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.
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?
So the treaty has nothing to do with what you continue to talk about. I don't care what Saudi Arabia does. Let them do what they choose.
It is claimed by supporters that the USA will not need to make any changes to laws as a result of this treaty.
But what happens in 20 years when some UN panel that oversees this decides that there is some inequity in our laws? What then? Are we forced to bow to the wishes of some panel of foreigners who may not have the best interests of the USA at heart?
Look at the UN Commission on Human Rights. It is populated with some of the worst Human Rights violators in the world.
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?
As Mircea pointed out they haven't even read it. It just sounds good and feels good so by golly we gotta do it.
Reading this article made me throw up in my mouth ... then I came here and spotted the stupid "Why do liberals" blah blah blah. Hence ...
Here's something shameful and it's not from some dumb city council somewhere. It's the United States Senate. So I thought I'd throw it out here for yet another lesson in how posters here defend their pals against actual proof (as opposed to the vague meanderings of a fevered rightwing brain) of their coldhearted, willful meanness, stupidity and tin foil hats.
What is shameful is able bodied people who take the breaqd out of the mouths and other help meant for the disabled.Perhaps the Op needs to look at the UN's human rights committee;some of the worse abusers.
Wouldn't it be nice if when disabled Americans are traveling abroad that we'd know we'd be treated with the same sort fairness, respect and dignity we get here? I guess Republicans don't care about that....they don't want to be the standard bearer/leader of the world any longer.
I don't know, would it? Arguing to influence the intricate policies of nations around the world makes you sound like a Neocon, while you whine and complain about these Republicans that apparently "Hate the disabled". Give me a break. An American political party shouldn't be worried about being the "Standard bearer/leader of the world". We are in a damn mess right now because of trying to be the world's leader and policeman.
Those that voted both for and against this bill were elected by the people of the United States, not the people of the rest of the world. What other nations do is up to them, not us. There are too many people here can't see the forest through the trees.
Wouldn't it be nice if when disabled Americans are traveling abroad that we'd know we'd be treated with the same sort fairness, respect and dignity we get here? I guess Republicans don't care about that....they don't want to be the standard bearer/leader of the world any longer.
oh come on, you know that doesn't apply when there is political ammunition to pass around.
lol.
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.
