To be fair, we don't much see the strings that hold up the Democrats, either. Maybe MSNBC was trying to kick some Republican ass. But my, it's hard to attack your opponent credibly for being "only words" - which is what Sarah Palin was doing in this portion of the speech - when you're so evidently wedded to the teleprompter.
Other than standing up for disability rights (and good for her on that, although Pat Buchanan just referred to it as "Down syndromes," in the plural): Did we hear any tangible policy positions tonight?
Also to Palin's credit: Someone coached her not to say "nucular" again. I hope that sticks. I hope it won't matter beyond November 4.
Photo credits: Me and my DVR.
8 comments:
Huh. I like her hair from the back. That's the first time I've liked something about her!
Yeah, it suits her well. See, we can be generous when we try! :-)
But she probably doesn't support disability rights. Disability rights goes far beyond not aborting. I am a big believer in disability rights, and I am very impressed with the very articulate statement Obama features about disability rights on his website. Back in June, I went to the McCain website to look for something similar, and under "Sanctity of Life," I found NOTHING. It was mostly abortion.
It's all the same with the current Republican platform; all babies must be born, but who cares what happens to them once they are here? I'd like to hear more about how McCain-Palin plan to help with education, health care, discrimination due to "pre-existing conditions," etc.
My visit to the McCain website in June, where I did not find anything on disability rights, was part of what helped me so that "McCain wouldn't be as bad as Bush" isn't true AT ALL.
She said that if she and McCain are elected, parents with special needs children will have a friend in the White House. But I presume that will only be for those with health insurance. In fact, I'm sure if the insurance companies could figure out how to get away with it, they'd label Down Syndrome a pre-existing condition. After all, it's often detected in the womb.
Molly - I wanted to hear what specific government program she would support. The federal IDEA legislation is not fully funded, for instance. The result is some school districts are well funded for autism - others, not so much. I remember when the Tiger was getting help from an Early Intervention specialist for his speech delay, she told me that a little girl had just been diagnosed with Rett's Syndrome (a particularly severe form of autism) - and that there was nowhere near enough assistance available locally due to funding constraints.
My feeling is that if Palin had an *older* disabled child, she might very well come with specific policy proposals, because she'd be more familiar with the shortcomings of our current programs.
Henry - you are one wise cat. If you follow current trends to their logical conclusion, the mortal condition will become grounds for refusing to insure people.
Ironically, it's probably easier for you as a cat to get individual insurance than for my husband, who (with two cancer bouts) has foolishly rendered himself uninsurable except through a group.
Perhaps I am overly cynical, but I doubt she will be a real advocate of disability rights even when Trig is older.
She strikes me as the "individual" solution type, not the "communal" solution type. If SHE went back to work 3 days after childbirth, why do other (weaker) women need maternity leave? Perhaps she doesn't think like this, but I'd like to see policy to the contrary.
And, again, perhaps I am cynical and jaded and even a lazy thinker, but I can also imagine her approach to her son's disability being similar. She, due to money, connections, privileges, her own hard work, whatever, will arrange for Trig's needs. But does that mean she will worry about other children like Trig, especially if it requires public funding to do so?
She's such a Republican mouthpiece, and face it, the Republican Party does not have a good record of caring for the "weak among us" beyond their entrance into the world.
I have also worried about the future implications of prenatal testing for defining disability as a pre-existing condition. Scary scary scary.
Does anyone know, does a child with a disability, whether Down syndrome, autism, or something else, lose insurance coverage through the parents at age 18 (if the parents even have it in the first place)?
No, there's no such thing as excess cynicism where this outfit is concerned.
Palin will be *able to afford* whatever solution suits her in the years ahead. If she'd been left to her own devices in Alaska, she might have come to appreciate those communal programs. Now, she'll have access to whatever she wants, even if she loses.
As far as I know, some insurance programs cover dependent children through college age, as long as they're in school. I *think* kids with serious disabilities may stay in school past 18 and be eligible for services up to age 21. This may be wishful thinking on my part, though, and I'd love someone to weigh in who knows more about this.
Post a Comment