Yes, I agree that all people with disabilities should be treated equally by
the system. But we're not. Deaf people have the advantage of closed
captions on all TV programs, translation services, and a phone system that
is accessible to them specifically. They can drive cars. Blind people have
to fight for every bit of accessibility they need and they are severely
disadvantaged in an automobile centric world. Each disabled group has its
own particular needs. And the fact is that blind people are not part of
most disability groups, aside from ADAPT. We should all be supporting each
other. But in the world as it is, each group must fight to have its own
individual needs met. And I also think that non disabled people see
blindness in a very different manner than other disabilities, and they
relate to us very differently. It is on a very basic level and it has to do
with the fact that sighted people can't make eye contact with blind people.
This fact has all sorts of effects on the day to day contact between blind
and sighted people, and on how we are perceived.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe harcz Comcast
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 10:03 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Beyond Opportunity: The Future of Americans
With Disabilities
Actually the SSDI benefits fight continued until about 1998 when the
congress eliminated the linkage between SGA and standard ssa retirement.
But, to this day blind folks can earn substantially more than others with
other disabilities because of these efforts. Personally I do not think this
fair for others with other disabilities, or with blind folks with multiple
disabilities.
I also have severe issues with NFB on policy issues to this day, but this is
not, ironically one of them.
For, because of these efforts and all I can literally make four or five
hundred dollars per month than I get on ssdi without losing benefits.
I'm not going to thus "gore this ox".
However, I do agree with all I think on this list that similar things should
be applied to all PWD, and, indeed non-PWD, and that there should be a sort
of insured income for all citizens.
And when confronted by other PWD including mostly deaf persons over the
years about this "entitlement" I've stated publicly over and over again that
the benefits for the blind should be applied to all. The goal is to lift all
boats and not to sink others out of jealousy.
I also believe and stand tall over years in ensuring that PWD have medical
and other vital supports granted as a human right and de-coupled from the
insidious benefits programs .
I know of literally thousands of PWD and, many personally who have to make
the sad and "sick" choice of maintaining Medicaid, and or Medicaire
coverage, in order to get and recieve personal care attendents and other
supports to live in the community rather than in institutional care and who
can and do work, but live under theinsane struggle to defer to income
benefits over medical supports and visa versa.
It maintains a sick cycle of crazy relationships.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Jarvis" <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2016 11:42 AM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Beyond Opportunity: The Future of Americans
With Disabilities
Whatever happened to the proposal by the NFB, back in the 70's, calling for
social security benefits to be provided to blind people regardless of other
income? While this did not bring in those blind people who had never
worked, it was a start. Even in my younger years, as a very independent
blind man, my costs, in order to stay equal to my neighbors and to do my
job, were considerably higher than if I had eyesight.
Carl Jarvis
On 10/2/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My husband, who was supervisor of rehab teachers at I H B when we met,Got Nothing:
believed that every blind person should be provided with a basic
income, regardless of whether he or she was able to work. I've always
believed that too because expenses that allow blind people to live
with some kind of equity with sighted people, are high. These days,
there is a whole new movement advocating for basic income for all
people because as technology advances, there will be fewer jobs
available so that most people will be in financial need.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Frank ;
Ventura
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2016 12:06 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Beyond Opportunity: The Future of
Americans With Disabilities
And yet even with this evidence the right wing tells us that
socialized medicine will take away our freedoms. Just look at the
freedom "Jane" lost due to lack of health care. Worse still under our
current system social security no longer considers people like me to
be disabled. Seriously did I get my sight back and no one told me?
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam ;
Vieni
Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2016 7:08 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Beyond Opportunity: The Future of Americans
With Disabilities
Beyond Opportunity: The Future of Americans With Disabilities
Saturday, 01 October 2016 00:00 By Susan Sered, Democracy: A Journal
of Ideas | News Analysis Hillary Clinton just offered the most
comprehensive pitch ever to the one-quarter of the American electorate
with disabilities. It's only a start.
(Photo: Gage Skidmore / Flickr)
Hillary Clinton was right to remind Americans, during a recent speech,
that the true test of a society is "how we treat our fellow human
beings, especially the most vulnerable among us." She then proceeded
to lay out a plan to systematically help those with disabilities
acquire education and find jobs. But a careful study of Americans with
disabilities makes clear one fundamental danger: If we make access to
economic opportunity and labor market participation the primary goal
of government policy for people with disabilities, we are going to
exclude millions of Americans. Ultimately, all nations, no matter how
robust their social markets, also need strong safety nets if they are
to fulfill the principle Clinton described.
