SC proposes to cut funding for the disabled

[classicman]

The money will always decide.

Who's money? What do you mean?



Who's or Whose? I'm confused.
I think it is whose

[Shawnee123]

Heh, I'm not asking "who is money".

Whose money. I'm trying to get back to my point...since the health care debate started in full force, I've heard a lot about using "our" money (presumably taxpayers) to help people who are just druggies, or alkies, or a slew of other "bad choices." The thought seems to be that "we" shouldn't help those who made a bad choice.

So, questions:

Who draws the line?
Who makes the decision?
Is the money part of doing business, if one likens a national economy to business, aren't there costs that aren't considered typically in the cost of doing business, at least not on a big level, losses the company is willing to take as "cost of doing business" and in deference to the greater good of the action?
Is the greater good unattainable because we are too afraid someone who made a bad choice might get some help?
Is there a statue of limitations on bad choices?
Do you and I and marcia and greg and johnny and billy all agree on what is a bad choice?

So, who decides?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

So, who decides?

It would work in the fashion as almost any political decision. Special interests groups play tug a war with the government being the rope while the majority of people stand back and watch.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Whose money. I'm trying to get back to my point...since the health care debate started in full force, I've heard a lot about using "our" money (presumably taxpayers) to help people who are just druggies, or alkies, or a slew of other "bad choices." The thought seems to be that "we" shouldn't help those who made a bad choice.

No reason to draw any line. Those who make bad choices die earlier. Put less stain on the system. The most expensive people are the healthy people who life on and on and on. Who slowly degrade. I have seen numbers that put the cost of this category as high as 50% of insurance costs.

Insurance means covering everyone. That is what insurance is about when the purpose of insurance is more important than profits. By not having insurance, we are simply dumping the 'stresses' on other parts of the economy - ie through bankruptcies, hospitals (especially children's hospitals) covering the costs that customers cannot pay for, and long term harm to kids because the most stressed families cannot get insurance.

One part of the economy that gets stuck for the bills if we do not change the system - government. Those costs exist no matter who does and does not pay. The idea of insurance is to stabilize what is now an economically and socially destructive way of paying for those costs.

Why are these costs dumped on government? Because we have no working health insurance system. And because the existing system is so beneficial to the upper 50% at the expense or the lower 50%. A large number of that lower 50% are children.

[classicman]

circular argument I think.

The people in charge of/with the money decide.

[Shawnee123]

Thanks tw...that was an awesome post.

[Bluesky]

help people who are just druggies, or alkies, or a slew of other "bad choices."

Odds are it varies by state but most low income, made poor choices and are ill from them people, qualify for medicad...the low income fed program adminstered by the states.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Welcome to the Cellar, Bluesky.

And the people who aren't low income try to hide the bad choices as long as they can.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Bluesky

Odds are it varies by state but most low income, made poor choices and are ill from them people, qualify for medicad...the low income fed program adminstered by the states.

As I keep reiterating, It is extremely difficult for someone who is an alkie/drug user to get government aid - at least in Colorado. If your records show a history of alcohol or drug use, too bad for you. Some do start heavy drinking after they get the aid, but as Bruce pointed out, they die quick. There just aren't that many 70 year old meth freaks out there.

[Bluesky]

Thanks for the welcome

So a mentally ill 18 yr old, who takes illegal drugs doesn't get a psych eval and end up labeled disabled due to say bipolar or schizophrenia in Colorado?

Or do you mean just a welfare, not disabled, type hand out from the gov?

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Bluesky

Thanks for the welcome

So a mentally ill 18 yr old, who takes illegal drugs doesn't get a psych eval and end up labeled disabled due to say bipolar or schizophrenia in Colorado?

Or do you mean just a welfare, not disabled, type hand out from the gov?

No, no, no. A person cannot end up labeled disabled without extensive testing and two or three doctor's evaluations. Its really not that simple. Now a person may get labeled schizophrenic and ultimately go off his meds. This is almost always a tragedy as the person often becomes completely non functional - sleeps in the park, gets his money stolen, etc. Some schizophrenics do self medicate with illegal drugs, but illicit drug use is not their primary diagnosis. The plight of many schizophrenics is indeed tragic. I can see that you have a heart as big as an olive pit.

[Bluesky]

Originally Posted by SamIam

No, no, no. A person cannot end up labeled disabled without extensive testing and two or three doctor's evaluations. Its really not that simple. Now a person may get labeled schizophrenic and ultimately go off his meds. This is almost always a tragedy as the person often becomes completely non functional - sleeps in the park, gets his money stolen, etc. Some schizophrenics do self medicate with illegal drugs, but illicit drug use is not their primary diagnosis. The plight of many schizophrenics is indeed tragic. I can see that you have a heart as big as an olive pit.

Looks like you and i didn't communicate.

In SoCal, I've met many self medicating mentally ill who have gone through being hospitalized and are legally disabled, on disability and they DO still use drugs.

It sounded to me like Colorado would refuse to consider their mental illness when looking at them due to the drug use.

?????

[SamIam]

If a person is a known drug user, his chance of getting approved in the first place is slim. If he develops a problem after being diagnosed, he can be sent to rehab in an effort to help him with his secondary and after the fact diagnoses.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by SamIam

No, no, no. A person cannot end up labeled disabled without extensive testing and two or three doctor's evaluations. Its really not that simple. Now a person may get labeled schizophrenic and ultimately go off his meds. This is almost always a tragedy as the person often becomes completely non functional - sleeps in the park, gets his money stolen, etc. Some schizophrenics do self medicate with illegal drugs, but illicit drug use is not their primary diagnosis. The plight of many schizophrenics is indeed tragic. I can see that you have a heart as big as an olive pit.

Originally Posted by Bluesky

Looks like you and i didn't communicate.

In SoCal, I've met many self medicating mentally ill who have gone through being hospitalized and are legally disabled, on disability and they DO still use drugs.

It sounded to me like Colorado would refuse to consider their mental illness when looking at them due to the drug use.

?????

ASIDE
I'd like to point out Bluesky's Reaction to being misunderstood is commendable.
Instead of getting all pissy and personal, Bluesky further clarified his/her question/point.
Well played.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Bluesky

Looks like you and i didn't communicate.

In SoCal, I've met many self medicating mentally ill who have gone through being hospitalized and are legally disabled, on disability and they DO still use drugs.

It sounded to me like Colorado would refuse to consider their mental illness when looking at them due to the drug use.

?????

Sorry, sometimes I have mild brain blips. I didn't understand what you were asking. My understanding is that Colorado wil look at the big picture as long as your addiction occurred after you became disabled. They will treat people for dual diagnosis.