Ron Paul & disability rights?

[Corydoras]

Technically an alcoholic can be covered under the ADA.

Actually, alcoholism and substance abuse are NOT covered by the ADA. They weren't able to pass it unless those exemptions were in it.

I had some comments about the ADA here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=41196

I agree that the ADA is not helping people. The disabled are grossly underemployed.

The problem is attitudes. I think this will change as the population ages and adaptive and medication technology improves. But it's a terribly slow pace. The ADA isn't helping much, though. I mean, after every snowstorm, where is the snow piled up? On the curb cut! As if the mobility impaired are expected to stay in and not go to work when it's snowing outside, rather than needing curb cuts MORE in bad weather!

Things like the Special Olympics and the Jerry Lewis Telethon, for all their massive flaws and often condescending attitudes, do help a little.

Things that don't help the disability access cause are people aborting fetuses because they're mildly disabled and people who advocate euthanasia being unaware of advances in palliative care.

 

[torchbearer]

Ok, I think its drifted from the ADA to business rights. Let's try to define this better. Where are we at on this? What kind of rights?

Not business rights, individual rights... which extends to the property they own and have full rights over... including personal businesses,but not corporations, which as a group, have no rights, just privileges.

 

[torchbearer]

What rights are you inquiring about? Right to a job? Right to money?

you don't have those rights... unless you were given the money as your own. You don't have a right to a job.

 

[Corydoras]

Prejudice against the ill and disabled is massive, I admit. Most people don't have any idea how the disabled can be productive members of a company. I wish I knew what to say. People don't have any idea, for example, that making a building wheelchair-accessible makes it easier for everyone to move around and move stuff around in.

But I doubt that a Paul administration could roll back the ADA any more than it could roll back the Civil Rights Act of 1964, though.

 

[torchbearer]

Prejudice against the ill and disabled is massive, I admit. Most people don't have any idea how the disabled can be productive members of a company. I wish I knew what to say. People don't have any idea, for example, that making a building wheelchair-accessible makes it easier for everyone to move around and move stuff around in.

But I doubt that a Paul administration could roll back the ADA any more than it could roll back the Civil Rights Act of 1964, though.

We have for profit businesses in louisiana that hire disabled people only. One in particular, called "Helping Hands". Sorts all my mailings for bulk sends during my campaigns. These people are doing productive work no one else wants to do.

 

[Corydoras]

We have for profit businesses in louisiana that hire disabled people only. One in particular, called "Helping Hands". Sorts all my mailings for bulk sends during my campaigns. These people are doing productive work no one else wants to do.

You might want to find out exactly what they pay, and see if you think that is fair for the work. Some of these operations classify themselves as long-term educational programs and pay lower than what some people might consider fair for the work.

 

[torchbearer]

You might want to find out exactly what they pay, and see if you think that is fair for the work. Some of these operations classify themselves as long-term educational programs and pay lower than what some people might consider fair for the work.

Sorting mail. What is that worth?

 

[Corydoras]

Sorting mail. What is that worth?

Your call. I merely urge you to be informed. Also, you don't want it to show up out of nowhere and bite you in the butt if some reporter finds out they're being paid $2/hr. At least you can say you knew and approved of it.

 

[LeadvilleCompuGeek]

Hmmm. What I saw when I started this thread is more people leaning towards corporate/company rights than those of individuals. It's far more than that.

When an employer can openly discriminate against a prospective employee merely because they do not approve of his service-related impairment and while the appropriate state Dept. Labor Standards supports his complaint, the EEOC replies to the complaint that they don't see the problem. Wal Mart, Rock Springs Wyoming.
When a simple community college has tougher standards for enrollment than prestigious sate universities, they blame it on "9/11" when in reality all they want is to "know" what the impairments are, not IF accommodations are required. No proof of impairment, either. They just ask. Don't answer and you don't go to school.
Those are two examples I can share. I don't care to make this a bitching session, as it's to find out not theories or ideas on what people THINK Ron Paul would say, but what he actually HAS SAID. Huge difference. People can make mistakes. "Oh, I'm sorry. I thought he meant this" or "Oppps! Guess I was wrong!"

