http://www.dominickevans.com/2015/06/some-people-with-disabilities-are-prevented-from-getting-married-and-heres-why/
Seems even in this age of equal marriage, we still don't truly have equal marriage. This is an aspect of Medicaid that didn't even occur to me, but in truth makes perfect sense. For people like the author, who need 24 hour care to live and thrive, losing that care is impossible. As it stands, Medicaid is the only insurance entity that allows and funds sufficient care for people like this author, or even for the subject of last week's article.
Let me repeat that: Medicaid is the only insurance, public or private, that pays for sufficient care for many disabled people. Doesn't that strike you as problematic? We don't need more impoverished people, but we're artificially forcing disabled people to become poor because they need Medicaid, and Medicaid requires you be poor.
We are quite literally requiring intelligent, willing workers with handicaps to impoverish themselves and vastly limit their work options so they can survive. No wonder the author is frustrated.
I am fortunate. I don't need physical assistance as much as I need mental, emotional, and dietary help. And in the forseeable future, my spouse-to-be will be able to support us both, even if I never manage to do anything that makes a cent again. (I fondly hope this won't be the case... I'm a modern feminist; I feel useless by comparison, and feeling useless is never good for one's health or welfare.) I think, however, it's safe to say that at least a couple of the people I now work with on the Michigan Board of Self-Advocates fall into the same category as the author- effectively unable to get married.
Because really, how can you choose marriage over food and shelter? I'm really beginning to sympathize with Bernie Sanders' Medicare for everyone campaign. Even though I know it's about as likely to get through Congress as a snowflake is to survive on the surface of the sun.
It's not right that a newlywed should be considered a financial burden on their spouse. Not in this age of part time work, no benefits, and no pensions. We are failing the able-bodied, undiagnosed workforce with just those things, but to then expect them to work all that time and also be the onhand care for their spouses is entirely unreasonable.
It's precisely issues like this that I must understand, as an advocate. But I'd be a poor advocate if I kept them to myself.
Seems even in this age of equal marriage, we still don't truly have equal marriage. This is an aspect of Medicaid that didn't even occur to me, but in truth makes perfect sense. For people like the author, who need 24 hour care to live and thrive, losing that care is impossible. As it stands, Medicaid is the only insurance entity that allows and funds sufficient care for people like this author, or even for the subject of last week's article.
Let me repeat that: Medicaid is the only insurance, public or private, that pays for sufficient care for many disabled people. Doesn't that strike you as problematic? We don't need more impoverished people, but we're artificially forcing disabled people to become poor because they need Medicaid, and Medicaid requires you be poor.
We are quite literally requiring intelligent, willing workers with handicaps to impoverish themselves and vastly limit their work options so they can survive. No wonder the author is frustrated.
I am fortunate. I don't need physical assistance as much as I need mental, emotional, and dietary help. And in the forseeable future, my spouse-to-be will be able to support us both, even if I never manage to do anything that makes a cent again. (I fondly hope this won't be the case... I'm a modern feminist; I feel useless by comparison, and feeling useless is never good for one's health or welfare.) I think, however, it's safe to say that at least a couple of the people I now work with on the Michigan Board of Self-Advocates fall into the same category as the author- effectively unable to get married.
Because really, how can you choose marriage over food and shelter? I'm really beginning to sympathize with Bernie Sanders' Medicare for everyone campaign. Even though I know it's about as likely to get through Congress as a snowflake is to survive on the surface of the sun.
It's not right that a newlywed should be considered a financial burden on their spouse. Not in this age of part time work, no benefits, and no pensions. We are failing the able-bodied, undiagnosed workforce with just those things, but to then expect them to work all that time and also be the onhand care for their spouses is entirely unreasonable.
It's precisely issues like this that I must understand, as an advocate. But I'd be a poor advocate if I kept them to myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment