Should the state care for people born with severe disabilitys?

Elta · Jul 30, 2007

From another thread and I don't want to thread jack.

Question: Should the state give free medical care to people born extremly disabled? such as ******** or autistic people?

bhsup · Jul 30, 2007

I'm not opposed to it at all on the State (as in one of the 50 in the USA) level, but am against it on the Federal level.

Elrohir · Jul 30, 2007

Like let them into state mental hospitals to be cared for? Or give their family money to pay for their care?

Atlas14 · Jul 30, 2007

I believe the option should be available, but there should be a limit to the amount of money provided, and the amouint of time the care is provided. The government is not a babysitter/bank/hospital. You need to provide as much as you can for your child first.

.Shane. · Jul 30, 2007

VRWCAgent said:
I'm not opposed to it at all on the State (as in one of the 50 in the USA) level, but am against it on the Federal level.

And, why is that?

bhsup · Jul 30, 2007

.Shane. said:
And, why is that?

Well, beyond the obvious lack of authority for the Federalies to have anything to do with health care mentioned in the Constitution, I just think each State would be better able to handle it than one monsterous behemoth at the Federal level.

AVN · Jul 30, 2007

VRWCAgent said:
I'm not opposed to it at all on the State (as in one of the 50 in the USA) level, but am against it on the Federal level.

So, it will never happen.
A state (especially if it's the only state) which offers this support, will get quite some immigration from disabled people who qualify, but don't get such support in their own state.

I don't expect any state will take that "financial risk", so states will be very reluctant to give this financial support.

amadeus · Jul 30, 2007

It should vary from case to case, as should any potential benefit.

Mildly mentally ******** people can still function in society, even if at a reduced level. They should be eligible for a partly subsidized income based on their labors.

If they work a steady 40 hours a week mopping up a floor (and there is a demand for someone to mop those floors, not Soviet-style "full employment" guarantees) and they're unable to meet some sort of specific need, that need should be subsidized to them based on the continuing condition that they maintain their employment.

skadistic · Jul 30, 2007

Let the charitable do gooders handle it.

mangxema · Jul 30, 2007

As some one who's brother is severely disabled, I would say somewhat. Medicine for that kind of thing is incredibly expensive. And at some point down the line, the parents aren't able to take care of them, due to them getting old themselves.

GenMarshall · Jul 30, 2007

Would it take a severe impact on taxes?

amadeus · Jul 30, 2007

skadistic said:
Let the charitable do gooders handle it.

Also agreed; I'd certainly contribute to helping those in serious need of assistance, but my contribution must be made voluntarily.

.Shane. · Jul 30, 2007

VRWCAgent said:
Well, beyond the obvious lack of authority for the Federalies to have anything to do with health care mentioned in the Constitution, I just think each State would be better able to handle it than one monsterous behemoth at the Federal level.

Just curious, how hard to you have to close your eyes and put your hands over your ears while chanting "the necessary and proper clause does not exist!!!"

Seriously, though, the Constitution says nothing about automobiles, yet the fed regulates them all the time.

Secondly, the problem w/ doing this at the state level is the inconsistency in approach and funding, thus you'd turn some states into "destination" states because they gave better care and the other states would run for the bottom in terms of giving lowest common denominator care to avoid being that destination.

mangxema · Jul 30, 2007

amadeus said:
Also agreed; I'd certainly contribute to helping those in serious need of assistance, but my contribution must be made voluntarily.

Honestly, I don't think that there's enough of that to go around.

amadeus · Jul 30, 2007

mangxema said:
Honestly, I don't think that there's enough of that to go around.

Charitable contributions by U.S. citizens last year amounted to $295,000,000,000.

IglooDame · Jul 30, 2007

.Shane. said:
Just curious, how hard to you have to close your eyes and put your hands over your ears while chanting "the necessary and proper clause does not exist!!!"

Seriously, though, the Constitution says nothing about automobiles, yet the fed regulates them all the time.

Secondly, the problem w/ doing this at the state level is the inconsistency in approach and funding, thus you'd turn some states into "destination" states because they gave better care and the other states would run for the bottom in terms of giving lowest common denominator care to avoid being that destination.

Regulating manufacturing of complex machines at the federal level makes more sense (given the pain of having 50 different standards for individual manufacturers to follow) than does regulation of healthcare. The fifty states already do things differently in that regard, I fail to see the problem with inconsistencies there.

Anyway, the easiest way to put a serious dent in state-shopping for disability healthcare is to put a 5-year residency requirement on it, or something similar.

mangxema · Jul 30, 2007

amadeus said:
Charitable contributions by U.S. citizens last year amounted to $295,000,000,000.

And a lot of the medical bills aren't covered by insurance, at least not all the way. Keep in mind you're talking about specialty treatment/medication... that stuff's expensive as hell.

Fugitive Sisyphus · Jul 30, 2007

Are we talking about taking care of autistic children or providing medical care (i.e. a heart transplant) to people who just happen to be autistic?

C~G · Jul 30, 2007

No, invidual states shouldn't be pressurised by the government against their moral will.

Private companies can handle them.

.Shane. · Jul 30, 2007

IglooDude said:
Regulating manufacturing of complex machines at the federal level makes more sense (given the pain of having 50 different standards for individual manufacturers to follow) than does regulation of healthcare. The fifty states already do things differently in that regard, I fail to see the problem with inconsistencies there.

Wasn't debating where best to do this, per se, rather the "if it ain't in the constitution the guv'ment can't do it" (apologies to VCRW for my Foxworthying of the discussion) knee jerk states-rights response. Which has pretty much been long found to not be legally valid.

Anyway, the easiest way to put a serious dent in state-shopping for disability healthcare is to put a 5-year residency requirement on it, or something similar.

And hence starts the race to the lowest common denominator. Your state says 5 years, mine says 6. Who's more the destination now?

Should the state care for people born with severe disabilitys?

See post below

Yes

No they are a drain on the state and thus do not deserve care

I just like voting in polls

我不会把这种

Deity

RELATIONAL VALORIZATION

"Sophomoric Troll Master"

Take it like a voter

Deity

Deity

Apply directly to the forehead

Caomhanach

I

High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent

Apply directly to the forehead

Take it like a voter

I

Apply directly to the forehead

Enforcing Rule 34

I

Escape Artist

Untouchable

Take it like a voter

Similar threads