Disability benefits neglected in Social Security debate - Sen. Tom Harkin

[Sapphire Blue]

Posted on Fri, Mar. 25, 2005

Something big has been left out of the great national debate over privatization of Social Security. Most Americans don't realize that Social Security is more than a retirement program; it is also an insurance program for workers who become disabled before they retire.

The privatizers have painted a rosy picture of young Americans riding a bull market to a bountiful retirement. But what about the nearly 7 million workers with disabilities and their dependents who currently rely on Social Security disability benefits, often for 100 percent of their income? And what about the three in 10 now-young Americans who will become disabled at some point in their life? Under privatization, will their disability benefits be slashed by the same 30 percent to 50 percent as retirement benefits, pushing them below the poverty level?

<snip>

In his new budget proposal, the president has called for $60 billion in cuts to Medicaid, a vital lifeline to low-income people with disabilities. If we borrow trillions of dollars to finance Social Security private accounts, won't this create fierce new pressures to slash programs such as Medicare and housing vouchers that people with disabilities rely on?

Cuts in disability benefits would be a catastrophe for millions of people with disabilities. Before the debate over privatization goes any further, the president needs to provide concrete details to back up his verbal commitment to leave the disability program intact, and to hold its beneficiaries harmless.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/editorial/11232497.htm

(Registration required - bugmenot)

[TexasSissy]

1. Don't care what Harkin says. He voted FOR the Sciavo bill.

He's a turncoat who can't be trusted. In my opinion, of course.

(besides...the Repubs know perfectly well that SS is used for disability, as well as retirement. They just don't care. They want to do away with that.)

[pop goes the weasel]

5. have you read any of the disability rights views?

Checked out Mary Johnson or Stephen Drake or John Hockenberry? Not one of those people I just mentioned is right-wing, and they all support a disability rights perspective on the Schiavo case. Harkin listened to their voices, not to the Schindlers or DeLay or Frist. Sometimes in politics there is a momentary confluence of interests, but the objective is different.

[TexasSissy]

6. This was clearly a sep. of powers issue, as the US S.Ct. knew. And

Harkin probably knew. He doesn't exist anymore, as far as I'm concerned.

[pop goes the weasel]

8. so you haven't bothered

to read any of those other people?

[TexasSissy]

16. I am pretty clear on what the issues were. It doesn't matter

what the Congressmen had on their minds individually. This was a separation of powers issue.

The State Courts of Florida had decided this case, all the way through the Florida S. Ct. It had been litigated for many years. The U.S. S.Ct. had rejected it several times. A final court decision was reached.

Congress intervened because it did not like the outcome. It didn't pass a new bill limiting right to die. It didn't pass new legislation about disability rights. It intervened in one specific case because a group of contributors insisted they do that, to try to undo the court decision. And that's a breach of separation of powers.

It's really very simple. I also believe their actions would have been found to be unconstitutional, if that issue had been reached in the fed. courts....just as the special Jeb Bush Florida legislation for TS was found to be unconstitutional. Separation of powers. It is one of the major things on which our government system is based. Harkin breached this fundamental concept, as did many other Democrats in the Congress.

[pop goes the weasel]

17. so you haven't bothered to read anything

which may conflict with your already expressed opinion. There's a word for that, and that word is "prejudice."

[DemBones DemBones]

18. Exactly. The counselor has made up her mind and will

not deign to converse with those of us who are merely living with disabilities, trying to stay alive on greatly reduced incomes while paying enormous medical bills, and hoping no one decides we look like we have lost the will to live.

[carl_pwccaman]

24. Constitution Needs to Consult the Disabled for Approval?

I firmly believe that disability rights issues need to be addressed and that disabled people need to be heard, on all of these issues.

But anyone who is ignorant of the constitution, or unwilling to seriously respect the principles that keep our society from descending into an authoritarian sort of government, really had best re-consider.

The constitution is not up for an approval vote by either the disabled or the religionists or the fascists who wish to kill off the poor and the sick.

When someone has not left a living will, I do not envy those who consider such decisions, whether it is the husband or the parents or the judges who are supposed to decide between them when there is a challenge.

