Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Tell me how this UN treaty will change what you are speaking of?
It appears one can save but the tradeoff is you have to pay for medical care. That isn't fair right? You want everybody to pay for it all including his savings I'm sure to boot? Life isn't fair.
I don't want anyone to pay for his savings. But in our state, Medicaid does not cover dental care or vision care once he turns 21. I want him to be able to afford to have his teeth cleaned, get dentures, get glasses, and anything else he might need as he ages. Yes, I am relying on the state to help with his medical insurance, because by law I cannot cover him on my own for his entire life, and he will never have the skills and ability needed to work at a job that would provide these benefits to him.
I want him to not be disabled. But that's not a reality, and never will be.
The limit for personal savings of $2000 was set in the 1960's. If that were adjusted for inflation, it would be nearly $13,000. But countless times, the congress and senate have refused to adjust that figure.
The UN treaty does not require the US to make any changes - not to the laws, not to the expenditures, not to any process or procedure currently in place. However, ratifying it would bear a huge weight to those countries who have still refused to do so. It would signify that the US expects the rest of the world to show the same consideration and respect to those with disabilities that we already do.
At one time, the US was the great leader of the world. We WERE the first world country. Why on earth are we letting places like Saudi Arabia step in front of us on an issue like this?
What a bunch of lies. Your son CAN own a home, be allowed to save for his future, etc. But he'd have to stop sucking off the government teat to do that.
If your son is so disabled that he can't live without the government's help, then no, he can't afford any of those things.
I feel for your son, but he's your son, right? Why aren't you taking the responsibility for him?
Yes, my son is profoundly disabled. My greatest hope for him, being realistic, is a part time, minimum wage job with a job coach. So no, he cannot live without the government's help.
I do take responsibility for him. But the reality is that once he turns 26, I cannot keep him on my family health insurance. So what happens to him then? The reality is that I can keep him living with me for as long as I am alive, but what happens to him then?
The UN Treaty does not change anything in my son's life. Ratifying it does not change anything in what this country spends, what laws we have, what we do or don't do in caring for those with disabilities. Ratifying it does say to the rest of the world that we, the United States, cares about those with disabling conditions, and we expect the rest of the world to give the same care and consideration to these individuals. Ratifying it makes a statement that our citizens can be proud of. Not ratifying it, to me and to many disability advocates, is a statement that says to the rest of the world 'not our problem, we don't much care what you do'. That's not a statement I can be proud of.
"But most Senate Republicans saw it as a threat to American "sovereignty," even though the treaty wouldn't have required the United States to change its laws."
At this time. What happens if the UN says we have to?
" When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the treaty with bipartisan support in July, Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) explained the proposal simply "raises the [international] standard to our level without requiring us to go further."
So without the United States holding everyone's hand the international community can't do a thing for itself.
The intelligent person would go straight to the source.
Your response is requested for the following issues:
Article 2 Definitions:
"Discrimination on the basis of disability" means any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis of disability which has the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis with others, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. It includes all forms of discrimination, including denial of reasonable accommodation;
I claim that professional sports leagues in the US would be affected by all manner of lawsuits from disabled persons desiring to participate.
Refute my claim using the language of the treaty and not your personal knee-jerking beliefs.
No, I won't refute your claim. I will ask instead, why can't people with disabilities participate in professional sports?
Some people with physical, intellectual, and mental disabilities can still be amazing athletes. Want proof? Go watch the Special Olympics in your area. Better yet, why don't you compare your 50 yard dash time against their gold medal winner?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Article 2 Definitions:
"Reasonable accommodation" means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms;
My claim: Current laws in the US, such as the ADA allow leeway for exceptional circumstances, especially those circumstances that result in undue hardships. As a result, there are many private and public venues and facilities in the US which are not handicap accessible because it is cost-prohibitive.
This treaty would override all of the exceptions provided in the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).
Again, using only the language of the treaty, refute my claim.
The language is right there: "not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden". Pretty much the same language as used in the ADA, it does not at all override it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Article 5 - Equality and non-discrimination
2. States Parties shall prohibit all discrimination on the basis of disability and guarantee to persons with disabilities equal and effective legal protection against discrimination on all grounds.
Interpret and apply Article 5 Section 2 as it relates to current federal and State laws.
Again, this echoes the current ADA, it does not make any changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Article 6 - Women with disabilities
1. States Parties recognize that women and girls with disabilities are subject to multiple discrimination, and in this regard shall take measures to ensure the full and equal enjoyment by them of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.
2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure the full development, advancement and empowerment of women, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of the human rights and fundamental freedoms set out in the present Convention.
