Readers on Qualifications for Disability
Sunday was the 25th anniversary of the Americans with Disability Act of 1990, so in the Sunday Poll I asked what should qualify as a disability. Before the results, here is information from a national poll: .
Strong majorities of Americans believe vision loss, blindness, or other permanent vision impairments (88%); cerebral palsy (83%); hearing loss, deafness, or other permanent hearing impairments (79%); multiple sclerosis (78%); autism (68%); and epilepsy (68%) should qualify as disabilities.
Over half also believe speech and language disorders (57%), learning disabilities (54%) and cancer (52%) should qualify, though only minorities of older Americans and Republicans are behind these particular conditions being considered disabilities:
Speech and language disorders: 41% of Matures, 47% of Republicans
Learning disabilities: 44% of Matures, 46% of Republicans
Cancer: 48% of Baby Boomers, 41% of Matures, 45% of Republicans
Majorities of Millennials (57%) and Democrats (54%) believe schizophrenia should qualify, while lower percentages of other generations (44% Gen Xers, 41% Baby Boomers, 27% Matures) and political persuasions (37% Republicans, 42% Independents) say the same, bringing the total support for this condition qualifying to 46%.Three in ten Americans believe depression (29%) should qualify, while just over two in ten say the same of migraine headaches (22%), 17% say the same of morbid obesity and 16% believe anorexia or bulimia should qualify. One in ten feel that drug addiction (10%) or alcoholism (9%) should qualify, while 5% say the same of compulsive gambling.
Perhaps not surprisingly, those who say they or someone else in their household faces an emotional or mental disability are especially likely to believe autism (75%), schizophrenia (67%) and depression (57%) should be considered qualifying conditions. (The Harris Poll: Overwhelming Public Support For the Americans with Disabilities Act, But Disagreements Exist on What Should Qualify as a Disability)
The free online poll software I use here doesn’t let me get into such detail. When reading the results below keep in mind people could select 1-16 answers. I don’t know how many people voted — my guess is 22. If so that would mean 100% think vision loss is a qualifier for disability. I’ve added a percentage in {0%} to indicate the relative support.
Q: Which of the following do you think should qualify as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act? (check all that apply)
- Vision loss, blindness, vision impairment 22 [12.02%] {100%}
- TIE 20 [10.93%] {90.9%}
- Multiple sclerosis
- Cerebral palsy
- Hearing loss, deafness, permanent hearing impairments 18 [9.84%] {81.8%}
- Epilepsy 17 [9.29%] {77.3%}
- Autism 14 [7.65%] {63.6%}
- Schizophrenia 13 [7.1%] {59.1%}
- Speech & language disorders 12 [6.56%] {54.5%}
- TIE 10 [5.46%] {45.5%}
- Learning disabilities
- Cancer
- Anorexia or bulimia 6 [3.28%] {27.3%}
- TIE 5 [2.73%] {22.7%}
- Morbid obesity
- Depression
- TIE 4 [2.19%] {18.2%}
- Drug addiction
- Alcoholism
- Compulsive gambling 3 [1.64%] {13.6%}
- Unsure/no answer 0 [0%]
The key is what makes it so you can’t do your current job, or another job. I’m not in a position to tell someone who is, say clinically depressed, they should be able to work. Besides, I’m too busy worrying about a potential 19% cut in 2016.
— Steve Patterson
“The key is what makes it so you can’t do your current job, or another job.” In whose judgement? An employer’s? Current? Or potential? Or some “expert”? Or, the judgement of each person, individually? As with many things in life, there is no cut-and-dried answer. A certain (and, apparently, increasing) percentage of the population* will (continue to) abuse the system, just like a certain percentage will do everything in their power to avoid taking any government benefits. From the perspective of this guy, who has spent the last 4+ decades gainfully employed, I fall on the Republican’s side of the discussion: “Congress could shift tax revenue from Social Security’s much larger retirement fund, as it has done in the past. . . But Republicans say they want changes in the program to reduce fraud and to encourage disabled workers to re-enter the work force.”
I was one of those people impacted by the recession. I could have chosen to seek permanent disability, just like I could have milked unemployment benefits for 2+ years, like too many other laid-off workers did. I chose, instead, to take a series of low-paying jobs, that I was over-qualified for, took a toll on my 55+ body, and required working “non-standard” hours. Yeah, it was my choice, but it’s also why I question why I should support shifting funds from the general social security trust fund to the disability trust fund. Blame poor management or blame increasing demand, after paying into social security for 44 years, I have no desire to (potentially? likely?) reduce my benefits (that I won’t start collecting for another 3-5 years). There are few poeple that are truly incapable of performing some sort of “job” – the trick is matching them with appropriate employers.
*http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/11/news/economy/disability-payments/
*http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
*http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/04/08/how-americans-game-the-200-billion-a-year-disability-industrial-complex/
Rather than worrying about losing the 19%, I’m wondering if you shouldn’t just feel grateful for the 81%. I’ve never come across a pie with an infinite number of servings, despite how small the servings might be. Pension reductions are becoming commonplace, and so it seems logical that disability reductions will follow. Based on the several out-of-town day trips and apparent frequent visits to restaurants for lunch and dinner that you often document in several of your postings, it would appear that you have a certain amount of disposable income, and so I wonder if you might be able to “get by” with a 19% cut without significant sacrifice, especially now that you have a legal husband who (I assume) is earning a paycheck. Certainly you appear to be able-bodied enough to attend meetings around the city, ride public transportation to those meetings, visit remote sites around the city to check out various issues that concern you, and to travel just about wherever else you want to go in and out-of-state, participate fully in out-of town excursions, and sponsor a blog on a regular basis……..and so I’m wondering why you wouldn’t be able to pick up some sort of job to supplement your possible loss of 19%? Or, better yet, land some sort of job that would allow you to refuse the monthly disability check entirely. Certainly, there are apartments in south and north STL where you could live more economically than you can live in a downtown loft building. I’m certain there are many individuals who work daily for a living who cannot afford a loft..and are living in a 4-room south St Louis apartments…and I’m wondering why our country provides disability payments to someone like yourself who lives in a loft, gallivants around the city and country with little apparent effort, and appears to be no stranger to restaurants. It would appear to me that you may be looking a gift horse in the mouth. I am opposed to most forms of welfare, but I’m especially opposed when I sense there are more critical and pressing needs that could be met with the funds.