Making a federal case after so many lower court rulings, would make it impossible for a husband or wife to follow through on what their spouse really did tell them that they wanted, if there was a challenge. Why should the state decide one way or the other, or the insurance companies/hmos, etc.? I'd hope the husband/wife would know the wishes, but without a living will I understand a challenge from the parents, but when they can't agree where do they go? The courts? And the courts said over and over, that there was no reason to interfere with what the husband said the wife wanted.

There are constitutional ways to change laws, and then there is what the congress just tried to get away with.

The legislature trying to alter the result of one ruling individually, is not legislating law applicable to all cases, and it is flatly unconstitutional. The state can't say gee we don't like how this case is going, so we're going to muscle in and disregard the courts because the constitution gets in our way.

I.e., unless the view is a constitutional view, what is the purpose of reading the view, exactly?

[TaleWgnDg]

2. Be very careful around issues of disability when it comes to

.
Be very careful around issues of disability when it comes to Senator Tom Harkin. Why? Because Harkin confuses and muddles and intertwines the Right to Die with Dignity (Schiavo-like) legal issue with disability legal issues!

Wasn't it Senator Harkin who lead the Dems in voting FOR the Bush/DeLay/Frisk bill in favor of the Schindler parents? Correct me, here, if I am wrong, please, about Harkin's Schindler/Schiavo vote.

The Right to Privacy includes both
a Woman's Right to Choose, and the Right to Die w/ Dignity.

Keep the Government OFF our Bodies and OUT of our Bedrooms.
_________________________________________________________

edited to add:

"(Senator Tom) Harkin (Democrat, Iowa) was a prime mover behind the Senate decision to join with the Republicans to urge federal judicial review (for the parents of Terri Schiavo). Harkin is close to the disability community, which worries about 'right-to-die' issues . . . . (Harkin) forged the coalition with Republicans Frist, Santorum, Martinez." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/25/opinion/lynch/main683233.shtml

[Sapphire Blue]

3. SB686, the Terri Schiavo Act, was passed by the 3 lone Republican Senators

... who were present for the ‘unanimous’ vote - Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-TN ; Senator John Warner, R-VA ; and Senator Mel Martinez, R-FL.

Sen. Harkin, along with 96 other Senators, was not present and did not vote on this bill.

It’s my understanding that Sen. Harkin is concerned with the rights of the patient, and ensuring that those rights are protected.

In the case of a non-communicative & incapacitated patient, it is vital that those rights are protected... otherwise humanity is sacrificed. The right to die is an individual choice, not a mandate.


More on Sen Harkin, from The Hawk Eye, March 22, 2005...

"I have long been an advocate for the rights of people with disabilities," Harkin wrote. "Many in that community are keenly aware of the risk of incapacitation. In such cases, I believe that every precaution should be taken to learn and respect their desires regarding the removal of life supports."

<snip>

Harkin has been working with other federal lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle since last week to come up with legislation that would allow federal review of the Schiavo case. A bipartisan measure was drafted but no action was taken before both houses recessed for two weeks.

Instead, lawmakers scrambled to gather for a special session Sunday night into Monday to take action on Schiavo's case. After it was approved and signed by President George W. Bush, a federal hearing was held. No decision has been made as of press time.

Harkin said he will be working on additional legislation in the future to address situations like Schiavo's and not just be case specific.

"I would have preferred to address the underlying issue and not just this case," Harkin wrote. "I plan to continue to work with my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give cases like this an opportunity for further review in federal courts."

http://www.thehawkeye.com/daily/stories/ln18_0322.html

[TaleWgnDg]

4. Ummmmm, this collateral issue regarding Harkin . . .

.
Ummmmm, this collateral issue regarding Harkin . . . you've included quotations from a url to back up your position but omit other quotations from that same url which back up what I've stated.

Again, Senator Tom Harkin is confusing legal disability issues with legal Right to Die with Dignity issues:

"I have long been an advocate for the rights of people with disabilities," Harkin wrote. "Many in that community are keenly aware of the risk of incapacitation. In such cases, I believe that every precaution should be taken to learn and respect their desires regarding the removal of life supports."

http://www.thehawkeye.com/daily/stories/ln18_0322.html

This legal issue has been adjudicated in Schiavo state courts . . . how many times? how many years? However, the parents don't like the outcome and rag on . . . and on . . .

and:

"I would have preferred to address the underlying issue and not just this case," Harkin wrote. "I plan to continue to work with my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give cases like this an opportunity for further review in federal courts."

http://www.thehawkeye.com/daily/stories/ln18_0322.html

Our U.S. Congress attempted to remove the right of the wife's husband to act in court for the wife. This is what the Schiavo case is all about as to Congress. Again, since the parents could not over-ride state law, and all 50 states have similar laws on their books, they went political. Again, and again trying to over-ride state laws within the marriage context as to the fact and circumstances of this (Schiavo) end-to-life case.

Now, this is not to say that all facts and circumstances were not heard in the state courts. Indeed, all facts WERE heard. However, the parents didn't like the outcome. That's the lynchpin of this case. Thus, the parents sought extra-judicial help from politicians. Again, all the legal rights of Terri Schiavo were litigated in FL state courts, which is why all the federal courts dismissed the parents' challenges to the state courts. There are no infringements of Terri Schiavo's federal/constitutional rights.

Congress knew this, btw. Congress knew that all of Terri Schiavo's legal rights were addressed through litigation but they pushed through a stupid federal law that granted the parents as many bites of the federal courts as they wanted and could afford. Talk about pandering politics!! No morals have they. None. To use these ignorant parents for their own political fulfillment!! And to use the disabled Terri and her husband too!!

BTW, are you aware who is PAYING FOR THESE LEGAL bills of the parents? Try googling it. Then tell us if the parents are being used or not as political pawns by the religion-into-law rightwingnuts.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3354749

There's more . . .

MT's Faith-based watch page
$4.3 million to the Philanthropy Roundtable

Team Schiavo's Deep Pockets

'Following the money' reveals that a host of right wing organizations, many of which are affiliated with the Philanthropy Roundtable -- a consortium of right wing foundations and philanthropists -- have been copiously funding the Terri Schiavo case

by Bill Berkowitz
for MediaTransparency.org

POSTED MARCH 24, 2005--

If you don't follow the ins and outs of the philanthropy scene you likely have never heard of the Philanthropy Roundtable. Jon Eisenberg, a lawyer working on the Terri Schiavo case wasn't familiar with the organization either until a few months after he filed an amicus curiae brief in the Florida Supreme Court on behalf of 55 bioethicists and a disability rights organization opposing Gov. Jeb Bush's action in trying "to overturn a court order to remove Terri's feeding tube."

Eisenberg, who appeared at a Florida State University public debate with lawyers for Gov. Bush and the Schiavo family two months after filing the suit, was curious as to whether Pat Anderson, "one of multiple attorneys who have represented" Terri's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, and Wesley Smith and Rita Marker, "two activists whose specialty is opposing surrogate removal of life-support from comatose and persistent vegetative state patients," were doing this work on a "pro bono" basis as he was.

Through Internet searching, Eisenberg discovered that "many of the attorneys, activists and organizations working to keep Schiavo on life support all these years have been funded by members of the Philanthropy Roundtable" (website). For nearly 30 years the Roundtable has been providing a forum for right wing philanthropists who, according to the organization's website, are interested in "promot greater respect for private, voluntary approaches to individual and community betterment."

http://www.mediatransparency.org/stories/schiavo.html


________________________________________________________

The Right to Privacy includes both
A Woman's Right to Choose, and
The Right-to-Die-with-Dignity

Keep the Government OFF our bodies and OUT of our bedrooms !
________________________________________________________

.

[Sapphire Blue]

7. Your implication is that I cherry picked through the article

... to support my views.

Are you now capable of mind reading to determine my views?

Due to copyright laws, I could not post the entire article. I posted what, in my opinion, presented Sen. Harkin’s position on the issue, as well as the facts.

Which other quotations from that same URL which back up what you've stated did I omit?

