Requiring Voters To Have Photo ID Would Exclude Disabled?

by Treadmarkz

In my local paper today, I read an editorial on the debate over requiring voters to have a photo ID. It claims that 10% of eligible voters with disabilities, (27,000 people in Minnesota where I live) would not have photo ID and would therefore be excluded from the electoral process.
Okay, my first questions is why is this? Though I do not myself have a driver’s license so I have no right to question this, I do know that it is not too expensive to get a photo ID which can be used for every occasion except for operating a motor vehicle. I understand the economic problems disabled people face in the competitive work force, but if 10% of disabled adults in this state cannot afford to get this ID card, a one-time expense, then this state, this country really, has more problems than I thought.
If this is the case, then let me propose a solution, and then we can debate why it is not plausible so we can make sure nothing ever gets done about it. My solution is we reissue Social Security cards to all adults, but make it a photo ID rather than the flimsy proto-cardboard they’ve been using since the time of Plymouth Rock! Every legal citizen has one. In switching over from the old to the new version, we might just be able to weed out some of the illegally held Social Security numbers in the U.S. as well.
Tell me where I’m wrong.

Advertisements

When the Medically Necessary is Deemed Unnecessary, You Get the Feeling You’re on a Sinking Ship

by Treadmarkz

This ought to raise the ire of apologists for both sides of the political scene, but I don’t really intend it as such. Though I am sure it will become a big issue during this election season, I think this is the result of a problem that has been stewing over the course of the last three administrations, if not longer. The problem? Intermittent Catheters have been deemed not to be “medically necessary” and therefore not covered by UCare. Many people on Medical Assistance have recently been moved over to UCare or a similar program.

I have to be very blunt, I fail to see how something so basic as emptying the bladder has been deemed not necessary. Its kind of like how insulin is covered for diabetics but the syringes necessary to inject it are not covered.
Has anybody faced either of these problems or anything similar? What have you done to solve it?

What is Santorum REALLY Saying About His Feelings Toward Disabled Children?

by Treadmarkz

Prenatal testing encourages abortions? I don’t know, Rick Santorum, I think you’re a bit off the mark on this one. I think, first and foremost, it gives parents-to-be the opportunity to know what they are up against when their baby comes if he or she does have a disability. It gives them the opportunity to plan financially and prepare themselves emotionally for all that is going to be required of them to give the baby the best life they can provide.

And second, I think that by saying prenatal testing encourages abortions, Santorum is showing us his true feelings toward people with disabilities. I believe him when he says he is 100% anti-abortion. But to suggest that when a parent finds out their child will be disabled that they should for some reason want to terminate the pregnancy, well, that tells me something about Santorum’s mindset, to tell you the truth.

Liberals who consider themselves “pro-choice” are not “anti-life”. They are not going around looking for a reason to have an abortion. That seems to be what Santorum is trying to suggest here. But it doesn’t add up.