But bringing up one of those issues also brings up another important one regarding absolute constitutional rights. This thread isn't for that specifically, so I'll find one that covers that and put it there.

 

[therealjjj77]

I have been watching Ron for a number of years, and I cannot say that I have seen his stance on disabled people and their rights. He's covered nearly everything else that I can see.

I am not talking about handing out welfare or SSI/SSDI to everyone that thinks they are disabled. Instead what I want to see is an improvement on stuff like the Americans with Disabilities Act. This somewhat goes against the standards I see with Libertarian issues.

There are so many ways that people can be unlawfully harassed, intimidated, and discriminated against, yet the current ADA literally has ZERO effect. I know this to be factual as I have been living with several disabilities for over 20+ years. When it gets bad enough that large corporations like Wal-Mart can openly discriminate and nothing is done by the state or federal governments, pardon me but there seems to be a problem.

So where does Ron stand on this?

I have not heard Ron Paul's position on this one but my guess would be is he would be against it since it is not expressly authorized in the Constitution. He would be for helping disabled people as an individual, but not as the President. When the government gets out of the way and allows people to keep their own money, people tend to be very generous in the United States. Allow churches and individuals to address this issue and it will be far better handled then the government taking the money from people and redistributing it. The government has always done a horrible job at this and the money almost always gets wasted in the beauracracies that runs the redistributions and the money that does get redistributed tends to go to people who don't actually need it.

This function in society is much better handled when left to people's charitable efforts.

Now if it was a disability resulting from serving in the military, that IS expressly authorized by the Constitution. That would be a different matter altogether.

 

[torchbearer]

Hmmm. What I saw when I started this thread is more people leaning towards corporate/company rights than those of individuals. It's far more than that.

When an employer can openly discriminate against a prospective employee merely because they do not approve of his service-related impairment and while the appropriate state Dept. Labor Standards supports his complaint, the EEOC replies to the complaint that they don't see the problem. Wal Mart, Rock Springs Wyoming.
When a simple community college has tougher standards for enrollment than prestigious sate universities, they blame it on "9/11" when in reality all they want is to "know" what the impairments are, not IF accommodations are required. No proof of impairment, either. They just ask. Don't answer and you don't go to school.
Those are two examples I can share. I don't care to make this a bitching session, as it's to find out not theories or ideas on what people THINK Ron Paul would say, but what he actually HAS SAID. Huge difference. People can make mistakes. "Oh, I'm sorry. I thought he meant this" or "Oppps! Guess I was wrong!"

But bringing up one of those issues also brings up another important one regarding absolute constitutional rights. This thread isn't for that specifically, so I'll find one that covers that and put it there.

The question is, what are rights? what are privileges? Who has rights? How do they get them? And why?

A corporation doesn't have rights. They are no such things as group rights. Everyone has the same rights... and they are given to you at birth as an individual. To presume that you have the right to tell someone what they do with their private business is absurd.
That is democracy you want... 7 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what they are going to have for dinner...
In a democracy, there are no protection of your property from the majority. In a republic, there is protection from the majority.

You can not tell me what to do with my money. I can't tell you what to do with yours.
If I open a business and choose to not accommodate the disabled, then I have lost their business. That is my loss. If I choose to discriminate, then I have reduced my pool of potential employees which could end up biting me in the ass...

Do you not understand the above? Seriously. I have a constitution class I want you to watch. You really need to understand that you cannot compel someone through government force to accommodate you at their expense. It's their money. not yours.

 

[Corydoras]

Of course, you have seen these, right?
http://ronpaullibrary.org/search/search.php?q=disabilities
http://ronpaullibrary.org/search/search.php?q=ada

 

[Corydoras]

You really need to understand that you cannot compel someone through government force to accommodate you at their expense. It's their money. not yours.

Torchbearer, I think you are seriously misreading what he said. Read #29 again. He's saying that it DOESN'T work, just like you are.

 

[torchbearer]

Torchbearer, I think you are seriously misreading what he said. Read #29 again. He's saying that it DOESN'T work, just like you are.