Consider Jane, a research subject whose name I have changed. In 2003,
when I first met her, Jane lived in a small town in northern Idaho. An
energetic, gregarious widow in her late forties, she supported herself
by working at a local café. Over the next several years, as local
businesses fell beneath the charge of national chain restaurants, the
café's business declined and Jane's hours were cut. She picked up
additional part-time jobs cleaning houses and doing laundry in a
nursing home. None of her employers offered health insurance, yet she
earned too much to be eligible for Medicaid in Idaho.
By the time she was in her mid-fifties, her health had deteriorated:
She suffered a few bouts of pneumonia and experienced poor circulation
in her legs. She still loved working, especially at the café ("It was
my social life," she told me). "But finally I couldn't do it anymore .
I had to stop because of my legs -- you see my feet and ankles hurt
and then turned black." She was eventually diagnosed with diabetes by
a doctor at a weekly volunteer clinic. The doctor told her that she
had likely already been suffering from diabetes for a decade.
Jane applied for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). At age
57, after several years of denied applications, she was officially
deemed "disabled." She then had to wait another two years to become
eligible for Medicare. (There is a 25-month waiting period for
Medicare entitlement, despite health problems that leave people unable
to work.) During this time, she made do with whatever occasional free
samples of medication the volunteer clinic had on hand.
When I visited Jane in 2015, she was no longer able to afford her
apartment and had moved into a one room shack on the outskirts of
town. Though she had worked all of her life, her SSDI allowance, based
on past earned income, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI is
designed to bring the monthly checks of low earners up to a minimal
threshold) only paid her a total of $800 a month. This was not enough
for her to make use of the car that sat -- out of gas and in need of
repair -- in front of her house.
This formerly energetic woman was now housebound. She told me how much
she missed going out to work at the café, but, she explained, "maybe
that's for the best." She'd lost her teeth and couldn't afford
dentures, which are not covered by Medicaid in Idaho or by Medicare at
all, and was embarrassed by the idea that her former coworkers and
café patrons might see her. Equally devastating, without teeth, she
can't chew the healthy vegetables and whole grains that her doctor
tells her are necessary for keeping her diabetes from further damaging
her body.
Unfortunately, Jane's situation is all-too-typical. In 2016, 14
million Americans under the age of 65 are officially deemed disabled
by the Social Security Administration.
In Jane's case, work (albeit cobbled together part-time jobs) was
available, but lack of access to medical care thrust her into
Disability. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has brought millions of
Americans into health-care coverage, but the legislation has had
little impact on people like Jane who live in states that turned down
federal funds for Medicaid expansion under the ACA. In non-expansion
states, people who may well be capable of working continue to have to
choose between a job and the access to health care that comes from
Disability status. While a variety of factors likely come into play,
it is telling that, for the most part, states that chose not to expand
Medicaid eligibility have higher rates of individuals receiving
Disability payments.
For Jane, SSDI is a lifesaver, but one that has come at high personal
cost, imposing a stigmatizing label -- "disabled" -- that American
culture and policies treat with a great deal of ambivalence. We
Americans admire people who "overcome" their disabilities and show
their "strong spirit" in contexts such as the Paralympics, yet
disabled Americans are likely to remain poor throughout their lives.
And, like Jane, applicants for SSDI routinely need to hire lawyers --
who then keep a substantial part of retroactive payments
-- to "prove" that they are really disabled.
While the Disability system does provide a crucial safety net for
millions of Americans like Jane, it is structured to reinforce
existing inequalities.
People who earned higher wages before they became disabled receive
larger payments than low-wage workers, and the minimum payments are
not sufficient for disabled people like Jane to live in dignity.
Jane is one of the 35.4 million Americans with disabilities eligible
to vote in the November 2016 election. According to numbers computed
by Rutgers professors Lisa Schur and Douglas Kruse, the number of
eligible voters with disabilities has increased 10.8 percent since
2008 and there will be 62.7 million eligible voters who either have a
disability or live with a household member who has one, more than
one-fourth of the total electorate.
People with disabilities have received some attention from both campaigns.
Trump's public mocking of a disabled reporter remains a popular trope
on the campaign trail. And Clinton, as mentioned, gave a speech this
week outlining her commitment to bolster job opportunities and
eliminate the "subminimum wage" paid to some people with disabilities.
Yet specific policy proposals for those who cannot work remain few and
far between.
