The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: franksolich on September 16, 2009, 07:24:36 AM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=230x4584
Oh my.
More entertainment, from watching the primitives squibble-squabble.
Naturyl (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 02:39 AM
Original message
Obama Lies about Poverty and Medicaid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn-Fi7AEoeQ
Regarding health care, Obama says that the uninsured are not primarily in poverty, because "a lot of those folks are on Medicaid."
No wonder there is so much confusion about Medicaid cropping up everywhere. I was wondering why all of a sudden, I keep running into the claim that poor people can just go sign up for Medicaid at will. In reality, "a lot of those folks" are not on Medicaid. According to federal guidelines, poverty alone does *not* qualify anyone for Medicaid.
after which material
Hate to say it, but in this case, Joe Wilson was right.
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 02:47 AM
Response to Original message
3. Where did you get your information?
"Over 65, blind, or disabled" are pretty vague terms, not anything you'd ever find in a piece of legislation out of Washington.
I'd like to know where you got that.
Naturyl (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:16 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Thanks. It's amazing how many people are misinformed about this.
I never realized until very recently that most people think the poor can just waltz into a Medicaid office and apply based on nothing more than their poverty. Firstly, Medicaid offices don't even exist, for the most part. That should be a clue. Medicaid eligibility is bundled with other programs (primarily SSI) that require a finding of disability.
Seriously, I had no idea people believed that poverty alone qualifies you for Medicaid. In most cases, it simply does not. This is some major misinformation that is impacting the health care debate significantly, and it's being repeated by Obama himself. Call me crazy, but I think that's very bothersome.
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. State Social Workers deal with Medicaid - in what used to be called "Welfare Offices." They're Social Service offices, and the names, of course, vary from state to state.
There is absolutely NO age limit on Medicaid. The person blathering that might be thinking of Medicare, an entirely different program.
Poverty alone can qualify you for Medicaid. That was the whole purpose for initiating the program - to provide medical care for poor people.
I know of one jurisdiction - Virginia - that uses income and financial resources as its sole requirement to meet Medicaid eligibility.
Obama is right, and you are wrong.
Naturyl (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 04:16 AM
Response to Reply #11
46. "Poverty alone can qualify you for Medicaid."
No it can't, in many states.
Believe whatever you want - it's clear that's your approach to life anyway.
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 04:19 AM
Response to Reply #46
49. You're right - You're right about everything. I bet you're always right. And I bet you've always been right about everything.
Commendable. I salute you.
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Uh, you're wrong -
Medicaid has NO disability requirement, although people who are disabled with limited financial resources are encouraged to apply.
Medicaid is based on finances, and that is its base requirement. The rest is ancillary.
You may or may not have personal experience, but you have your very, very basic information completely wrong.
Financial need. No age requirement, no disability requirement
You appear to be the one who is full of shit on this issue.
Naturyl (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. Nope, that's 100% wrong.
You can link to HHS all you want, but nowhere does that page say that income is the sole requirement.
Federal eligibility guidelines absolutely DO require that recipients be aged, blind, or disabled. As the HHS site points out, individual states may choose (or NOT choose) to expand on these basic guidelines, meaning that actual eligibility may vary by state. This does not change the fact that in many states (particularly the red ones), the "aged, blind disabled" standard is the baseline.
Do you actually believe that ALL low-income people in America are eligible for Medicaid? That is really an astonishing thing to believe, in light of the MILLIONS of poor people who are uninsured. Are they just too ignorant to know they qualify?
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Medicaid is BASED on financial need - not age, not disability, not blindness. It was designed - and I remember when it was voted on, I'm that old - to help poor people get medical care. It's been a great program, a truly great program.
You are just dead wrong about that aged, blind, or disabled stuff. What Federal guidelines - or do you mean "laws" - are you citing? I'd surely like to see them, because my experience as an attorney in Virginia, helping people in need get Medicaid involved none of that stuff.