Interpret and apply Article 6 as it relates to current federal and State laws.
Again, this echoes the current ADA, it does not make any changes. I think this is a doubly important clause, considering the discrimination against healthy women throughout other countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Article 8 - Awareness-raising
1. States Parties undertake to adopt immediate, effective and appropriate measures:
To raise awareness throughout society, including at the family level, regarding persons with disabilities, and to foster respect for the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities;
To combat stereotypes, prejudices and harmful practices relating to persons with disabilities, including those based on sex and age, in all areas of life;
To promote awareness of the capabilities and contributions of persons with disabilities.
Measures to this end include:
Initiating and maintaining effective public awareness campaigns designed:
To nurture receptiveness to the rights of persons with disabilities;
To promote positive perceptions and greater social awareness towards persons with disabilities;
To promote recognition of the skills, merits and abilities of persons with disabilities, and of their contributions to the workplace and the labour market;
Fostering at all levels of the education system, including in all children from an early age, an attitude of respect for the rights of persons with disabilities;
Encouraging all organs of the media to portray persons with disabilities in a manner consistent with the purpose of the present Convention;
Promoting awareness-training programmes regarding persons with disabilities and the rights of persons with disabilities.
Estimate the annual cost of implementation and compliance with Article 8.
No more than we are already spending, as this is all being addressed now in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Article 20 - Personal mobility
States Parties shall take effective measures to ensure personal mobility with the greatest possible independence for persons with disabilities, including by:
Facilitating the personal mobility of persons with disabilities in the manner and at the time of their choice, and at affordable cost;
Facilitating access by persons with disabilities to quality mobility aids, devices, assistive technologies and forms of live assistance and intermediaries, including by making them available at affordable cost;
Providing training in mobility skills to persons with disabilities and to specialist staff working with persons with disabilities;
Encouraging entities that produce mobility aids, devices and assistive technologies to take into account all aspects of mobility for persons with disabilities.
Estimate the annual cost of implementation and compliance with Article 20.
Again, this is already being done, the treaty would not have increased expenditures at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Article 28 - Adequate standard of living and social protection
1. States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions, and shall take appropriate steps to safeguard and promote the realization of this right without discrimination on the basis of disability.
Interpret and apply Article 28 Section 1.
Interpret? We, the signors of this treaty, agree that people with disabilities are PEOPLE, and are deserving of our care and consideration, that they deserve to have their minimum needs for food, shelter and clothing met, and we as individual governing bodies will take appropriate steps to see that those needs are met.
I am more concerned about my Democratic Gov Cuomo forcing the disabled onto private for profit HMOs that deny needed care. But that is just me I guess.
Some people with physical, intellectual, and mental disabilities can still be amazing athletes. Want proof? Go watch the Special Olympics in your area. Better yet, why don't you compare your 50 yard dash time against their gold medal winner?
The language is right there: "not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden". Pretty much the same language as used in the ADA, it does not at all override it.
Again, this echoes the current ADA, it does not make any changes.
Again, this echoes the current ADA, it does not make any changes. I think this is a doubly important clause, considering the discrimination against healthy women throughout other countries.
No more than we are already spending, as this is all being addressed now in the US.
Again, this is already being done, the treaty would not have increased expenditures at all.
Interpret? We, the signors of this treaty, agree that people with disabilities are PEOPLE, and are deserving of our care and consideration, that they deserve to have their minimum needs for food, shelter and clothing met, and we as individual governing bodies will take appropriate steps to see that those needs are met.
In other words, we will be decent human beings.
Who says that kicker can't play pro sports?? Go try out. Nobody cares if your disabled or not if you can boot a 55 yard game winner.
Oh, I dunno. To protect the rights of disabled Americans abroad? To express support for the disabled?
Nah. You're right. A silly waste of time.
Are you kidding me? You think this will protect the rights of Americans abroad? Do you people even realize who sits on the UN panel for human rights? Are you people this lost?
The modus for those who support this treaty is that it will force nations that are not taking care of their disabled to do so.
Yet by and large, those on this board who support this treaty often wax poetic about how America has been forcing its values on the rest of the world and that is why we are hated around the world. This is one of the BIG reasons they supported Mr. Obama. They say, and he says that America has made serious mistakes along these lines.
They make the claim that we are hated less because Mr. Obama has not been like his predicessor in this idea of forcing others to accept our values..... But they support a treaty that does exactly that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is this the latest blatant lie BSNBC is peddling to their young, impressionable, brain-dead audience?
From the link ......