With this in mind, what could have -- or still could -- make a
difference for the better in Jane's life (and in the lives of those
who, like Jane, live with a disability)? Some specific proposals include:
. Expand Medicaid in all states so that working people do not need to
go onto Disability to access health care.
. Get lawyers out of the application system for Disability. This
should not be an adversarial process and no one should be taking a
bite of the government benefits aimed at disabled Americans.
. Eliminate the waiting period for Medicare eligibility for people
accepted onto Disability. It makes no sense to delay the health care
that they, by definition, need.
. Include oral health care in coverage programs, including Medicare.
. Raise minimum Disability payments to reasonable levels.
. Encourage and expand meaningful work opportunities for people on
Disability, as well as for people living with disabilities who neither
need nor qualify for Social Security Disability status or are waiting
to be accepted onto Social Security Disability.
As in all matters of principle, the devil is in the details. These
policy proposals should be possible and straightforward to adopt. But
most of all, they would spare Americans like Jane from a lifetime
wasted in hopeless frustration, as they mourn the loss of jobs, of
friends, of their health, and of their dignity.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It
may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from
the source.
SUSAN SERED
Susan Sered, together with Maureen Norton-Hawk, is author of Can't
Catch a
Break: Gender, Jail, Drugs, and the Limits of Personal Responsibility,
published in 2014 by University of California Press. You can follow
her work at susan.sered.name.
RELATED STORIES
Protect Social Security Disability Insurance Without Cutting Benefits
By Jessica Schieder, Center for Effective Government | News Analysis
White House and Republicans Reach Budget Deal - Including Disability
Insurance Cuts By Lisa Mascaro, Los Angeles Times | Report Eligible but
Hundreds of Thousands of People With Disabilities Blocked From College
Aid By Meredith Kolodner, The Hechinger Report | Report
________________________________________
Show Comments
Hide Comments
<a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref";>View the discussion
thread.</a> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Beyond Opportunity: The Future of Americans With Disabilities
Saturday, 01 October 2016 00:00 By Susan Sered, Democracy: A Journal
of Ideas | News Analysis . font size Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference
not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
. Hillary Clinton just offered the most comprehensive pitch ever to
the one-quarter of the American electorate with disabilities. It's
only a start. (Photo: Gage Skidmore / Flickr) . Hillary Clinton was
right to remind Americans, during a recent speech, that the true test
of a society is "how we treat our fellow human beings, especially the
most vulnerable among us." She then proceeded to lay out a plan to
systematically help those with disabilities acquire education and find
jobs. But a careful study of Americans with disabilities makes clear
one fundamental danger: If we make access to economic opportunity and
labor market participation the primary goal of government policy for
people with disabilities, we are going to exclude millions of
Americans.
Ultimately, all nations, no matter how robust their social markets,
also need strong safety nets if they are to fulfill the principle
Clinton described.
Consider Jane, a research subject whose name I have changed. In 2003,
when I first met her, Jane lived in a small town in northern Idaho. An
energetic, gregarious widow in her late forties, she supported herself
by working at a local café. Over the next several years, as local
businesses fell beneath the charge of national chain restaurants, the
café's business declined and Jane's hours were cut. She picked up
additional part-time jobs cleaning houses and doing laundry in a
nursing home. None of her employers offered health insurance, yet she
earned too much to be eligible for Medicaid in Idaho.
By the time she was in her mid-fifties, her health had deteriorated:
She suffered a few bouts of pneumonia and experienced poor circulation
in her legs. She still loved working, especially at the café ("It was
my social life," she told me). "But finally I couldn't do it anymore .
I had to stop because of my legs -- you see my feet and ankles hurt
and then turned black." She was eventually diagnosed with diabetes by
a doctor at a weekly volunteer clinic. The doctor told her that she
had likely already been suffering from diabetes for a decade.
Jane applied for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). At age
57, after several years of denied applications, she was officially
deemed "disabled." She then had to wait another two years to become
eligible for Medicare. (There is a 25-month waiting period for
Medicare entitlement, despite health problems that leave people unable
to work.) During this time, she made do with whatever occasional free
samples of medication the volunteer clinic had on hand.
When I visited Jane in 2015, she was no longer able to afford her
apartment and had moved into a one room shack on the outskirts of
town. Though she had worked all of her life, her SSDI allowance, based
on past earned income, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI is
designed to bring the monthly checks of low earners up to a minimal
threshold) only paid her a total of $800 a month. This was not enough
for her to make use of the car that sat -- out of gas and in need of
repair -- in front of her house.