Aged is for Medicare, not Medicaid. That's the big difference between them - Medicaid has absolutely NO age limits.
I do believe that people at a certain poverty level qualify for Medicaid, yes. Those levels probably vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and there may even be other requirements, depending on the jurisdiction, but the basic, and general, requirement is the financial status.
I don't know why people don't apply for Medicaid. You'd have to ask them.
Naturyl (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #18
26. Sorry, but it's you who are dead wrong.
Yes, Medicaid is a great program. Yes, it is based on financial need - *in combination* with other eligibility requirements. Apparently, in your state, these other requirements have been lifted. That is excellent and I congratulate your state. However, in many other states (such as mine), these other requirements still exist.
Point blank fact: Not everyone in America can qualify for Medicaid based on nothing more than financial need. In your state, perhaps they can, but your state is not the whole of America.
"I don't know why people don't apply for Medicaid. You'd have to ask them."
Nobody is so foolish as to fail or refuse to apply for health care to which they are entitled. The obvious (and correct) answer is that many poor people are not on Medicaid because they are not eligible for it in their states.
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:44 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. What "other requirements"?
You just sent me the document that details Alabama's eligibility requirements, and they are very simple:
Be living in Alabama.
Be a US citizen.
Meet the financial requirements.
THAT IS ALL.
You are unable to read. That's the only thing I can glean. I am quoting from the document YOU sent me.
Come on, dude. No one's THAT thick.
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:52 AM
Original message
You've been getting some very bad advice. Or else something else is going on. But a thirty-five year old man with no money, no assets, living within the poverty guidelines that exist in Alabama is eligible for Medicaid if he has proof of citizenship and is currently domiciled in Alabama.
It's that simple.
Naturyl (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:54 AM
Response to Original message
37. Nope, 100% false.
Clearly, you are the one with reading difficulties. NOWHERE in the document I linked does it state, imply, or suggest that such an individual would be eligible. The document is quite specific about who is eligible, and the 35 year-old non-disabled poor man is absolutely NOT included.
ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS
During Fiscal Year 2008, more than 920,000 Alabama citizens were eligible for Medicaid benefits for at least one month of the year. To be eligible for federal funds, states are required to provide coverage for certain groups. These groups are:
Low income families who meet the eligibility requirements in the state’s AFDC plan
In effect on July 16, 1996;
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients;
Infants born to Medicaid-eligible pregnant women;
Children under age 6 and pregnant women whose family income is at or below
133 percent of the federal poverty level
Children ages 6-18 whose family income is up to 100 percent of the federal poverty level
Recipients of adoption assistance
Children in foster care or custody of Dept. of Youth Services
Certain Medicare beneficiaries
Special protected groups, including those who lose eligibility for cash assistance
or SSI due to an increase in earnings from work, Social Security benefits
or child/spousal support.
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. OK, you're absolutely right -
There is no Medicaid for anyone anywhere unless they're 65, blind, and disabled.
Carry on.
Naturyl (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 04:11 AM
Response to Reply #39
43. Why further mischaracterize what I said?
Are you really this offended by anyone who criticizes Obama, even when the criticism is factually accurate?
I never said "there is no Medicaid for anyone anywhere unless they're 65, blind, and disabled." Some states have expanded Medicaid to others. What I *did* say, and what I stand by as 100% factual, is that not ALL low-income Americans are eligible for Medicaid just because they are poor. State rules vary, but the basic standard is aged, blind, or disabled.
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 04:20 AM
Response to Reply #43
50. You're absolutely right - everything is exactly as you say it is because you say it is so, and that is how it is.
You're absolutely right.
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:45 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. Actually, the sad truth is that a lot of people who are eligible for all kinds of assistance don't apply for any of it because they very often don't know of the existence of these programs, or else they're fearful of the government, stories they've heard, stuff like that.
I suspect that Medicaid's ranks would be greater if the people were able to be better-informed.
Naturyl (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:49 AM
Response to Reply #30
33. Yeah, in other words, the poor are too stupid to apply.
"I suspect that Medicaid's ranks would be greater if the people were able to be better-informed."
I suspect its ranks would be greater if more poor people were actually eligible.
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:55 AM
Response to Reply #33
38. So far, you haven't shown me anything that suggests that any poor families anywhere meeting the financial standards aren't eligible for Medicaid.
And your Subject Line is really offensive, but since you appear to be losing your grip, I suppose your anger has to be channeled somewhere, so why not slime poor people?
Your anger is palpable. Too bad your attempt to defame our President failed.
Naturyl (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 04:08 AM
Response to Reply #38
42. LOL... I'm sliming poor people? Wow...
When my fellow DU poverty advocates see this in the morning, they are going to have a good laugh at the the idea of me "sliming poor people." It will be particularly amusing given that it is you who are really sliming the poor by falsely claiming that ALL poor Americans are eligible for Medicaid. If that is the case, then why are there millions who don't have it?
Seriously, put aside your knee-jerk Obama worship for just a moment and face reality. If Medicaid were really available to ALL poor people nationwide, almost all poor people would have it. To suggest otherwise implies that poor people are ignorant, self-destructive, or stupid.
My anger is "palpable" because you're strenuously defending something that simply isn't true out of a misguided need to defend Obama. It's unfortunate, and had I known this was going to happen, I'd have posted this thread in GD where your utterly mistaken assertions would be demolished en masse in seconds, even by your fellow Obama lovers.
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 04:23 AM
Response to Reply #42
51. You're right - You are right about all of this. You are right about Obama, about me and whatever I might or might not believe. You are right about how people will laugh in the morning, and you are right about facing reality.
Youa re right about why people don't have Medicaid coverage, and you are right about all those Obama lovers.
You are right about everything, and, as I've stated elsewhere, you are probably always right about everything, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit to find out that you've always been right about everything, for your whole life.
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. Your OP is full of shit - there is no age requirement for Medicaid.
Anyone of any age is eligible for Medicaid.
If you need to prove that Obama is wrong about something - he's not, not on this matter - pick something that doesn't make you end up looking totally clueless.
Medicare, by the way, has an age mandate that must be met before someone is eligible, and that is 65.
Naturyl (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:31 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. Bullshit, that is a lie.
"Anyone of any age is eligible for Medicaid."
That is a lie. State eligibility varies, but I guarantee you not everyone is eligible in every state just because of low income. i just checked my own state, for example, and non-disabled low-income adults have ZERO eligibility.
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Show me a state which requires a certain age for people to apply for Medicaid.
Show me what you just looked at for your state. I'd be curious to see that, since here in Virginia, as I stated, the sole requirement is poverty.
Naturyl (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:35 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. Okey-dokey.
http://www.medicaid.alabama.gov/documents/apply/2A-Gene...
Again, good for Virginia. That is admirable and I wish it were the case everywhere. It is not. Here in Alabama, as you will note, there is no eligibility for low-income adults simply because they have a low income. See "Eligible Individuals."
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:40 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. Thank you - it clearly states that all that is required to be eligible for Medicaid in Alabama is that you are a citizen with a certain level of income.
There is no age requirement.
There is no disability requirement.
There is no blind requirement.
If you are applying through a program that is for the elderly or disabled must also meet certain medical criteria, according to their Eligibility Requirements.
But the rules in Alabama are exactly the same as they are here in Virginia.
I'm laughing now, because either you can't read or else you're having me on.
Naturyl (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:46 AM
Response to Reply #25
31. Okay, you're clearly intellectually challenged.
The document clearly states the groups of people who are eligible.
after which repetition of the standards for Alabama, already quoted
Where do you see ordinary low-income people who do not fit into any of the groups above included as eligible? For example, where do you see a 35 year old single low-income non-disabled male being eligible? AFDC? Nope. SSI? Nope. Infants and pregnant women? Nope. Children? Nope. Medicare? Nope.
