Autism Politics - Republican (Tea Party) & Democrates

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqxCCLr3Fa4[/youtube]

Will the tea party seek to remove supportive living services and community inclusion supports for individuals with autism? Should they be perceived as a threat. I sell many Tea Party scented candles that smell like iced tea. Should they be trusted with my and others livelihood and how can this question be answered? Perhaps we can have them come to this site and talk about autism issues?

Nathan Young

I believe the clip was too short to judge it in it's proper context. I'm not even sure what she is talking about to tell you the truth and her statement may in fact not be as sinister as it may sound.

For example, a few years ago when I applied for health insurance coverage, I had to pay increased rate premiums for something I had to report because it barely missed the 10 year cutoff line. They justified charging me more under the pretense that the condition might reoccur and they would have to pay for treatment. I asked them if they could remove coverage for that specific thing so as to reduce my premium by relieving them of the responsibility to pay for it should it reoccur and they were unable to do so as the law in my state prohibited those types of selective coverage policies.

I ended up paying for coverage I didn't need.

Republicans think that autistics are a burden on society. Look at the attitude of management. Management justifies the firing of autistic workers in order to improve company profitability. Denying medical services for autistics saves money for the rich taxpayer. Rich people think that God is money and that people are dogs. I have never convinced a bigoted boss that autistics should be treated fairly because the bigot always thinks that it takes too much time and money to train the autistic.

I work for council waste/ refuse operations on a program call work "work step" supporting people with learning difficulties in the workplace". I believe it is more useful then other social programs as it keeps people in a job that would other wise be unemployed and receiving state benefits. I believe with a better more consistent system, the work_disadvantaged could make a higher percentage of state jobs, while others more employable people go to the public sector.

However. One of the problem living in socialist Britain( ok it isn't that bad) It is harder for acquire any wealth. In a purely socialist society , my part time business I also have would be hardly profitable or taken from me, I would be demoted to loser with learning difficulties, not a good catch for woman. The only other way of getting respect from piers or attractive woman would be to be a bad boy and highly aggressive and violent.

In the USA you get to keep more of what you earn, if you are a hard working, intelligent, patient, disciplined. Some the the qualities that aspies have. No jock or chav out of high school has one over you. You look respectable have fine things or even buy a nice house of you are lucky, far from a loser.

I don't think America is aspie unfriendly. Obama has t be very careful about not moving too far to the left. Or the will be taking the advantage from hardworking geeky nice guys and giving it to blaggers, , jocks and gigolos.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rATftJiWdkw]Web Page Nam[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hv4lwNr8uQ[/youtube]

Whoopi Goldberg was asked the question and as a wealthy woman she would indeed benefit from a tax break. However she stated that she was always glad that there was a social safety net called welfare available to her when she needed it the most because she was not always wealthy but at one time in her life she was poor and needy. All of these rich Ebinezer Scrooge Republicans who would love to destroy welfare, food stamps and unemployment insurance have no idea what it is like to be poor otherwise they would be more compasionate.

If you replaced autistic with negro (and possibly republican with democrat) then this would make sense 100 years ago. Fortunately since we live in the 21st century it is an overstated, simplistic, unproven case.

Wow, actually that was cogent. I agree with everything here. With the exception that got lucky the republicans do seem a bit old-time rich.

to respond to the argument on keeping more of what you earn in america
If you are a person with a lifelong medical condition that will never go away, you don't keep much of what you earn because you spend it all on copayments, fees, insurence costs, and donut hole charges (ie we pay 1st 1000 you pay the next before we cover anything else).

in terms of health coverage I spend 25% of my income on my healthcare covereage, you would think that based on that I could affort treatment went I broke a toe this winter, think again, the cost of getting it diagnosed and treated (initial appointment plus referals to a radiologist then a orthopiedisit) would have been more than $1500. My generation faces a future of working until we die (if we are lucky from old age)

Greed has killed the american dream for the majority, and allowed a handful to enjoy a lifestyle that would make the "robber barrens" of old look poor.