You insinuated that Sen. Harkin voted in favor of SB686; he did not... he was not present at the vote.

Regarding the right of the wife's husband to act in court for the wife... she is not his property, and her rights need to be protected. In the absence of a health care directive and disagreement between interested parties, a full review and determination of the patient’s wishes is warranted.

I’m aware of the right-wing groups funding the Schindler’s battle. Yes, they have used the Schindlers to further their agenda, and the Schindlers may well have used them in return to achieve their objective. This case has been highly politicized with the involvement of the governor, Congress, and the president. However, what bearing does this have on the actual merits of the case?

The basis of the Schiavo case was the disagreement between the husband and the parents as to Ms. Schiavo’s wishes regarding life-sustaining treatment. The courts, right or wrong, have made that determination.

And it seems that Ms. Schiavo’s death is imminent... her spirit will move on.

Meanwhile, thousands of other lives are ignored, devalued, and invisible. Thousands of patients in similar circumstances as Ms. Schiavo... children who will go to bed tonight, feeling the pangs of hunger... the citizens of Darfur, victims of genocide... Iraqi citizens, living (and dying) under US occupation... children throughout the world, victims of human trafficking... victims of poverty throughout the world... is any one life more important than another? Do we not all have some value?

May God / Allah / YHWH / the Creator / Waheguru / the One have mercy on us and awaken our souls.

[TaleWgnDg]

9. First, I didn't "imply" anything; instead, I expressly stated . . .

First, I didn't "imply" anything; instead, I expressly stated . . . that you omitted sections of your posted url that were pertinent to my argument and against your argument.

Second, nor did I state or "imply" that Harkin voted at all!

Third, and no where did I state or "imply" anywhere or anything about anybody being anyone's "property" . . . in fact or in law.

And there's the rub. It's obvious that I, a lawyer, expert in family law and constitutional individual rights, should never venture to "debate" a non-lawyer about legal issues in a message board. You've no idea as evinced in your postings about legal matters such as guardianship proceedings, substituted judgment, next of kin, state laws, federal/constitutional questions, etc., etc. None.

Finally, my parting express assertion to you -- yes, this is an express statement not an implication -- before you venture into debating legal issues, you should at the very least complete law school, as well as sitting and passing a bar exam together with practical legal experience. Your assertions, here, are so devoid of legalities that it's beyond the pale to respond rationally.

I pass.


________________________________________________________

The Right to Privacy includes both
A Woman's Right to Choose, and
The Right-to-Die-with-Dignity

Keep the Government OFF our bodies and OUT of our bedrooms !
________________________________________________________

[pop goes the weasel]

11. ooh, you're a lawyer

We're so impressed.

You know, winning a legal case is not the same thing as being right. See Plessy v. Ferguson, Buck v. Bell, and the Scopes trial. I'm sure they must have taught you about those in law school.

[Sapphire Blue]

13. And I’m the Queen of England, an expert in majestic matters.

You are now dismissed, as I must now tend to those majestic matters. I will be meeting with Mrs. Parker Bowles.:eyes:

[DemBones DemBones]

19. Ever checked out the ties of Michael Schiavo's lawyer,

George Felos? You might want to do that.

This is a big effort by the right to die/duty to die movement to make euthanasia acceptable to Americans.

[Banazir]

10. Uh.. "right to die with dignity" IS a disability issue.

Much of the 'indignity' people are afraid of is disability-related. Like incontinence. So it's a disability issue no matter what side of it you come down on.

[TaleWgnDg]

12. Yes and no . . .

Disability issues may include Right to Die with Dignity legal issues; however, Right to Die with Dignity legal issues may not include the legal issues of "disability."

Why?

Because a person with a disability may be legally competent (mentally viable); whereas, a person who is embroiled in Right to Die with Dignity issues is not legally competent (is not mentally viable), e.g., Karen Ann Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10 (1976) (Supreme Court of New Jersey right to die case) and Terri Schiavo (FL, SCOTUS, right to die case).

