 |
Ah yes ;that infamous lock box . Have heard that one before .
Tut ,I already agreed that the disabled should be included in some sort of safety net provision. As always ;my first preference is laws that help them be self sufficient so they don't depend on the largess of the voters who can giveth and taketh away .
Commendable Tom but not very realistic, there is partial disability and there is severely handicapped. These people shouldn't be looked after by a safety net, which is really saying let them exhaust their resources and then we will help them. Reality is, in a tight economy, there are few opportunities for the disabled to earn money and so their families bear the brunt which drags them below the poverty line also. What this scheme seeks to do is avoid that outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom what we about is not maintaining people in poverty with safety nets but lifting them out of poverty so they share in the wealth of the nation and we are a very wealthy nation because our wealth isn't just in the hands of the 1% skinflints. Different ethos, this nation was founded on the backs of the poor, the displaced, the maligned not the backs of exploited slaves
You talk about what's unrealistic ? If your goal is to lift all people out of poverty then you will impoverish the rest .if you confiscated all the wealth of those "1% skinflints " you would be still well short of that goal. I of course was not referring to ALL disabled . I was talking of ones that can and should be able to work with the proper assistance. You talk about a 'tight economy'. Well at least here ,in a tight economy ,we learn that there are suddenly a whole lot of 'disabled ' people who had been previously productive workers when the economy was good. What happened ? Well the Obots decided in their compassion that everyone with a hang nail qualifies for disability benefits.
You keep contrasting our approach, mouthing platitudes and telling us how hard it is, but no one needs to take wealth away persee, no crippling taxation, but the provision of certain essential services. Our attitude towards everyone is; if you can work, you should work, up to that point where society thinks you should move over, but we also recognise that opportunity must exist. It is no good telling a disabled person get a job when able bodied people are unemployed or they have no skills. In our society no one needs to lack medical care because they lack the means to pay, no one loses their health cover when they are unemployed, all can afford essential medications, and all qualify for benefits unless they have too much money and don't need them. Does this mean they live in luxury? No, but few are poor and the only ones who live on the streets are those who want to. I keep hearing that in your society this is not so, and yet your nation on a per capita basis is as wealthy as ours
You keep on shifting your expectations.. it now went from lifting them out of poverty to the provision of certain essential services. First ,not all disabled are in poverty needing such assistance as being lifted out of poverty . I fully agree that they should have access to ESSENTIAL services.
Tom our definitions are not the same as yours those without access to essential services are in poverty, real poverty, not those generalised definitions that are used to cover the obvious. Where do you think those with a disability get their wealth? Few are wealthy here but maybe in your land there are many wealthy with disabilities, intellectual perhaps
In our land of freedom there are many wealthy people.. Maybe their disability came later in life after they've achieved success. Who knows ? Who cares ? Why do they need anything beyond essential services when theirs is not an issue of being lifted out of poverty ? Maybe all they need to survive is handicap friendly sidewalks and building access. I don't understand... is this something new to your country ? We've had a law called the Americans with Disabilities Act on the books since 1990... and their health care have been nationalized since the passage of Medicare /Medicaid in 1965 .
Well then why do you keep talking about safety nets, no one is talking about giving care to those who have the means to pay for it because they are wealthy, but there are people with a disabilty who aren't, in fact most with a disability aren't. You think in terms of universal entitlement without contribution but that isn't how it works. What we are doing is redressing the gap between welfare payments, medicare which looks after health care, and all the other costs a disabled person might incur. You keep telling me about all the things you have already done, however it appears these things haven't addressed some of the issues.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:48 PM. |