I’ll say. To me it would depend on the definition of disability. If you are literally bed ridden, paralyzed from the neck down, ok. Bad legs, bad back, allergies, autistic and many other faux disabilities then no. I didn’t read the article because I am sure it would piss me off.
That's the key point right there. But I suppose even a solid set of rules would eventually suffer from mission creep.
I agree with you completely. For REAL disabilities (military disabled for instance), what Obama did was reasonable to me, however, I think that there may be way too many “severely disabled” for this to be anything but another scam on the taxpayers. Even the military disability status can be and is fudged.
I hear you brother!
I’ve had an arthritic back (#’s 3,4,5 lumbar) since high school. The pain is constant, but only rarely crippling.
When I see “disabled” people snowboarding, sailing, or any other activity I cannot do, for some reason I resent that they are getting a pension *I* pay for, while I slave away in my little world of pain.
Then again, I PITY them, because they will never know the PRIDE of going it alone! I need NOTHING from the govvie, while they are wholly dependent upon it.
Who is the REAL sucker here?
Autism is a condition by spectrum, or degrees. Yes, many people with more severe autism are helpless and fully disabled.