mistertrickster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-11 04:13 PM
Original message |
Question-- is there any public database showing who is receiving disability . . . . |
|
as in VA or SS disability?
|
mistertrickster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-11 04:22 PM
Response to Original message |
DURHAM D
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-11 04:25 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Why would that be any of your (or my) business? |
pennylane100
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-11 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. not sure, but you could use it to taunt tea baggers. |
mistertrickster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
City Lights
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
mistertrickster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
6. It's not our business even though we pay for it? nt |
tpsbmam
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
9. No, it's not your business even if you pay for it. WTF?! |
|
What a Republican thing to say! No, it's not our right to know who the individuals on disability are. But wait a minute.....let me rethink this. Hey, we should know who all of the people are who have unpaid medical bills -- we pay for those too! And people on Medicaid.....we pay for them, we get to have a public database listing all those who receive Medicaid! Yeah, let's do that and more....let's get all of those freeloaders out in public to shame them, make them vulnerable, let the haters know who they are and where they are.....
As I said, :wtf:
|
mistertrickster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
19. My intention is to shame the hypocrites who take from the public trough but then wish to deny others |
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-15-11 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
Lone_Star_Dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
Any person relieving such has already had to suffer through ten types of hell to be on it. The last thing they need is some vindictive ass making their medical problems public and berating them for needing assistance.
|
CBGLuthier
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
in the case of SS disability, recipients gave their hard earned money to the government in return for that small safety net. Sure the eventual cost may exceed what a given individual pays in but only a PETTY society would attempt to shame anyone with this.
As for disabled vets, I think many of them paid enough already.
|
tammywammy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
Shandris
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-15-11 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
30. No, its NOT your fucking business. |
|
To know who was 'feeding at the trough' (I come from an ENTIRE family of conservative, and wouldja believe that that is the expression they use EVERY. FUCKING. TIME.?), you'd have to have access to medical records, doctor visits, therapy records, and so forth. No, its not your fucking business.
|
catabryna
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-11 04:57 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Unless the recipient is a public official, it is no one's business.
|
lumberjack_jeff
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 10:39 AM
Response to Original message |
7. You are entitled to medical privacy. |
|
Sadly, from your perspective, so am I.
|
loyalsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 10:58 AM
Response to Original message |
8. Probably only in private records |
|
Edited on Thu Jul-14-11 11:01 AM by loyalsister
It's a real problem. Those of us who have disabilities resent the fact that we aren't counted in the census. Those numbers would influence the availability of services. It would really be good to see numbers on employment that show who is most welcome\able to compete in the job market.
|
City Lights
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 11:07 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Seems like an invasion of privacy to me.
|
salin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 11:08 AM
Response to Original message |
xchrom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
firehorse
(547 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
mistertrickster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
20. Because we're all for gov't transparency . . . except when we're not. nt |
rucky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
23. Well, this is an individual's health information. |
|
and that privacy is protected.
|
mistertrickster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
24. And that's where we disagree . . . why somebody's on disability is protected. |
|
But if they take gov't money, that should be public info.
|
locahungaria
(194 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
mistertrickster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 02:15 PM
Response to Original message |
17. Outrage is so much easier than information . . . we have no problem with |
|
Edited on Thu Jul-14-11 02:16 PM by mistertrickster
who gets gov't contracts.
Anyway, it's obvious that no one knows the answer to a yes or no question.
|
locahungaria
(194 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 02:29 PM
Response to Original message |
21. I sincerely hope not. |
|
Recipients of any form of 'public assistance' have a right to their privacy, no matter who they are.
IMO.
|
mistertrickster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
25. Like Halliburton, say? nt |
locahungaria
(194 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #25 |
26. Haliburton is a corporation, not an individual person. |
|
Perhaps I should have made that distinction in my reply.
|
mistertrickster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
27. Or Jack Abramoff, he's an individual person . . . |
locahungaria
(194 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-11 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
28. If he's a recipient of public assistance as an individual... |
|
as opposed to Jack Abramoff corporation, then he's entitled to his privacy.
And before you ask, yes, even Michele Bachmann (however the fuck its spelled) is entitled to her privacy as well.
The privacy slope can become very slippery, very quickly when we try to make distinctions between who is entitled to it and who is not. IMO, it's better all around to make every recipients case private.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu May 09th 2024, 03:26 AM
Response to Original message |