However, if you want to reduce both areas down to the medical end-of-life issues which both may face, eventually, then the facts and circumstances run into each other: wherein both are legally incompetent (not mentally viable, that is, are in a "vegetable state") to make their own choices due to their medical condition. In this instance, disability ppl are no different than other ppl since neither, here, are competent at this stage of his/her life.

[Sapphire Blue]

14. Is "vegetable state" legal terminology?

[TaleWgnDg]

15. No, not really. However, the medical profession uses the term

.
No, not really. However, the medical profession uses the term "vegetative" state which is then used in court trials by expert witnesses to describe for the jury the medical state of the patient at issue. I dunno if Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary is online or not but give it a google.

[Sugarbleus]

22. So they should have written it down what they wanted done...

word of mouth isn't good enough. It's hearsay. People have known about medical directives since Kevorkian showed up. There's no excuse for killing someone who isn't terminal without a directive stating such...EXPLICITLY. Moreover there was a guardian who was willing to care for the person AS IS. If there had been NO other guardian, the court would have to go on what ever it could find to make a ruling.

I've seen cases MUCH worse than Ms Schiavo were letting them go was the most humane thing to do and everyone around that person AGREED.

Perhaps you are just worried that disabled people are going to use up the plantet's resources. Or maybe you can't stand to look at them and you project YOUR feelings into the situation 'If that were me...' etc.

A woman's right to choose means she can choose to HAVE HER BABY and a person can CHOOSE to STAY ALIVE. That sword cuts both ways.

Now, people with this kind of mind set over Ms Schiavo have a kinda nasty attitude with some in the diabled community because we cared about her LIFE. All of a sudden WE are the villians. Some Human Rights Party this turned out to be. We must always give life the benefit of the doubt when there are such heated conflicts surrounding it. What if your spouse WANTED you dead and started rubbing their hands together when you fell ill?

I'm not against the right to die. A person can do themselves in anytime they want. They can draw up directives for their doctors to state what they want at any stage along the way if they are disabled.

I have a mother n law that is 93. She is skin and bones, lying in a nursing home, doesn't know where she's at, she can't do anything for herself, cries most of the time, often says she can't take it. She's lived her life fully but no one can "let her go" legally because she didn't draw anything up to that end. She does have a DNR but her heart is beating away as strong as can be. She could live like that until she's 103. Her daughter and her son (my hubby) would like to "let her go" but there is NO law for that.
The daughter is in her 70's with heart condition and other medical problems, her son, my husband, is physically disabled with his own life threatening medical problems. Both of them could easily die before the mother does!!

It's a conundrum

But Schiavo and right to die aside, we are talking about helping those functioning people who are with us right now who need the assistance of the state for their quality of life. Can we stop rehashing the Schiavo case finally?

[Megahurtz]

20. Harkin aside

I have brought up the issue of Social Security for disabled persons in other forums.

It makes me wonder why the issue of disability is not being addressed by Busheister to the public.

Doesn't anybody wonder what will happen if they become disabled? How are they then going to pay for "investing" into a private account?

What about those of us who are unable to afford it now?

What about the totally disabled and unable to work? How the hell are they going to get money to "invest"???
From their disability checks???:sarcasm:

Why isn't there a mass public outcry about this?:shrug:

[Sugarbleus]

21. Thanx Sapphire. I don't think the general public understands this

portion of the debate over social security privatization. And they NEED to know it; it's a vital part of our social/anti-poverty structure.

I'm so elated that Harkin has stood in the gap for us, on this issue.

I see that some folk are still rehashing the Schiavo case just because Harkins name is attached to the fight for the needy among us. *Some people's kids, ugh* :eyes:

I have been "off the hook" for a few days. I got a call to action letter telling me the house and senate were about to vote AGAIN on going ahead and cutting those funds from Medicaid. What?????? The letter went on to talk about threats to all the programs that needy people rely on: Housing subsidies, medicaid, SS programs...more.

Anyone know if any voting took place and if so how it turned out?

I'm feeling pretty much kicked to the curb these days. Read my sig line. It says it all for me.

Thanks again for the excellent post. :hug:

[undergroundpanther]

23. What gets me is the ignorance