or the stock market. We can turn our head away from the mentally ill. We can say "get a job." We can compartmentalize other people's issues because we believe it's all their own damn fault and they need to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. It's a different issue when it hits close to home, and we have to start considering what society's role is, or should be.

I don't expect answers to hard questions, but perhaps we'll see a bit of self-examination from indignant taxpayers.

And surely, there are people with entitlement mentality...but at what cost to the truly in need do we start deciding who is deserving and who is not, based upon only OUR OWN life experiences?

Well, yeah that post was written tongue in cheek. No one is perfect. Even the healthiest individuals could probably be doing more to make themselves healthier yet. I knew a man who was the picture of health - jogged all day, watched what he ate, and still died of a heart attack. Look at what Stephen Hawking was able to do assisted by machines. Look at Helen Keller. To draw the line means to create death committees. If S.C.'s measures pass, I'd be interested to see how many deaths there are the result of the new laws.

Oh, and Wolf's comments aside, you can no longer get SSI disability for alcoholism. In fact, it there is the faintest whiff of alcohol on you or your application, you get deep sixed.

Helen Keller is my idol, and one of the greatest people who ever lived, in my opinion.

But Helen had opportunities, due to the wealth of her family, and innate intelligence. Certainly Hawking is kind of smart?

Again, all my question is, is: who decides? At what cost to many, due to indignance over a few?

I think we be on the same side on this one, Sam. :)

realistic IMO. I would like to think it possible a well, but nothing in my life has shown me that it is going to happen any time soon.

Currently the money decides.
You are not alone. I think the vast majority of us are on this side.

A more humane government, aside from the "kinder, gentler" fiasco, isn't possible when ANY steps, even baby steps, are blocked by naysayers who need to be right, and who are more concerned about the money than are those who are actually concerned with (i.e. in charge of or responsible for administering) the money.

Again, question: who decides?

Added question: whose money?

The money will always decide.

Who's money? What do you mean?



Who's or Whose? I'm confused.
I think it is whose

Heh, I'm not asking "who is money".

Whose money. I'm trying to get back to my point...since the health care debate started in full force, I've heard a lot about using "our" money (presumably taxpayers) to help people who are just druggies, or alkies, or a slew of other "bad choices." The thought seems to be that "we" shouldn't help those who made a bad choice.

So, questions:

Who draws the line?
Who makes the decision?
Is the money part of doing business, if one likens a national economy to business, aren't there costs that aren't considered typically in the cost of doing business, at least not on a big level, losses the company is willing to take as "cost of doing business" and in deference to the greater good of the action?
Is the greater good unattainable because we are too afraid someone who made a bad choice might get some help?
Is there a statue of limitations on bad choices?
Do you and I and marcia and greg and johnny and billy all agree on what is a bad choice?

So, who decides?

circular argument I think.

The people in charge of/with the money decide.

It would work in the fashion as almost any political decision. Special interests groups play tug a war with the government being the rope while the majority of people stand back and watch.

No reason to draw any line. Those who make bad choices die earlier. Put less stain on the system. The most expensive people are the healthy people who life on and on and on. Who slowly degrade. I have seen numbers that put the cost of this category as high as 50% of insurance costs.

Insurance means covering everyone. That is what insurance is about when the purpose of insurance is more important than profits. By not having insurance, we are simply dumping the 'stresses' on other parts of the economy - ie through bankruptcies, hospitals (especially children's hospitals) covering the costs that customers cannot pay for, and long term harm to kids because the most stressed families cannot get insurance.

One part of the economy that gets stuck for the bills if we do not change the system - government. Those costs exist no matter who does and does not pay. The idea of insurance is to stabilize what is now an economically and socially destructive way of paying for those costs.

Why are these costs dumped on government? Because we have no working health insurance system. And because the existing system is so beneficial to the upper 50% at the expense or the lower 50%. A large number of that lower 50% are children.

Thanks tw...that was an awesome post.

Odds are it varies by state but most low income, made poor choices and are ill from them people, qualify for medicad...the low income fed program adminstered by the states.

Welcome to the Cellar, Bluesky. :D

And the people who aren't low income try to hide the bad choices as long as they can.

As I keep reiterating, It is extremely difficult for someone who is an alkie/drug user to get government aid - at least in Colorado. If your records show a history of alcohol or drug use, too bad for you. Some do start heavy drinking after they get the aid, but as Bruce pointed out, they die quick. There just aren't that many 70 year old meth freaks out there.

Thanks for the welcome :)

So a mentally ill 18 yr old, who takes illegal drugs doesn't get a psych eval and end up labeled disabled due to say bipolar or schizophrenia in Colorado?

Or do you mean just a welfare, not disabled, type hand out from the gov?

I think if you should get a clean drug screen to get any kind of handout, other than treatment.

No, no, no. A person cannot end up labeled disabled without extensive testing and two or three doctor's evaluations. Its really not that simple. Now a person may get labeled schizophrenic and ultimately go off his meds. This is almost always a tragedy as the person often becomes completely non functional - sleeps in the park, gets his money stolen, etc. Some schizophrenics do self medicate with illegal drugs, but illicit drug use is not their primary diagnosis. The plight of many schizophrenics is indeed tragic. I can see that you have a heart as big as an olive pit. :mad:

What? How can you say that? Thats way too invasive on their privacy. :right:

Will that drug screen include alcohol?

Or caffiene or sugar?

Or Big Macs, Tacos, Cheese Curds (heart disease, obesity...)?

What about weed? That would let out about half the people here. :eek:

MMMMmmmm Cheese curds.:yum:

Hahahhaa...I just like saying 'cheese curds.'

I mean, it sounds really gross...I get fatter just thinking about them.

or or or . . . damn I can't think of anything else

ohhh wait - nicotine?

Well then I'M screwed too. ;)

I hear water can be bad for you, in large doses. :unsure:

Check the laws idiot. Caffeine, and sugar are legal, as is ETOH, in the appropriate levels. :D

Maybe you Socialists want to make caffeine and sugar illegal too.

All recipients of federal assistance should be required to appear at Congressional hearings and testify under oath that they are not now, nor have ever been, a Socialist, never palled around with terrorists..oh, and yes, that the US is a Christian nation.

Looks like you and i didn't communicate.

In SoCal, I've met many self medicating mentally ill who have gone through being hospitalized and are legally disabled, on disability and they DO still use drugs.

It sounded to me like Colorado would refuse to consider their mental illness when looking at them due to the drug use.

?????

If a person is a known drug user, his chance of getting approved in the first place is slim. If he develops a problem after being diagnosed, he can be sent to rehab in an effort to help him with his secondary and after the fact diagnoses.

ASIDE
I'd like to point out Bluesky's Reaction to being misunderstood is commendable.
Instead of getting all pissy and personal, Bluesky further clarified his/her question/point.
Well played. :thumb:

Like when you try to breath it in?

Sheesh - now you are sounding like a moderator - Git back to work already, slacker!

Sorry, sometimes I have mild brain blips. I didn't understand what you were asking. My understanding is that Colorado wil look at the big picture as long as your addiction occurred after you became disabled. They will treat people for dual diagnosis.

Get back in your bag, douche.