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.
Should the government support a disabled person with no other means? YES.
Remember anyone can go from able to disabled with one auto accident at any time. They can become broke if their insurance company figures out some way to renege on its obligation.
So, YES, the government should support the disabled and destitute.
Shouting – AND DEFINITELY IF THE PERSON WAS DISABLE WHILE SERVING IN THE MILITARY NO MATTER WHAT THE CAUSE. BE IT AUTO ACCIDENT OR MINE OR BULLET.
As the cost of providing emergency services to this disabled individual would FAR outweigh the cost to give him benefits and monetary help month-to-month.
If (as some heartless individuals in this thread have indicated) we let him die, that would show how our nation and our society have become so ethically deteriorated by the greedy "what's mine is MINE and too bad for you" mentality. For a supposedly "Christian" nation, it's seems very un-Christian-like behavior to me.
For a society to work, it's got to provide SOME standard of care to its despondent/poor/sick.
Of course there are consequences of cutting programs. No one has ever made the claim that there were not. The issue which needs to be addressed is the financial insolvency of programs. Should the government provide for those who cannot take care of themselves? Absolutely. The real question, however is this: Is the government in a position where they CAN take care of those who cannot take care of themselves? Right now, the unfortunate answer to that is no.
If the money is not there to help people, then they cannot be helped, regardless of altruistic sentiments.
Funny how they always want to start with the poor and disabled and never seem to get to the people that can afford to loose a few dollars.
Right now they do. A person who has a qualified disability can receive disability benefits through the social security Adminstration. The question is should they or should they rely on the charity of others?
Lets assume that a 19 yr old was in an auto accident and is paralyzed. Should tax dollars be used to pay for his wheelchair, food etc. through SSI.
As the cost of providing emergency services to this disabled individual would FAR outweigh the cost to give him benefits and monetary help month-to-month.
If (as some heartless individuals in this thread have indicated) we let him die, that would show how our nation and our society have become so ethically deteriorated by the greedy "what's mine is MINE and too bad for you" mentality. For a supposedly "Christian" nation, it's seems very un-Christian-like behavior to me.
For a society to work, it's got to provide SOME standard of care to its despondent/poor/sick.
A) We are not, nor have we ever been a "christian nation"
B) This isn't about being greedy, this is about keeping government small and limited, as it rightly should be.
C) Taking care of people is not a function of government, nor should it ever be.
A) We are not, nor have we ever been a "christian nation"
B) This isn't about being greedy, this is about keeping government small and limited, as it rightly should be.
C) Taking care of people is not a function of government, nor should it ever be.
The majority of people in this country represent themselves as being Christian. Your values do not represent the values of the majority of people in this country. Thank God. Pun intended.
It's interesting to me how people think it's so easy to get disability.
I was told I would have to be unemployed due to my cancer for 6 months before I could get disability even though my doctor did not want me working full time. I am facing a relapse and might be able to get it quicker because a relapse means about 2 months of being hospitalized. Still, it's not an easy process.
I have an illness that should be easily approved (multiple sclerosis) for disability but I was told to expect it to take at least 2 years. What do people do for those 2 years?
Right now they do. A person who has a qualified disability can receive disability benefits through the social security Adminstration. The question is should they or should they rely on the charity of others?
Lets assume that a 19 yr old was in an auto accident and is paralyzed. Should tax dollars be used to pay for his wheelchair, food etc. through SSI.
Most definitely yes. I have no problem with it. God forbid, one day I might need it myself. One never knows what life holds in store for them.
Abuse of the system does occur. It hurts those who honestly need it. But I don't think it means the whole system needs to go away.
The majority of people in this country represent themselves as being Christian. Your values do not represent the values of the majority of people in this country. Thank God. Pun intended.
Thankfully that number is decreasing every year.
That being said, the fact that the Constitution specifically prohibits the establishment of an "official" religion means we are not a christian nation.
Simply because a large number of delusional people believe in an imaginary sky zombie does not mean we are a christian nation.
My values coincide with the ideas laid out in the Constitution.
I have an illness that should be easily approved (multiple sclerosis) for disability but I was told to expect it to take at least 2 years. What do people do for those 2 years?
Took my husband about 3 years to get on. It isn't easy as some of the people make is sound.
Good luck and do hope that it doesn't take that long.
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.