|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:07 pm
Ok, here's an all-purpose thread for discussion on issues relating to politics or legislation related to or involving handicapped/disabled persons. What do you think about various regulations on private businesses to accomodate the handicapped? I would like to think market forces would be enough to keep this kind of thing in line. If you don't put in handicapped spaces, you'll obviously lose handicapped customers. But would institutions find it profitable to keep handicapped people in mind? Would it turn out to be unefficient enough to have ramps and extra spaces for the special customers that no businesses would have them installed? Or, if that was the case, would it "look bad" and businesses would seem to be uncaring or whatnot to not have the spaces/ramps/elevators and lose business to people concerned about the handicapped? Also- if we need the regulation- do we really need to force the same laws we have for shopping malls to gyms, swimming pools, and other more athletic businesses that wouldn't see much or many handicapped persons? Jerry Seinfeld What is the handicapped situation at the special olympics? ... Still just the two spots? ~*~ On a side topic- handicap welfare. Is government authorized theft allowable for people who cannot work at all? I'd be a little squeamish to say no to this one, sorry.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 7:04 pm
Many businesses would not keep up with handicaped accessibility, but I still believe it is their right to choose wether they do or not. Besides, there would still would be business that do keep up with handicaped accessibility, taking all theses particular profits away from the businesses that do not.
When it comes to socialism, like in this case of people who cannot work, it takes time to completey eradicate it. If we droped all the social programs immediately in the US it would be a disater. The only way to remove it is to remove it slowly, slowly improving the economy which decreases the country's dependence on it. It's like the nicotine patches for cigarette smokers. As the economy improves, alturism improves and charities will pay for this audience that can't work instead of the government.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:35 pm
VashZero5 Many businesses would not keep up with handicaped accessibility, but I still believe it is their right to choose wether they do or not. Besides, there would still would be business that do keep up with handicaped accessibility, taking all theses particular profits away from the businesses that do not. When it comes to socialism, like in this case of people who cannot work, it takes time to completey eradicate it. If we droped all the social programs immediately in the US it would be a disater. The only way to remove it is to remove it slowly, slowly improving the economy which decreases the country's dependence on it. It's like the nicotine patches for cigarette smokers. As the economy improves, alturism improves and charities will pay for this audience that can't work instead of the government. Nicotine patches, i like that analogy. I think I would vote for a step-by-step plan for total eradication if I was a congressman, but I'm not sure... the biggest reason I have for supporting capatalism is because of the incentive to work hard it brings. With the severely handicapped, you don't have that. I think I would still say the immorality of government theft alone would still outweigh it though.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:06 am
Actually, I'm pretty sure that a lot of the more prominent (not mom-and-pop) businesses would keep up with some kind of handicap access. The thing that makes handicap accessibility such a pain is that the rules are extremely specific as to the angle of incline (for wheelchairs) and the proportion of handicap parking to normal parking, just to mention a few instances. Certainly, any business that already has handicap accessibility would see little reason to be rid of said accessibility, but when a new Kroger is made, they'd have to seriously be cutting costs to not establish a basic ramp and a handicap spot or two.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:16 pm
we would have to get people tohelp the handicapped people more first, and then take away governemnt assistance, not the other way around. If we could get sufficient aid for the handicapped people independent of government then we could drop the SSI and food stamp BS
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:02 pm
Lykus Actually, I'm pretty sure that a lot of the more prominent (not mom-and-pop) businesses would keep up with some kind of handicap access. The thing that makes handicap accessibility such a pain is that the rules are extremely specific as to the angle of incline (for wheelchairs) and the proportion of handicap parking to normal parking, just to mention a few instances. Certainly, any business that already has handicap accessibility would see little reason to be rid of said accessibility, but when a new Kroger is made, they'd have to seriously be cutting costs to not establish a basic ramp and a handicap spot or two. yes. businesses wouldn't pay extra money to tear down handicapped accessibility that they already paid good money to build.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 8:41 pm
In order to drop programs like that... private funds would HAVE to be available. SSDI and state health care keep me alive. It's not that I don't try. I just can't keep a job for long because I'll have a seizure and get fired. And the fact that I can't stay standing makes it hard to keep a job. I don't want to have to rely on the government, but I don't want to be on the streets either. I do agree some people get on these programs too easy. But those of us who HONESTLY need it, will need other options before they can cold turkey cut us.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:05 pm
Hotaru Tome In order to drop programs like that... private funds would HAVE to be available. SSDI and state health care keep me alive. It's not that I don't try. I just can't keep a job for long because I'll have a seizure and get fired. And the fact that I can't stay standing makes it hard to keep a job. I don't want to have to rely on the government, but I don't want to be on the streets either. I do agree some people get on these programs too easy. But those of us who HONESTLY need it, will need other options before they can cold turkey cut us. I agree, I'm not so stone cold as to say that people where work is nearly impossible to be left out in the cold. But I do believe if we slowly improve the economy while slashing socialism private funds will be available.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:08 am
