Question-- is there any public database showing who is receiving disability . . . .

[mistertrickster]

as in VA or SS disability?

[mistertrickster]

1. kick

[DURHAM D]

2. Why would that be any of your (or my) business?

[pennylane100]

3. not sure, but you could use it to taunt tea baggers.

[mistertrickster]

5. Exactly. nt

[City Lights]

11. And vice versa. eom

[mistertrickster]

6. It's not our business even though we pay for it? nt

[tpsbmam]

9. No, it's not your business even if you pay for it. WTF?!

What a Republican thing to say! No, it's not our right to know who the individuals on disability are. But wait a minute.....let me rethink this. Hey, we should know who all of the people are who have unpaid medical bills -- we pay for those too! And people on Medicaid.....we pay for them, we get to have a public database listing all those who receive Medicaid! Yeah, let's do that and more....let's get all of those freeloaders out in public to shame them, make them vulnerable, let the haters know who they are and where they are.....

As I said, :wtf:

[mistertrickster]

19. My intention is to shame the hypocrites who take from the public trough but then wish to deny others

Get a clue.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

15. No, it's not.

Any person relieving such has already had to suffer through ten types of hell to be on it. The last thing they need is some vindictive ass making their medical problems public and berating them for needing assistance.

[CBGLuthier]

16. Who Paid?

in the case of SS disability, recipients gave their hard earned money to the government in return for that small safety net. Sure the eventual cost may exceed what a given individual pays in but only a PETTY society would attempt to shame anyone with this.

As for disabled vets, I think many of them paid enough already.

[tammywammy]

18. No, it's not. n/t

[Shandris]

30. No, its NOT your fucking business.

To know who was 'feeding at the trough' (I come from an ENTIRE family of conservative, and wouldja believe that that is the expression they use EVERY. FUCKING. TIME.?), you'd have to have access to medical records, doctor visits, therapy records, and so forth. No, its not your fucking business.

[catabryna]

4. I certainly hope not.

Unless the recipient is a public official, it is no one's business.

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. You are entitled to medical privacy.

Sadly, from your perspective, so am I.

[loyalsister]

8. Probably only in private records

It's a real problem. Those of us who have disabilities resent the fact that we aren't counted in the census. Those numbers would influence the availability of services.
It would really be good to see numbers on employment that show who is most welcome\able to compete in the job market.

[City Lights]

10. I hope not.

Seems like an invasion of privacy to me.

[salin]

12. creepy question.

[xchrom]

13. +1

[firehorse]

14. +2

[mistertrickster]

20. Because we're all for gov't transparency . . . except when we're not. nt

[rucky]

23. Well, this is an individual's health information.

and that privacy is protected.

[mistertrickster]

24. And that's where we disagree . . . why somebody's on disability is protected.

But if they take gov't money, that should be public info.

[locahungaria]

22. +3 nt

[mistertrickster]

17. Outrage is so much easier than information . . . we have no problem with

who gets gov't contracts.

Anyway, it's obvious that no one knows the answer to a yes or no question.

[locahungaria]

21. I sincerely hope not.

Recipients of any form of 'public assistance' have a right to their privacy, no matter who they are.

IMO.

[mistertrickster]

25. Like Halliburton, say? nt

[locahungaria]

26. Haliburton is a corporation, not an individual person.

Perhaps I should have made that distinction in my reply.

[mistertrickster]

27. Or Jack Abramoff, he's an individual person . . .

[locahungaria]

28. If he's a recipient of public assistance as an individual...

as opposed to Jack Abramoff corporation, then he's entitled to his privacy.

And before you ask, yes, even Michele Bachmann (however the fuck its spelled) is entitled to her privacy as well.

The privacy slope can become very slippery, very quickly when we try to make distinctions between who is entitled to it and who is not. IMO, it's better all around to make every recipients case private.