Oh, i thought he said it did. Well, the detailed explanation is for whoever doesn't understand why the ADA is unconstitutional and immoral.

 

[LeadvilleCompuGeek]

Hmmm. I am seeing exactly the opposite of what I expected. And after reading what Ron said, I am VERY disappointed. Glad I found out this far in the game.
Very disappointing, I assure you.

 

[Corydoras]

The thing that really damages the ability of the visibly disabled to work is when people literally don't want to see them at all, call it disgusting to see them on the street, and the like. The disabled can't all telecommute and remain recluses.

I don't know what to do about that except that I know government regulation isn't the way.

Another thing, I also don't think they ought to be required to vote by absentee ballot, because unlike military folks on active duty, they didn't volunteer. I think polling places and voting machines being wheelchair-accessible is a good thing.

 

[Corydoras]

Hmmm. I am seeing exactly the opposite of what I expected. And after reading what Ron said, I am VERY disappointed. Glad I found out this far in the game.
Very disappointing, I assure you.

What are you advocating instead, and do you think you will go for another candidate, and if so, which one? This is very interesting to me because, as you may have guessed, I know a lot about disability issues second-hand.

 

[golfboy]

I'm deaf.

Deaf people require an interpreter for school and most social functions. The ADA provides for this. I would never be able to afford school without it. Conservativly, i estimate it costs about 20,000 a year to provide interpreters for myself alone in school. I pay approximately 3500 in tuition a semester not including housing or books.

This is really the only socialist policy that I benefit from, and i'm against them in general.

Conflict of interest?

What would Ron Paul do?

 

[Brutus]

Why should everyone else be COERCED to pay for your disabilities? This is entirely different from requesting others to help you.

ADA and similar regulations create massive unintended consequences. I might hire someone with a disability if I know that I can fire them if it doesn't work out (same as with anyone else), however, once the ADA gives them a huge club of infinite legal fees and endless hassle I'm going to find ways to NOT hire someone with a disability so they don't even get a chance to prove that they could be an asset to my company. The risk is just too high.

Actually, precisely for this and many other similar reasons, my business has NO employees. Only partners.

 

[KramerDSP]

I'm also Deaf, and have had this question in my mind for a long time. I know that RP himself has said that he would be a transisition president, and there are far many more things on his list to address than to dismantle the ADA law. I have seen Ron Paul with a sign language interpreter next to him at virtually every rally since the one in Chicago in late August/early September, and I seriously doubt he would go out of his way to make life more difficult for all of us. The money being spent and wasted overseas on needless and undeclared wars would be back here and could be used to address the debt and continue to support those that need it.

I am against deaf students getting SSI in college, because the vast majority of them do not need it. In terms of Closed Captioning, where would RP stand ? I am not sure about this, but again, I have to assume that is very, very far down his list of things to do. He'll be fighting the military industrial complex, big pharm, and all the farmers who want their subsidies, so I am of the opinion that very little would change in the lives of disabled people.

Ron Paul is about self-reliance. In August, I was begging people for subtitled versions of Ron Paul videos on youtube. In September, I found a few wonderful volunteers, and they made a bunch of videos. In October, I started trying to figure out how to do it myself by "following the bouncing ball" with a transcript of the video in hand, and was able to get it done. Now I am doing a lot of the subtitled videos on my blog, and it is a good feeling to be able to do something yourself and get it out there for people to enjoy and improve accessibility.

I have seen many volunteers help out over these months, and I am confident that in a truly free society, there will be people out there who will lend a helping hand. I do confess, however, that I would LOVE to hear RP's stance on disability "rights" and whether the government should be responsible for mandating essential services such as closed captioning, sign language interpreters, wheelchair ramps, what-have-you-not.

The one big benefit I see (correct me if I am wrong) in an RP presidency would be for deaf folks who believe in the bi-bi approach to deaf education to be more "freed" up to set up charter schools of their own, by school vouchers or whatever. I strongly dislike NCLB after having witnessed it first hand during my job, and think that the people in Washington have no clue on how to teach deaf kids, and they should not be the ones making decisions that have such an adverse effect on these kids.