[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by Animal_Mother

Yet we still have floods of people from every other country coming to our because they know it's better here. Everyone in the wold knows we take care of perfectly abled lazy ****s, let alone truly disabled and unfortunate people.

I know you are just saying this to be a ********, but your last sentence there actually drives right to the heart of this. The fact that the US finds it morally responsible to support the disabled is even attested to by our ********s! So for people to vote against this puts them below ********s. Really, really low, small people.

[benji25]

Originally Posted by Eric the Fish

The Bush Whitehouse negotiated this treaty in 2006. McCain And Bob Dole are for it. Veteran groups, The disability community and business groups support it. Santorum and his ilk are using abortion and home schooling as reasons for not signing, when the treaty has NOTHING to do with either of those talking points. Quit trying to defend teabagger obstuctionism and downplaying the absolute absurdity of the dissenting voters reasoning in this matter.The f**king treaty is modeled on current US law. If you don't think voting against this treaty doesn't make the US and especially the ultra conservatives look like a horses rear end then you have perception problems my friends.

Provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality and
standard of free or affordable health care and programmes as provided to other persons, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and
population-based public health programmes

States Parties recognize the right Of persons with disabilities to education. With a view to realizing this right without discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunity, States Parties shall ensure an inclusive education system at all levels and lifelong learning

In realizing this right, States Parties shall ensure that:
Effective individualized support measures are provided in environments that maximize academic and social development, consistent with the goal of full inclusion.

It actually does address both of those. However I agree with you in that they are not the main point and are such a small part that to reject it as a whole based on those is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by drgonzo

I know you are just saying this to be a <del>****</del><del>****</del>, but your last sentence there actually drives right to the heart of this. The fact that the US finds it morally responsible to support the disabled is even attested to by our <del>****</del><del>****</del>s! So for people to vote against this puts them below <del>****</del><del>****</del>s. Really, really low, small people.

So because people did not sign a pointless piece of paper that really has no bearing on the laws in this country or any other, they are **** ****s?

[LockDown Zach]

No one answered my question, why does it matter if the US isn't on board? We can't nanny/police the entire world.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by LockDown Zach

No one answered my question, why does it matter if the US isn't on board? We can't nanny/police the entire world.

Umami already answered why it is important to proponents of the treaty.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by benji25

It actually does address both of those.

Actually it does not. Those are not either of those things and every decent analysis will say the same thing. It's a bunch of malarkey to link those clauses to abortion or homeschooling BUT in any event those provisions do not address those services per se -- they address the equality of service.

Basically they say, go the extra step to help out the disabled. Duh.

[Eric the Fish]

The treaty doesn't say you cannot homeschool. As an example as to what it does imply, in Illinois at least ,homeschool children and religiously schooled children have free access to any and all public school programs not offered by their "schools". The health portion is saying if you offer ALL forms of health services to healthy people you have to give equal coverage to the chronically ill and disabled. It doesn't say anything about sterilization or forced abortion as Santorum implied it would.

[benji25]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Actually it does not. Those are not either of those things and every decent analysis will say the same thing. It's a bunch of malarkey to link those clauses to abortion or homeschooling BUT in any event those provisions do not address those services per se -- they address the equality of service.

Basically they say, go the extra step to help out the disabled. Duh.

So if everyone can get birth control under obama care, and the treaty promotes equality under that, would it not be increasing access to birth control?

and

Effective individualized support measures are provided in environments that maximize academic and social development, consistent with the goal of full inclusion.

It may not provide for it directly but if you ask me it sure as hell promotes "individualized support" in "environments that maximize...development."

I mean I guess it doesn't say "Please provide in-home education".

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by benji25

So if everyone can get birth control under obama care, and the treaty promotes equality under that, would it not be increasing access to birth control?

and


It may not provide for it directly but if you ask me it sure as hell promotes "individualized support" in "environments that maximize...development."

I mean I guess it doesn't say "Please provide in-home education".

Do you need a definition of the word promote as well?

The treaty has implicit goals which it intends to actualize through an equivalent of peer pressure (advisory).

What are you arguing?

[benji25]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Do you need a definition of the word promote as well?

The treaty has implicit goals which it intends to actualize through an equivalent of peer pressure (advisory).

What are you arguing?

Gonzo said it doesn't address those and I am saying it does. I am also saying I do not agree with denying the whole thing based on those 2 inclusions.

