SC proposes to cut funding for the disabled - Page 2

TheMercenary · 03-03-2010, 02:26 PM

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.

SamIam · 03-03-2010, 02:51 PM

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.

Shawnee123 · 03-03-2010, 03:05 PM

[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]

SamIam · 03-03-2010, 03:20 PM

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.

classicman · 03-03-2010, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIam

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.

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.

tw · 03-03-2010, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianna

South Carolina : we'd rather fight than switch.

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

SamIam · 03-03-2010, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

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

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.

TheMercenary · 03-03-2010, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIam

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...

piercehawkeye45 · 03-04-2010, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIam

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.

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.

Shawnee123 · 03-04-2010, 09:44 AM

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?

SamIam · 03-04-2010, 09:53 AM

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.

Shawnee123 · 03-04-2010, 09:57 AM

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.

classicman · 03-04-2010, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIam

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.

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.

classicman · 03-04-2010, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

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

Currently the money decides.

Quote:

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

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

Shawnee123 · 03-04-2010, 11:11 AM

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?

03-03-2010, 03:05 PM	#18
Shawnee123 Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,206	[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] __________________ A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby Last edited by Shawnee123; 03-03-2010 at 03:13 PM.

03-04-2010, 09:44 AM	#25
Shawnee123 Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,206	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? __________________ A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby Last edited by Shawnee123; 03-04-2010 at 09:49 AM.

03-04-2010, 09:57 AM	#27
Shawnee123 Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,206	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. __________________ A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby

03-04-2010, 11:11 AM	#30
Shawnee123 Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,206	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? __________________ A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby Last edited by Shawnee123; 03-04-2010 at 11:38 AM. Reason: missed an eff

03-03-2010, 02:26 PM	#16
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	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.

03-03-2010, 02:51 PM	#17
SamIam Registered User Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Not here Posts: 2,655	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.

03-03-2010, 03:20 PM	#19
SamIam Registered User Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Not here Posts: 2,655	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.

03-04-2010, 09:53 AM	#26
SamIam Registered User Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Not here Posts: 2,655	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.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)