Hotaru Tome In order to drop programs like that... private funds would HAVE to be available. SSDI and state health care keep me alive. It's not that I don't try. I just can't keep a job for long because I'll have a seizure and get fired. And the fact that I can't stay standing makes it hard to keep a job. I don't want to have to rely on the government, but I don't want to be on the streets either. I do agree some people get on these programs too easy. But those of us who HONESTLY need it, will need other options before they can cold turkey cut us. is it legal to fire someone becasue they had a seizure? also, try telemarketing. (or telephone acting if it doesnt freak you out) good money, and you get to sit all day.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 12:11 pm
Libertarian2008 Hotaru Tome In order to drop programs like that... private funds would HAVE to be available. SSDI and state health care keep me alive. It's not that I don't try. I just can't keep a job for long because I'll have a seizure and get fired. And the fact that I can't stay standing makes it hard to keep a job. I don't want to have to rely on the government, but I don't want to be on the streets either. I do agree some people get on these programs too easy. But those of us who HONESTLY need it, will need other options before they can cold turkey cut us. is it legal to fire someone becasue they had a seizure? also, try telemarketing. (or telephone acting if it doesnt freak you out) good money, and you get to sit all day. Yeah I could of swore there was some sort of disabilities act that said you couldn't fire someone because of a seizure.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 12:33 am
VashZero5 Libertarian2008 is it legal to fire someone becasue they had a seizure? also, try telemarketing. (or telephone acting if it doesnt freak you out) good money, and you get to sit all day. Yeah I could of swore there was some sort of disabilities act that said you couldn't fire someone because of a seizure. Ah the Americans with Disabilities Act. I love it, and I hate it. Sure it sounds great in theory. But there are loopholes. The ADA says that you must keep a worker on IF there is an appropriate position that won't be hindered by the worker's disability. But, if the boss can say that you are endagering yourself and others by having this disability, and there is no other position you can work, then you are able to be let go. Also, the employer can also lie... say you've stolen $50 from a drawer, say you've beaten children, say you've harassed a client/patron (all of which have been said of me, all of which are COMPLETELY false). Oh, and also, people in that nice government of ours are trying to say Epilepsy isn't a disability, and people with Epilepsy shouldn't be covered by the ADA. It's truely frustrating. And no, I don't take legal action. Part time jobs don't give me enough money to even want to THINK about hiring a lawyer. I would end up loosing money rather than gaining. Oh and I thought about Telemarketing for a while, then realized the places for that are on the other side of town, and as I cannot drive, and public transportation SUCKS in my city, I can't do it. But it was a good thought to be sure.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 10:32 pm
we should also see that we catch all the loopholes that employees can take advantage of too though..my dad is an HR director and he would talk about how he would catch the opposite extreme of that kind of thing- where people were just laid off because of efficiency or whatnot, and the employee sueing for discrimination, thus my dad among most HRs have to be somewhat familiar with the legal system.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 12:05 am
Hotaru Tome VashZero5 Libertarian2008 is it legal to fire someone becasue they had a seizure? also, try telemarketing. (or telephone acting if it doesnt freak you out) good money, and you get to sit all day. Yeah I could of swore there was some sort of disabilities act that said you couldn't fire someone because of a seizure. Ah the Americans with Disabilities Act. I love it, and I hate it. Sure it sounds great in theory. But there are loopholes. The ADA says that you must keep a worker on IF there is an appropriate position that won't be hindered by the worker's disability. But, if the boss can say that you are endagering yourself and others by having this disability, and there is no other position you can work, then you are able to be let go. Also, the employer can also lie... say you've stolen $50 from a drawer, say you've beaten children, say you've harassed a client/patron (all of which have been said of me, all of which are COMPLETELY false). Oh, and also, people in that nice government of ours are trying to say Epilepsy isn't a disability, and people with Epilepsy shouldn't be covered by the ADA. It's truely frustrating. And no, I don't take legal action. Part time jobs don't give me enough money to even want to THINK about hiring a lawyer. I would end up loosing money rather than gaining. Oh and I thought about Telemarketing for a while, then realized the places for that are on the other side of town, and as I cannot drive, and public transportation SUCKS in my city, I can't do it. But it was a good thought to be sure. Wow! Shows what kind of job our retarded pals in DC are doing.. That's pretty messed up.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:47 pm
Hotaru Tome Oh, and also, people in that nice government of ours are trying to say Epilepsy isn't a disability, and people with Epilepsy shouldn't be covered by the ADA. It's truely frustrating. I really don't think epilepsy is a disability. It's a condition that if properly controlled with meds, doesn't have to stop you from living your life. People with epilepsy are perfectly normal aside from that condition.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:21 pm
Shinobi_1977 I really don't think epilepsy is a disability. It's a condition that if properly controlled with meds, doesn't have to stop you from living your life. People with epilepsy are perfectly normal aside from that condition. It's true. Sometimes... even most times... epilepsy is controlled with medication, diet, surgery, and other things. But then there are people like me who aren't surgical candidates, and have tried 8 different medications, and combinations of those 8 medications, but to no real amount of relief. It is when the seizures and side effects from the seizures and medications are keeping one from living a normal life that epilepsy really presents itself as a disability. Yes, epilepsy should conditionally be classified as a disibility, but it shouldn't completely be denied to be one.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|