The main point of my argument is that it does not matter if we sign it. I am not opposing providing care to the disabled. In fact I support it. However I don't see signing the treaty as important for us here or other countries that are looking to implement it. 155 countries have signed. We clearly support it by the fact our programs have already implemented it. If some country wants to say "well a crap ton of other countries like it. The US walks the walk and does but. But you know, they didn't sign a piece of paper. I think we should not try and follow it" then they are just stupid and I don't think any country would do that.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by benji25

Gonzo said it doesn't address those and I am saying it does. I am also saying I do not agree with denying the whole thing based on those 2 inclusions.

The main point of my argument is that it does not matter if we sign it. I am not opposing providing care to the disabled. In fact I support it. However I don't see signing the treaty as important for us here or other countries that are looking to implement it. 155 countries have signed. We clearly support it by the fact our programs have already implemented it. If some country wants to say "well a crap ton of other countries like it. The US walks the walk and does but. But you know, they didn't sign a piece of paper. I think we should not try and follow it" then they are just stupid and I don't think any country would do that.

The purpose of the treaty is to influence nations who do not currently supply ample rights/benefits/assistence to the disabled. I imagine it serves as a pledge for signing nations that they will work to raise their standards as well.

I understand that you have an ideological opposition to the treaty, but trying to find some fault in it thereby convincing your ideological opposition is a waste of your time.

[barrel roll]

Well that's a silly reason to do something. That only made sense when we has mandatory naps and snack times.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

Well that's a silly reason to do something. That only made sense when we has mandatory naps and snack times.

Don't take it as an endoresment.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

Well that's a silly reason to do something. That only made sense when we has mandatory naps and snack times.

What's silly about it?

[EPAPressure]

Nobody thinks maybe we should revise what "disabled" actually is? Being overweight from eating too much with no prior medical condition shouldn't get you a handout from the government. Smoking and drinking yourself to death for 40 years then getting money for treatment should also be on the chopping block.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by EPAPressure

Nobody thinks maybe we should revise what "disabled" actually is? Being overweight from eating too much with no prior medical condition shouldn't get you a handout from the government. Smoking and drinking yourself to death for 40 years then getting money for treatment should also be on the chopping block.

Don't think it hasn't been tried. Pandora's box. Too hard to prove causation and in the end the people still need assistance. Best solution anyone has ever found is to expand the pool and invest in healthy living programs/better food/etc.

[marcozombie]

Originally Posted by EPAPressure

Nobody thinks maybe we should revise what "disabled" actually is?

Take yer pick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability

[tsbalr120]

Don't bother, EPA will argue most disabled people are leeches of the system unless they've lost multiple limbs.

[EPAPressure]

Originally Posted by tsbalr120

Don't bother, EPA will argue most disabled people are leeches of the system unless they've lost multiple limbs.

You don't see any "disabled" people walking out of handicapped parking spots just fine in your part of the country? I travel a good bit and see it just about everywhere. The system is broken, abused, and over indulged, it needs to be revamped much like medicaid and other government programs.

Tell me, why should somebody receive government coin simply because they are overweight while having no previous medical conditions that led them to that state? It's not a secret that copious amounts of terrible food will lead to obesity when mixed with a sedentary lifestyle.

[marcozombie]

Originally Posted by EPAPressure

You don't see any "disabled" people walking out of handicapped parking spots just fine in your part of the country? .

You must be pretty omnipotent to know who is suffering from what and what constitutes a disability for that person. Either that or be privy to information that you are not supposed to have access to... You know, because of privacy issues and all.

[licence2kill]

Or he's just bull****ting

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by EPAPressure

You don't see any "disabled" people walking out of handicapped parking spots just fine in your part of the country?

I have personal experience with this one. Just because someone can walk doesn't mean they don't need a handicapped spot. For example, people with degenerative joint conditions can get handicapped parking passes because they basically have a mileage limit on their joints. Too much use and the joints inflame and they are constantly deteriorating to boot, so the longer they have to walk, the shorter the joints will last. Eventually they will need joint replacement. Especially in the case of a young person, the medical goal is to make the natural joints last as long as possible before needing replacement and to try to make it so the person does not need to have multiple replacements of the same joint in a lifetime.

So it's best that you accept that you aren't smarter than doctors and are far more ignorant than you think. Best to not hate on people with medical conditions you are lucky not to have.