Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
What do you think constitutes "disability"?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="UnSafe" data-source="post: 2312280" data-attributes="member: 100"><p>tRidiot- I see the "Gray Zone" of disabling conditions that you illustrate. Where one person with whatever level of disabling medical/ psychological condition(s) would seek government compensation, but another with a similar or comparable situation would continue to work, live and function without govt. support. It's easy to decide disabled vs. non-disabled with clear cut cases- Blindness, missing limbs, horrific injuries/ results from illnesses, schizophrenia, etc.. But not so easy with the kind of/ mostly functional stuff.</p><p></p><p>Does the "Nobility of cause" make a difference? A Fireman with survivable but career ending burns and lung damage incurred while saving children from a burning house vs. meth lab fire injuries to a serial sex offender with multiple drug sale convictions? Assuming the same level of disability, should one receive compensation and the other not? Sit on your ass, chain smoke, eat a crappy diet and don't take your diabetic and hypertension meds, then end up losing a foot, surviving the first stroke and visiting the dialysis center 3 times weekly? Should the SSI rating system be blind to the cause and only rate the resultant disabling effects? Not always an easy call.</p><p></p><p>Personal integrity and work ethic? An old goat that continues to work, feed family and pay bills with daily back and joint pain vs. a 23 yr old claiming that he "Can't work" because of his painful scoliosis and back spasms? How do we cut through the BS and say to one- "Let's give you a hand and help you continue your life", and to the other- "Get off your neck and find a job within the limits of your condition"? It might seem easy, but there's so many gray zone issues that it's almost impossible to be consistantly fair for the millions that have/ seek SSI ratings.</p><p></p><p>In the Military, nobility of cause is a factor in disability rating- Get drunk, wreck your scooter without a helmet on and end up with a ruined knee and TBI= "Line of duty NO". (The VA system is seperate and may issue a rating). Should the SSI system include causes in the determination? And if they did, how would they do it? It'd be tough to classify or even define what is an acceptable cause for an injury/ illness, let alone prove or disprove years or decades of causal factors. Then, if the govt. decided to refuse welfare/ SSI ratings for people that exaggerated their conditions or were proven to cause the disabling conditions by personal or criminal negligence, what happens- Would they get off their necks and start taking care of themselves or would we have a society of "Untouchables" that lived off of others/ begged or stole to live? </p><p></p><p>Not an easy fix. But if we found a way to vet out the BS'ers, I know exactly where they'd go for their "Free" healthcare....</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="UnSafe, post: 2312280, member: 100"] tRidiot- I see the "Gray Zone" of disabling conditions that you illustrate. Where one person with whatever level of disabling medical/ psychological condition(s) would seek government compensation, but another with a similar or comparable situation would continue to work, live and function without govt. support. It's easy to decide disabled vs. non-disabled with clear cut cases- Blindness, missing limbs, horrific injuries/ results from illnesses, schizophrenia, etc.. But not so easy with the kind of/ mostly functional stuff. Does the "Nobility of cause" make a difference? A Fireman with survivable but career ending burns and lung damage incurred while saving children from a burning house vs. meth lab fire injuries to a serial sex offender with multiple drug sale convictions? Assuming the same level of disability, should one receive compensation and the other not? Sit on your ass, chain smoke, eat a crappy diet and don't take your diabetic and hypertension meds, then end up losing a foot, surviving the first stroke and visiting the dialysis center 3 times weekly? Should the SSI rating system be blind to the cause and only rate the resultant disabling effects? Not always an easy call. Personal integrity and work ethic? An old goat that continues to work, feed family and pay bills with daily back and joint pain vs. a 23 yr old claiming that he "Can't work" because of his painful scoliosis and back spasms? How do we cut through the BS and say to one- "Let's give you a hand and help you continue your life", and to the other- "Get off your neck and find a job within the limits of your condition"? It might seem easy, but there's so many gray zone issues that it's almost impossible to be consistantly fair for the millions that have/ seek SSI ratings. In the Military, nobility of cause is a factor in disability rating- Get drunk, wreck your scooter without a helmet on and end up with a ruined knee and TBI= "Line of duty NO". (The VA system is seperate and may issue a rating). Should the SSI system include causes in the determination? And if they did, how would they do it? It'd be tough to classify or even define what is an acceptable cause for an injury/ illness, let alone prove or disprove years or decades of causal factors. Then, if the govt. decided to refuse welfare/ SSI ratings for people that exaggerated their conditions or were proven to cause the disabling conditions by personal or criminal negligence, what happens- Would they get off their necks and start taking care of themselves or would we have a society of "Untouchables" that lived off of others/ begged or stole to live? Not an easy fix. But if we found a way to vet out the BS'ers, I know exactly where they'd go for their "Free" healthcare.... [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
What do you think constitutes "disability"?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom