Is diabetes now a disability?

posted at 1:56 pm on April 9, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

That seems to be the message from the White House, which is apparently a little desperate to make the case that Barack Obama has proven his historical and diversity mettle in judicial nominations.  In a new infographic for the website, the Obama administration now argues that it appointed the first confirmed Supreme Court justice “with a disability” (via Twitchy):

President Obama has only nominated two Supreme Court justices, both of whom were confirmed by the Senate — Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.  The only unusual medical or physical condition known about either of them is Sotomayor’s diabetes, which is presumably the basis for this claim.  My wife had Type I diabetes for almost all of her life (until her 2007 pancreas transplant), which eventually caused her blindness and kidney failure.  She is classified as disabled because of her blindness, but no one ever suggested that her diabetes was a disability — it’s a medical condition that can be managed and doesn’t physically disable anyone from anything on its own, except perhaps eating sugar.

Count Kevin Drum at Mother Jones among the unimpressed with this claim:

[W]hen I clicked the link to take a look at the White House’s latest graphic wizardry, I was surprised to learn that one of Obama’s Supreme Court nominees was the first ever with a disability to win confirmation. I had no idea. But Google, as always, is my friend, and after first coming up dry on Elena Kagan, I discovered that Sonia Sotomayor has diabetes.

Did I already know this? Maybe. My memory is so bad that I couldn’t tell you whether I once knew this and have forgotten, or whether I had never heard this before. In any case, I guess I’ve added two new bits of knowledge to my brain pan today: (1) Sonia Sotomayor has diabetes, and (2) diabetes is considered a disability. Live and learn.

I’d hazard a guess that (2) would be a surprise to those with Type I diabetes, too.  It’s an absurdity in service to a further absurdity, which is the relentless impulse of the White House to play the diversity card in advance of the election.  Apparently, it’s no longer enough that Sotomayor is a Latina, but they need her to check the “disability” box as well, even though she’s not at all disabled.  That smacks of desperation, and perhaps a bit of intellectual disability among the White House staff.

Update: The Washington Free Beacon notices a diversity deficit in the Obama campaign, as does Ace, but apparently not BuzzFeed.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Maybe they were referring Kagan. Living without a full set of ethical principals can be quite debilitating.

Dee2008 on April 9, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Openly gay man confirmed to a federal court

You watch. If Obama gets in more trouble, he’s going to make Kagan out herself.

KingGold on April 9, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Hey, the U.S. is all about helping the disabled. We elected a man who apparently is mentally disabled to the White house, did we not?

michaelo on April 9, 2012 at 2:01 PM

When you have nothing to run on, you make a big deal about nothing.

indyvet on April 9, 2012 at 2:02 PM

I’d like to comment more, but my lactose intolerance disability has upset my tummy today.

RBMN on April 9, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Wilford Brimley knows no disability.

Jeddite on April 9, 2012 at 2:02 PM

That smacks of desperation, and perhaps a bit of intellectual disability among the White House staff.

There is a LOT of that around the White House these days.

search4truth on April 9, 2012 at 2:02 PM

That smacks of desperation, and perhaps a bit of intellectual disability among the White House staff.

Liberalism = intellectual disability

Bitter Clinger on April 9, 2012 at 2:03 PM

You watch. If Obama gets in more trouble, he’s going to make Kagan out herself.

KingGold on April 9, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Ugh! Surrounded no doubt by Janet Napolitano and Janet Reno.

Roy Rogers on April 9, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Diabeetus killed my sister and both my grandmother and mother suffered/suffer from it. Never heard of it being labeled a disability.

Perhaps he means one of his nominees is mentally challenged. Good luck in figuring out which one.

TheLastBrainLeft on April 9, 2012 at 2:03 PM

I have type 2 diabetes. Does this mean I can now park in the handicap spaces?

Mark1971 on April 9, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Can you get social security benefits for Type I diabetes as disability? I hope not. Eventually everthing becomes a “disability” until we’re all on the government dole, voting ourselves new privileges until the well runs dry.

My jaw clicks occasionally, I want money.

Meric1837 on April 9, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Americans also elected the first president with a mental disability – sure that has to count for something.

The Count on April 9, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Is diabetes now a disability?

Obama’s budget submission was another spending blowout. Maybe he was planning on sending gubmint disability checks to everyone with diabetes.

Bitter Clinger on April 9, 2012 at 2:06 PM

As long as no justice is confirmed with PMS the republic is still relatively safe.

pedestrian on April 9, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Where’s my government check for chapped lips and hurt feelings?

NoDonkey on April 9, 2012 at 2:06 PM

I can’t help but noticing that Obama is proud of the sexual orientation, race, or ethnicity of his nominations. No mention of competence. I’m guessing that they are all qualified jurists but a graphic that only cares about the fact they are gay or Korean really makes it seem as if that was the reason for their nomination, not their qualification.

Put another way, would Sotomayer have been as promising a candidate for nomination if not for the fact she is Latina? This graphic doesn’t seem to be making that case. Affirmative action nominations and nothing more.

Happy Nomad on April 9, 2012 at 2:07 PM

As some one whose mother died from complications from diabetes after living the last four years bedridden due to neuropathy, I am insulted.

ladyingray on April 9, 2012 at 2:07 PM

So are pulled muscles from overreach.

Good snark!!

Bitter Clinger on April 9, 2012 at 2:07 PM

They’re both brainless … so there’s that.

Lost in Jersey on April 9, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Being Liberal and over 30 — confirmed mental disability.

ProfShadow on April 9, 2012 at 2:08 PM

I have type 2 diabetes. Does this mean I can now park in the handicap spaces?

Mark1971 on April 9, 2012 at 2:03 PM

If type 1 is a disability, I would think that type 2 gets you TWO handicap parking spots!

Happy Nomad on April 9, 2012 at 2:08 PM

I can’t help but noticing that Obama is proud of the sexual orientation, race, or ethnicity of his nominations. No mention of competence. I’m guessing that they are all qualified jurists but a graphic that only cares about the fact they are gay or Korean really makes it seem as if that was the reason for their nomination, not their qualification.

Put another way, would Sotomayer have been as promising a candidate for nomination if not for the fact she is Latina? This graphic doesn’t seem to be making that case. Affirmative action nominations and nothing more.

Happy Nomad on April 9, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Indentity Politics 101

Bitter Clinger on April 9, 2012 at 2:09 PM

And it must be said, going back to the “Firsts under President Obama” graphic….once again, the liberal talking point is about labeling other people. Instead of worrying about how well the justices analyze the Constitution to uphold its laws (the reason for that branch of government is, of course, to protect our liberties granted under the document) and vote on merit…we’re more concerned about race, sexual preference and now whether or not they have medical boo boos…especially if those awful insurance companies don’t want to cover them.

search4truth on April 9, 2012 at 2:09 PM

How about

1st unconceived female due to gov’t supplied contraception?

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 2:09 PM

My daughter-in-law has been in the army for 10 years and mentioned a couple of months ago that she was a “disabled veteran”. I was surprised! I asked her what her disability was….she responded…endometriosis.

mabelee on April 9, 2012 at 2:09 PM

I want ObamaCare to cover hair transplants so I don’t suffer from self esteem issues because of my bald head.

Blue Collar Todd on April 9, 2012 at 2:10 PM

How about

1st unconceived black due to gov’t supplied contraception?

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 2:10 PM

With Sotomayor or Kagan, I was thinking the disability was

“a lack of willing sex partners”

BobMbx on April 9, 2012 at 2:11 PM

I would have guessed it was her mental disabilities. During the argument recently – she was a babbling idiot.

mouell on April 9, 2012 at 2:11 PM

The Economy…?

… Never heard of it.

Seven Percent Solution on April 9, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Does leftieism now count as a “disability”?

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Can we set aside the stupidity of claiming diabetes is a disability and gaze in horrific wonderment instead at what this administration considers to be the outstanding qualifications for sitting on the federal bench? I find the entire graphic to be insulting and a rejection of liberty and meritocracy. If any of us are standing before a judge and it matters what skin color the judge has, what ethnicity the judge has or where that judge likes to stick his penis we are seriously screwed as a nation.

NotCoach on April 9, 2012 at 2:12 PM

You watch. If Obama gets in more trouble, he’s going to make Kagan out herself.

KingGold on April 9, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Hahahaha… it’s so funny to think about.

MeatHeadinCA on April 9, 2012 at 2:13 PM

You watch. If Obama gets in more trouble, he’s going to make Kagan out herself.

KingGold on April 9, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Or

“If I had a gay brother he’d be me” — Obama 2012

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Does she get special accommodations for her “disability”? Foot checks for circulation problems, periodic eye checks, blood glucose meters? Oh, you say those aren’t accommodations for a disability? They are a part of the Obamacare free stuff, I get it!

hip shot on April 9, 2012 at 2:15 PM

The only place where I can see diabetes being a disability is in the workplace accommodation law area. As in being allowed to carry what otherwise might be termed drug paraphernalia – hypo needles.

Beyond that might be to allow a certain amount & number of breaks to accommodate the more frequent meals needed.

Laws are made for lawyers, donchaknow?

platypus on April 9, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Perhaps it’s Kagan’s multi-chin disfigurement?

slickwillie2001 on April 9, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Well, with the way this White House is Obama probably considers being female a disability.

Cthulhu2012 on April 9, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Pretty sure some Justices wore glasses. If you’re nearsighted, that is a disability, albeit one very easily corrected.

rbj on April 9, 2012 at 2:19 PM

The Economy…?

… Never heard of it.

Seven Percent Solution on April 9, 2012 at 2:12 PM

The economy is disabled too. Try not to judge, you heartless Rethuglican!

;)

Laura in Maryland on April 9, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Oh, and is she a white Latina?

rbj on April 9, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Interesting that he’d like to classify 1 in 8 Americans as disabled. [And given that they've changed the diagnostic criteria for diabetes recently, that's probably a low-ball figure. A friend of ours was diagnosed with pre-diabetes a while back, and some months later discovered that with absolutely no changes in his lab values or other clinical findings he had been re-classified as diabetic.]

Or does the administration think that by turning so many people into members of a “victim” class, even when their new-found disability has no affect on their ability to function, they will suddenly all vote the straight Democratic ticket?

LibraryGryffon on April 9, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Next he’ll appoint Fluke.

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Perhaps their mind is living in an alternate reality? That would be a disability.

I’ve hade Type I for going on 30 years and I can’t class it as a disability. An iron taskmaster, yes; a disability, no.

ajacksonian on April 9, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Oh, and is she a white Latina?

rbj on April 9, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Maybe THAT’s the disability. In the victimhood of identity politics, being white is decidedly a disadvantage if not a full blown disability.

Happy Nomad on April 9, 2012 at 2:24 PM

“If I had a gay brother he’d be me” — Obama 2012

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 2:13 PM

LOL… and he DOES… brother Borat. He never leaves the house without his helmet and shoes coordinating with his bike.

VietVet_Dave on April 9, 2012 at 2:24 PM

The Economy…?

… Never heard of it.

Seven Percent Solution on April 9, 2012 at 2:12 PM

…neither has the Parrot Press!

KOOLAID2 on April 9, 2012 at 2:26 PM

“Justice Kagan, you need to take one for the team. Please chop one of your legs off.”

-Jarrett

Bishop on April 9, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Eat your “free” government sugar, grains and orange juice. Turn youself into a fat disgusting slob. Turn diabetic. Rob me and my children to getya some more “free” crap. Lather, rinse, repeat.

crash72 on April 9, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Can we make alcoholism a disability? I’m going to start drinking now.

hip shot on April 9, 2012 at 2:27 PM

The economy is disabled too. Try not to judge, you heartless Rethuglican!

;)

Laura in Maryland on April 9, 2012 at 2:20 PM

:)

Seven Percent Solution on April 9, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Or does the administration think that by turning so many people into members of a “victim” class, even when their new-found disability has no affect on their ability to function, they will suddenly all vote the straight Democratic ticket?

LibraryGryffon on April 9, 2012 at 2:20 PM

My wife is diabetic. It will be a sub-zero day in Hades before she votes for a Democrat.

Bitter Clinger on April 9, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Hey, didn’t Nancy tell us we’d eventually find out what was in it?

VietVet_Dave on April 9, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Next he’ll appoint Fluke.

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 2:21 PM

That’s probably Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg’s replacement.

Bitter Clinger on April 9, 2012 at 2:31 PM

LOL I just started cackling when I saw the graphic.

blatantblue on April 9, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Wilford Brimley disagrees. Diabetus is a disease, not a disability.

SAMinVA on April 9, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Can you get social security benefits for Type I diabetes as disability? I hope not. Eventually everthing becomes a “disability” until we’re all on the government dole, voting ourselves new privileges until the well runs dry.

My jaw clicks occasionally, I want money.

Meric1837 on April 9, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Speaking as an employee of the Social Security Administration, I can inform you that diabetes mellitus is, in fact, a disability. You can also receive disability benefits for it, although it’s a bit more complicated to receive benefits because of it. Despite what most think, it’s not a rubber stamp; you’re not likely to receive benefits for diabetes unless you have some significant related complications from the disease (such as neuropathy or retinopathy).

My wife had Type I diabetes for almost all of her life (until her 2007 pancreas transplant), which eventually caused her blindness and kidney failure. She is classified as disabled because of her blindness, but no one ever suggested that her diabetes was a disability — it’s a medical condition that can be managed and doesn’t physically disable anyone from anything on its own, except perhaps eating sugar.

Sorry to hear about your wife, Ed, but you’re quite wrong. It IS a disability. Most chronic, systemic diseases like diabetes are disabilities under the regulations of the SSA.

Vyce on April 9, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Hey, when are we going to have a Native American on the Supreme Court! Now it’s a black president who is speaking with a forked tongue (another disability revealed)!

Cherokee on April 9, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Marion Barry, the one whom God gave “a good brain” is available.

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Maybe they were referring Kagan. Living without a full set of ethical principals can be quite debilitating.

Dee2008 on April 9, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Maybe Kagan’s disability is looking like Paul Blart.

UltimateBob on April 9, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Vyce on April 9, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Sotomayor isn’t suffering any apparent challenge to her physical capabilities at this point in time. If in the future she does, fine then, call her disabled. But in the era of Iraq/Afghanistan we Americans are all to familiar with what real disability looks like, and it’s insulting that Obama would hold this woman up and proclaim her “disabled.”

Dee2008 on April 9, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Maybe Kagan’s disability is looking like Paul Blart.

UltimateBob on April 9, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Uncanny!

Dee2008 on April 9, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Nailed – the fools don’t know much – Act revised in 2008.

1. When is diabetes a disability under the ADA?

Diabetes is a disability when it substantially limits one or more of a person’s major life activities. Major life activities are basic activities that an average person can perform with little or no difficulty, such as eating or caring for oneself. Diabetes also is a disability when it causes side effects or complications that substantially limit a major life activity. Even if diabetes is not currently substantially limiting because it is controlled by diet, exercise, oral medication, and/or insulin, and there are no serious side effects, the condition may be a disability because it was substantially limiting in the past (i.e., before it was diagnosed and adequately treated). Finally, diabetes is a disability when it does not significantly affect a person’s everyday activities, but the employer treats the individual as if it does. For example, an employer may assume that a person is totally unable to work because he has diabetes. Under the ADA, the determination of whether an individual has a disability is made on a case-by-case basis.

She doesn’t qualify.

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Sotomayor isn’t suffering any apparent challenge to her physical capabilities at this point in time. If in the future she does, fine then, call her disabled. But in the era of Iraq/Afghanistan we Americans are all to familiar with what real disability looks like, and it’s insulting that Obama would hold this woman up and proclaim her “disabled.”

Dee2008 on April 9, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Fair enough. I was simply addressing the issue as to whether diabetes qualifies as a “disability.” It does meet the definition.

I say we go ahead and label her disabled, and thus disqualify her from all future Supreme Court decisions.

Vyce on April 9, 2012 at 2:49 PM

We are never going to get out of the forest. Way to many squirrels distracting us.

SQUIRREL!

PrettyD_Vicious on April 9, 2012 at 2:50 PM

The obsession with everything relating to reeks of desperation.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 9, 2012 at 2:51 PM

The obsession with everything relating to reeks of desperation.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 9, 2012 at 2:51 PM

He’s a pandering malicious dummy.

You are just a dummy.

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Jobs, jobs, jobs and what is.

He wants you to focus on what was, and what will be, distracting you from what is, you racist rubes.

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 2:54 PM

“Die, you racist rubes” — o…drom

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Can you get social security benefits for Type I diabetes as disability? I hope not.
Meric1837 on April 9, 2012 at 2:04 PM

I hate to shatter your (& my) hope, but yes, type 1 diabetes is considered a disability by social security. My sister was able to get disability payments on her first attempt, within a few months, for having diabetes with no complications.

Crazy?! And I say this as someone with a daughter with diabetes.

HellCat on April 9, 2012 at 2:56 PM

HellCat on April 9, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Why SS and Medicare will be bankrupt, soon.

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 2:58 PM

“Die, you racist rubes” — o…drom
Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Find some blood pressure meds or take a chill pill kid.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 9, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Look shiny things! Hat Tip 7 %.

Bmore on April 9, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Find some blood pressure meds or take a chill pill kid.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 9, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Did you notice some of you’re comments are starting to turn up missing? The breeze of the glorious hammer.

Bmore on April 9, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Can you get social security benefits for Type I diabetes as disability? I hope not. Eventually everthing becomes a “disability” until we’re all on the government dole, voting ourselves new privileges until the well runs dry.

My jaw clicks occasionally, I want money.

Meric1837 on April 9, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Appallingly, having practiced medicine in rural Ohio, where SSI payments for marginal indications are widespread, I had a patient who had been placed on SSI for the disability indication of diabetes (As I recall he was a type 2 diabetic). It was not clear what sort of work he did, if any, before he went on SSI. You can’t get a CDL if you’re on insulin, but there are other jobs. It was appalling. I also had a 28 yo very healthy looking male on disability for life because he cut a tendon in his arm at age 14. He had full use of his arm. He did not appear to have any desire to work. My husband had 2 patients who were on disability because they were illiterate.

If we make diabetes a disability, with the increasing obesity in the US, pretty soon everyone will qualify. I guess that means no one will have to work and the government can support us all.

talkingpoints on April 9, 2012 at 3:05 PM

What about my halitosis?

What kind of check can I get for that?

BobMbx on April 9, 2012 at 3:08 PM

HellCat on April 9, 2012 at 2:56 PM

With all due respect to your sister, that’s just wrong. But putting that discussion aside for the moment, I don’t think Obama’s going to gain any traction trying to convince people that Sotomayor is disabled.

Dee2008 on April 9, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Find some blood pressure meds or take a chill pill kid.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 9, 2012 at 3:00 PM

BP is perfect and I’m completely calm. You just amuse.