So as long as I have the social services I need I am fine. As far as the other political stuff I find that my focusing on it is a waste. Simply because I don't believe solutions entirely will come from government and politicians. Instead I go for it myself and work at it hard and then politicians take notice.

I consider Democrats just view us as someone they can play us into believing we are victims and only the Democrats can help us. Are there Republicans that view us as a burden, yes; however, it is equally true there are a lot more Republicans that don't view us as a burden or when given the facts, would not view us as a burden.

I think this is about perception rather then grossly politics. Making compassion out to be some kind of harm is wrong. Defining compassion and outreach as pity or victim-hood can lead to injustice for the sake of political pride baiting agenda's.

Then how have things changed for minorities in places run by Democrats? It hasn't because they promote the victimhood culture, it's a way to maintain hold on power.

I can't tell you if you American health care is good, but I would be careful of having a National Health Service. It could leave Americans with less incentive to be healthy or to find solutions.

In the UK. "Alcohol is a lifestyle issue which grows with affluence and is continuing to worsen steadily. Alcohol accounts for 1 in 4 acute male admissions and therefore is an incredibly important issue for the NHS. Alcohol typifies overload in the NHS." That's ok because everyone pays for that because everyone is on a shared insurance scheme."

You would be also surprised how many people are on incompacity benefit. When the NHS started hundred plus years ago it was a very good idea. But as time goes by people change slowly, through the process of natural selection, to capitalise on a free resource. Now they can't do without it and a NHS time bomb is waiting.

In the UK, I would rather be an unemployed gigolo then an aspie on 70k let alone the 29k I am on at moment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -year.html

Understanding of autism is much better in the states. I am sure your republicans have realise that autism has strengths and as a result capitalise one those strengths, opposed to treating them as general learning difficulties( like NTs but not so smart). Nobody diagnosed me for aspergers over her, and many professionals say that I don't have aspergers.

I'm not sure why issues become so divisive instead of instinct toward a greater human unity. It's for this kind of reason race relations in society maintain relevancy for instance. You see the true haters fuel the societal damage between people that then further the racial and or minority group social dynamic. Ultimately least for African Americans which I will speak of briefly given the histology in the U.S it's gone from slave cultural relevancy to empowered rights and representation. This is part of what I'd consider a natural response to cultural suppression of freedoms initially and as time progresses the entire dynamic has changed to an expectation of and for the most part least on the surface equality as drastically compared to that of the past with segregation. Hence if you take into perspective a group must test what was originally damaged in relations and it proves accordingly like for instance a black president being elected human relations improve because what was originally perceived several years ago as improbable became so possible it happened. Now relations are more so about sublime then surface facts and the subconscious collective minds and along with the individual participating in the collective psyche will never be perfect with regards to race relations but become less relevant as a concern as time further improves upon this societal human condition amongst peoples.

The damage of racism for instance is far less apparent in today's society then that of culture and society in the 60's. It's rapidly improved and the awkward human social dynamic between group types has I believe reached a point that only the few odd ball butts disrupt it by playing with it politically such as white pride people and the real racist bigots here and there. All in all I'd think racial relevancy in society will further decrease and as what I've observe of many but certainly not all is people simply are perceived as people. The damage of racism is only relevant in a % whereas in the 60's it was so very hyper-relevant.

The difficult part of this topic which will take longer to resolve sociologically is that of the unspoken. What you bring up for instance is VERY sensitive of minority groups. Even what I've said typically is not publicly spoken about. Trust can be depending on the person a major concern. Once people trust and there is still the unknown how might a group be harmed with the unspoken such as discrimination. Natural instincts may blend with racial and other minority group relations on both perceivable sides and hinders the ability to care for family and children and for themselves as generations go onto the next. It is all very human and natural but this topic simply cannot be resolved with words but with societal behaviors toward one another over time and when reaching a point when simply there is little to no thought of it collectively.

Private thoughts concerning this sub-topic are welcomed by PM.

Nathan Young