If Love for UBlo is a Disability, Then Add One More
20 % of the population is disabled. Um...no it's not. The term "disabled" has simply been stretched to an ubsurd degree so as to count as many heads as possible and justify ever more funding to fight this "growing epidemic". Nothing could be easier to document then all the unworthy cases currently being funded by programs designed to help those who can't help themselves. But, for some odd reason that few on this blog can discern, the media never brings those cases to our intention. Instead, they report statistics of questionable merit to us and consider the case closed. I deserve better!
Posts
1 comment:
I like your post for several reasons. One, I'm curious about your definition of "dissability." You don't mention it in your entry, only that you disagree with the way some nameless/faceless entity is stretching it out for nefarious reasons.
Two, I think your point about the media only shows the no win situation for the media (another amorphous enemy of the Malone). Assuming that of the 50mm "disabled" Americans, that half don't fit your particular definition of "disabled." Then you have to figure out what that subset actually costs the nation. Look, I think all excess spending is bad, and that people will always find ways to abuse the system, but what's the actual cost here? Is it worth a 5 page expose in the Big City Times? Or is this a fringe issue? With all the news that's fit to print, I'm not really surprised, especially given that most Americans, myself included, already agree with your point. Unless the number is large, I'm not sure I would waste print on it. Where's the news? Given all the issues out there, this one seems fairly minor, maybe slow news day type of stuff, because I doubt the list of people you would exclude gets into the billions of dollars, or even hundreds of millions. Besides, you found out about it, and since I doubt you did any statistical studies of your own, I must assume your education came through "the media." But it does sound incomplete, maybe your "media" is just as flawed as "the media."
Finally, your point about only lookng at selective data is spot on. I've been complaining for years about reporting regarding high profile damages claims. A few outliers get picked, reporting on the case is selective and never really accurate, and follow-up is non-existant (things like evenutal overturning, ultimate settling for pennies on the dollar, etc), nor is it news that thousands of cases are handled correctly. But, with the sensationalism surrounding million dollar settlement x, the politicians manage to sucker American's into surrendering more power to the State to correct an extreme minority of cases. Surely you agree that this does not help the "liberal left" yet that's the way it happens. Maybe "the media" is just a bad way to get news. Thankfully, this blog exists.
Post a Comment