He is not eligible, period. What part of that are you having trouble with?
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. He falls into the first group - a single individual is considered a family for purposes such as these. The word family is a legal term of art. Didn't you know that?
Did you say you had an attorney? Or was that another poster? Because if you needed an attorney to get you through this, and that attorney told you you weren't eligible, I'd say you needed another lawyer.
And, really, in spite of my "intellectually challenged" state, I'm able to read this stuff and understand it.
You're just wrong.
Naturyl (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:59 AM
Response to Reply #34
40. Holy cow, you are really out to lunch.
The first group is "Low income families who meet the eligibility requirements in the state’s AFDC plan." AFDC is Aid to Families with Dependent Children. How in greasy monkey love is a single man going to meet the eligibility requirements for AFDC?
Go ahead, come up with something else, because this last attempt was downright comical.
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 04:01 AM
Response to Reply #40
41. You're absolutely right - you're right about everything. You have always been right. You have it all right.
You are the Medicaid Master Of The Universe.
after which a photograph of some plastic cartoon character
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:42 AM
Response to Reply #24
28. No, kiddo - it's bullshit. Read this, and see that the requirements in Alabama are exactly the same as they are in Virginia. A program for poor people:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
This particular DUer either can't read or is blowing smoke late at night to entertain the vampires among us.
Naturyl (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 04:14 AM
Response to Reply #28
44. Here is the list of those eligible in AL
after which the standards for Alabama are outlined a third time
Absolutely *nothing* there to suggest that a single, non-disabled, low-income male is eligible. And in fact, he is not.
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 04:18 AM
Response to Reply #44
47. Well, I tried to explain it to you, but you being the Medicaid Master of the Universe, you knew everything, so, as I said, it's a shame that there are people out there who don't know that they're eligible, but you chose to mock those people, calling them "stupid," which wasn't very nice.
You do realize, don't you, that I was responding to elleng? And you've posted this three or four times already.
Tried to explain it, but failed. Ah, well, I get points in Heaven for having tried.
Naturyl (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #47
52. I didn't call them stupid.
Try to follow along. Characterizing the millions of poor people who do not have Medicaid as stupid is not what I did, it is what *you* are doing by suggesting that ALL of America's poor are eligible. If they are ALL eligible, then, by implication, there is no possible explanation for why so many lack coverage except some sort of severe cognitive impairment.
I do NOT think poor people are stupid. I think many of them are simply *not* eligible, and *that* is why they lack coverage. Can you you push the little Obama-flavored sugar plums out of your head long enough to try to wrap your limited logical faculties around that?
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 04:26 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. You're right - You are right about all of that. You are right about all the Federal requirements, and you are right about the Medicaid history.
You are right about everything. You are always right, and you will always be right.
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Same here - I've helped some people here in Virginia get Medicaid, so I had to learn it fast. It's surprisingly streamlined, and the process was very simple. I dealt with some social workers from Alexandria and Fairfax - terrific people who made it all so easy. The approval was quick - a matter of a couple of weeks once all the paperwork was submitted - and it all went well.
Pure financial need. That was all that was required. The hardest part I had working for these folks was getting proof of citizenship. They had never even SEEN their birth certificates, and two of them weren't born in the states where they thought they'd been born! Fortunately, we were able to track down all the documentation.
But, a passport or a birth certificate was all the Medicaid people would accept. That was the hardest part of the process.
Naturyl (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:33 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. Good for Virginia, then.
"Pure financial need. That was all that was required. "
Perhaps that is the case in Virginia. If so, congratulations. I assure it is emphatically NOT the case in every state. It isn't the case in mine, and it isn't the case in many others.
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:37 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. You do understand that that belies your blanket - and erroneous - statement that the "Federal requirements are 65, blind, or disabled," don't you?
You are wrong about that.
Again, Medicaid was put together to take care of the poor. Medicare was put together to take care of senior citizens.