This formerly energetic woman was now housebound. She told me how much
she missed going out to work at the café, but, she explained, "maybe
that's for the best." She'd lost her teeth and couldn't afford
dentures, which are not covered by Medicaid in Idaho or by Medicare at
all, and was embarrassed by the idea that her former coworkers and
café patrons might see her. Equally devastating, without teeth, she
can't chew the healthy vegetables and whole grains that her doctor
tells her are necessary for keeping her diabetes from further damaging
her body.
Unfortunately, Jane's situation is all-too-typical. In 2016, 14
million Americans under the age of 65 are officially deemed disabled
by the Social Security Administration.
In Jane's case, work (albeit cobbled together part-time jobs) was
available, but lack of access to medical care thrust her into
Disability. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has brought millions of
Americans into health-care coverage, but the legislation has had
little impact on people like Jane who live in states that turned down
federal funds for Medicaid expansion under the ACA. In non-expansion
states, people who may well be capable of working continue to have to
choose between a job and the access to health care that comes from
Disability status. While a variety of factors likely come into play,
it is telling that, for the most part, states that chose not to expand
Medicaid eligibility have higher rates of individuals receiving
Disability payments.
For Jane, SSDI is a lifesaver, but one that has come at high personal
cost, imposing a stigmatizing label -- "disabled" -- that American
culture and policies treat with a great deal of ambivalence. We
Americans admire people who "overcome" their disabilities and show
their "strong spirit" in contexts such as the Paralympics, yet
disabled Americans are likely to remain poor throughout their lives.
And, like Jane, applicants for SSDI routinely need to hire lawyers --
who then keep a substantial part of retroactive payments
-- to "prove" that they are really disabled.
While the Disability system does provide a crucial safety net for
millions of Americans like Jane, it is structured to reinforce
existing inequalities.
People who earned higher wages before they became disabled receive
larger payments than low-wage workers, and the minimum payments are
not sufficient for disabled people like Jane to live in dignity.
Jane is one of the 35.4 million Americans with disabilities eligible
to vote in the November 2016 election. According to numbers computed
by Rutgers professors Lisa Schur and Douglas Kruse, the number of
eligible voters with disabilities has increased 10.8 percent since
2008 and there will be 62.7 million eligible voters who either have a
disability or live with a household member who has one, more than
one-fourth of the total electorate.
People with disabilities have received some attention from both campaigns.
Trump's public mocking of a disabled reporter remains a popular trope
on the campaign trail. And Clinton, as mentioned, gave a speech this
week outlining her commitment to bolster job opportunities and
eliminate the "subminimum wage" paid to some people with disabilities.
Yet specific policy proposals for those who cannot work remain few and
far between.
With this in mind, what could have -- or still could -- make a
difference for the better in Jane's life (and in the lives of those
who, like Jane, live with a disability)? Some specific proposals include:
. Expand Medicaid in all states so that working people do not need to
go onto Disability to access health care.
. Get lawyers out of the application system for Disability. This
should not be an adversarial process and no one should be taking a
bite of the government benefits aimed at disabled Americans.
. Eliminate the waiting period for Medicare eligibility for people
accepted onto Disability. It makes no sense to delay the health care
that they, by definition, need.
. Include oral health care in coverage programs, including Medicare.
. Raise minimum Disability payments to reasonable levels.
. Encourage and expand meaningful work opportunities for people on
Disability, as well as for people living with disabilities who neither
need nor qualify for Social Security Disability status or are waiting
to be accepted onto Social Security Disability.
As in all matters of principle, the devil is in the details. These
policy proposals should be possible and straightforward to adopt. But
most of all, they would spare Americans like Jane from a lifetime
wasted in hopeless frustration, as they mourn the loss of jobs, of
friends, of their health, and of their dignity.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It
may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from
the source.
Susan Sered
Susan Sered, together with Maureen Norton-Hawk, is author of Can't
Catch a
Break: Gender, Jail, Drugs, and the Limits of Personal Responsibility,
published in 2014 by University of California Press. You can follow
her work at susan.sered.name.
Related Stories
Protect Social Security Disability Insurance Without Cutting Benefits
By Jessica Schieder, Center for Effective Government | News
AnalysisWhite House and Republicans Reach Budget Deal - Including
Disability Insurance Cuts By Lisa Mascaro, Los Angeles Times |
ReportEligible but Got Nothing:
Hundreds of Thousands of People With Disabilities Blocked From College
Aid By Meredith Kolodner, The Hechinger Report | Report
Show Comments