You made a blanket statement that is dead wrong, and then you tried to paint Obama with your faulty brush. He wasn't wrong, but you were.
Naturyl (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:52 AM
Response to Reply #23
35. Medicaid was put together to take care of the DISABLED poor.
Check the history.
It has since been expanded to include certain groups of non-disabled persons in SOME states, but by no means all.
Obama was not only wrong about most poor people being on Medicaid, but probably purposely wrong. In other words, lying through his teeth for political expediency.
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. No, it was not - it was to take care of the poor. Disability is not why it was conceived.
You're wrong, I'm right, Obama is right, and the ideas that you're trying to sell are dead wrong.
At this point, you're willing to appear the fool just to convince yourself that Obama is some kind of villain. That's entertaining, but, really, the requirements are simple, the history is right there, and you're pulling "facts" and "rules" out of thin air.
Naturyl (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 04:15 AM
Response to Reply #36
45. Okay, go on believing that.
You're as willfully deluded as any right-winger I've ever encountered.
Tangerine LaBamba (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 04:18 AM
Response to Reply #45
48. You're right - You are the Medicaid Master Of The Universe, and you are absolutely right about everything.
Actually, I suspect the natural primitive is more right, and the Gloria Swanson primitive more wrong. But whatever.
-
Yep, I agree with the Nature primitive as well. My son carries medicaid. In Ohio, one has to qualify BOTH based on disability and income from what I understand. They allow a provision here because of the burden of care for a special needs child for a family to qualify ONLY under the disability status without regard for the income portion. The disability is always the constant. Also, I was 'poor' at one time, as was my brother who is a type 1 diabetic. I would never have qualified for medicaid in the state of Florida when I lived there based on poor alone, neither did my brother. However, when his diabetes jumped in severity due to a serious accident to where his kidneys no longer functioned and he needed dialysis 3 days a week, he was qualified as disabled and now recieves SSDI and medicaid(one of the few who is truly eligible on this anymore due to an actual limiting disability and not some made up bullshit put together by paid off lawyers and the doctors who will support these claims.)
This is where it burns me up this whole argument on SSDI/Medicaid/etc. I know of a couple of instances of people who truly were given the shitstick end in genetics and had medical conditions that make earning a decent living and even getting the skills to do so impossible, yet any depressed person with a doctor on their side and persistence anymore can get SSDI so they can sit at home and feel more depressed while they watch Jerry Springer with a fully functioning body and their only mental disability being they don't want to work. Ugh, makes me sick. The reality is if these things were kept within the strict guidelines of caring for the truly disabled, they wouldn't be hurting the way they do when layabouts tag along on them riding on the backs of people who truly do need the community support for most of their lives. Ugh! That's all.
-
community support for most of their lives. Ugh! That's all.
I don't much about MediCare but I know I am probably elgible for food stamps. lol. Maybe $75 or so a month. Not that I'm desperate enough to apply.
-
Thanks, jtyangel, madam.
This confirms what appears to be the standards in Nebraska, too--I have no first-hand experience in observing this, but from all the income tax work I do, I have the impression one has to be on social security disability (in Nebraska) to get medicaid.
I know of no one who gets medicaid simply because of poverty; there has to be some other factor, too (disability, children, whatnot).
I'm really embarrassed for the Gloria Swanson primitive, one of my favorite primitives and a first-tier primitive at that, who's allegedly an attorney. Perhaps Great Old Age has deteriorated the brain-cells, and alas it's a tragedy. But grow old, we all must.
-
I don't much about MediCare but I know I am probably elgible for food stamps. lol. Maybe $75 or so a month. Not that I'm desperate enough to apply.
Yes, apparently, some vary as to what they consider a 'profound disability'. My qualifications of that(and yours) are more stringent and conservative. My 9 year old can't cross the road on his own, needs considerable help bathing still, and would risk his life running on a freeway when seperated from us(going back the route he remembers coming) rather then verbalize to another human being he is lost(just doesn't occur to him or he can't put the words together). He I consider profoundly disabled. There is no doubt he needs nearly constant supervision and direction and support or he would perish. The DUmmies on the other hand consider having a lot of bad days in the row that cause one to feel 'down' as a 'profound disability'. I beg to differ, as I'm sure many here too and their bastardization and abuse of the qualification of these things causes great distress to the people who actually do need community support in order to survive.
-
I don't much about MediCare but I know I am probably elgible for food stamps. lol. Maybe $75 or so a month. Not that I'm desperate enough to apply.
BTW, I only use for him what he really needs for support so I know where you are coming from. We could actually get a tankful of gas 'free' to take him to any doctor appointments. I have never utilized that: it seems unnecessary. I'm sure there are other little perks he could get, but I consider those normal parenting responsibilities that I have to satisfy with my other children anyway so I don't see the point in taking them on. We normally use our for respite, medical expenses related to his autism, and any special equipment he needs at home. Probably the biggest expense will be getting him a communication device at some point. Our goal is that with the extra support he can be at least able to exist with limited supervision as an adult and hopefully hold a job of some kind. we are also doing the best we can to make sure we can put some $$ away to hopefully help out his siblings some day with his care if necessary. We've both got life insurance policies to ensure that happens too that cover us well into our older years so he is provided for to help his siblings hopefully take him into their homes if necessary.
-
Thanks, jtyangel, madam.
This confirms what appears to be the standards in Nebraska, too--I have no first-hand experience in observing this, but from all the income tax work I do, I have the impression one has to be on social security disability (in Nebraska) to get medicaid.
I know of no one who gets medicaid simply because of poverty; there has to be some other factor, too (disability, children, whatnot).
I'm really embarrassed for the Gloria Swanson primitive, one of my favorite primitives and a first-tier primitive at that, who's allegedly an attorney. Perhaps Great Old Age has deteriorated the brain-cells, and alas it's a tragedy. But grow old, we all must.
Yes, in Ohio, it's a bit more 'generous' and was meant to address autism specifically. Sadly, this has brought out of the woodwork people who are trying to get their children diagnosed as autistic just to receive the services(grrrr) because there is a lot one can get for 'free' if one chooses to abuse the system under those auspices. As I said earlier, we just use the bare bones that help with those things that are an extra burden because of his autism: special devices, therapy, etc. We would not qualify under the income requirements and Ohio allows those to be waived in the case of autism specifically to address the disability of the child. No other child or family member is covered by Medicaid in our home and Med. acts as supplement to our own health insurance in his case.
They also offer something that resembles school choice for autistic children in Ohio as well. They have what they call an 'autism scholarship' which allows one to opt out of their local schools and take 20,000 of the funds spent on that child to transfer to either another public school district or a private school. It's at the parent's discretion based on what they deem as the most appropriate avenue for the child's education. Of course, if one is not in the area, transportation must be provided by the parents.
I'm very thankful those options are there to help with my son's care. I don't begrudge care even before my case of people who are profoundly disabled. I do think they and their families need extra support(and I don't just mean financially). I just get so angry by those who take advantage of the system so they can be lazy and/or are then total ingrates for what they receive at the hands of other taxpayers. Geez, we aren't ungrateful and we probably are still only taking out far less then we've put in over the years seeing as we both worked for many years at tax eligible rates and have been hit by so many penalties at various points for taking our of our own IRA's(when we still had them) to take care of our our boy. I doubt we've even got back the 10% they smacked on over the years for that. LOL IN essence, if Uncle Sam wasn't so heavy handed with our taxes to begin with, we probably would not have needed the extra support at this point. Something to ponder.
-
Ya'll are missing something here. When one of these morons shows up to apply for Medicaid they automatically qualify. No job and being to stupid to wipe themselves or bathe automatically gets them in the door.
-
TLB should have just called Naturyl a racist for the win.
-
Reading this whole DUmbass thread was like watching a pissing duel between 2 skunks....