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Find some blood pressure meds or take a chill pill kid.
0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 9, 2012 at 3:00 PM

BP is perfect and I’m completely calm. You just amuse.
Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Keep
Calm
And
Have a great day.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 9, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Elsewhere, a disabled vet died a week ago in Kalispell, Mt. He had a brain injury and other problems and couldn’t work, yet the govt rated his disability so lowly that he barely got enough to live on.

Kissmygrits on April 9, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Have a great day.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 9, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Love the breeze it creates. ; )

Bmore on April 9, 2012 at 3:18 PM

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 9, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Thank you, and the very same to you.

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 3:22 PM

All liberals are mentally handicapped so every one of Obooba’s appointments is that of a disabled person.

Akzed on April 9, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Speaking as an employee of the Social Security Administration, I can inform you that diabetes mellitus is, in fact, a disability. You can also receive disability benefits for it, although it’s a bit more complicated to receive benefits because of it. Despite what most think, it’s not a rubber stamp; you’re not likely to receive benefits for diabetes unless you have some significant related complications from the disease (such as neuropathy or retinopathy).

Vyce on April 9, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Speaking AS A TYPE I DIABETIC, I have great issues with people who describe this disease as a freaking disability. I am a full time employee and a professional in my field, and do not rely on the SSA to send me a Godd&mned check just because I have diabetes. If it IS a disability as defined by the all-wise and all-knowing f*ckups in the SSA, then where the h@ll have my disability checks?

I thought so. So you can use the term disability to prop yourself up in the world of politispeak, but when it comes down to shelling out the checks for this “disability” I never see one?

Do me a favor Vyce, and get a real job that doesn’t require putting labels on those of us so-called disabled types who WORK for a living.

The last thing I need is for my government to do me any special favors.

Turtle317 on April 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Wait does Sotomayor have Type 1 diabetes? That is a far more powerful argument for disability than Type 2. Type 1 is usually diagnosed in children whose pancreas cannot make insulin. Very serious illness. I know becuase I was diagnosed with it at age 11.

No, I am not on social security benefits.

Creston on April 9, 2012 at 3:25 PM

According to the ADA Amendments, almost everything is a disability; however, depending on how the condition affected someone, I believe it could qualify as a disability even before the amendments. I have several relatives with both Types and believe they are “disabled” to the extent they need a place to keep insulin refrigerated, test themselves, keep certain foods, etc., but they all function normally with no legal assistance. In my view the greatest danger comes from an employers who might discriminate against them because of their condition.

That said, most diabetics I know function without legal assistance (and prefer to do so) and don’t waive their condition around as the WH is now doing. I’m not impressed and view this as only more of his “look at me” behavior. (Nothing new there.)

If he were to appoint a JAG officer to SCOTUS who had lost a limb serving the country, then I would be impressed.

EdmundBurke247 on April 9, 2012 at 3:26 PM

That said, most diabetics I know function without legal assistance (and prefer to do so) and don’t waive their condition around as the WH is now doing. I’m not impressed and view this as only more of his “look at me” behavior. (Nothing new there.)

If he were to appoint a JAG officer to SCOTUS who had lost a limb serving the country, then I would be impressed.

EdmundBurke247 on April 9, 2012 at 3:26 PM

I couldn’t agree with you more, Edmund.

Turtle317 on April 9, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Is lieing a disability? May we should cut Obama some slack for his disability.

burt on April 9, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Sure, why not make diabetes a disability, then the growing numbers of diabetics can follow the trend lately of people going on disability when unemployment benefits run out, which just draws us closer and closer to Oblunder’s welfare entitlement state. (Just to be clear–I’m not dissing diabetics here. I’m dissing deadbeats and the deadbeat-in-chief’s deadbeat delusions and policies.)

Re: the alleged diversity deficit in Obama’s campaign, well, it’s no deficit. The Chicago campaign office is Obama’s plantation being tended to by all those young white slaves. How more derisively for the king of derision to get even?

stukinIL4now on April 9, 2012 at 3:49 PM

I’d hazard a guess that (2) would be a surprise to those with Type I diabetes, too.

Because I’m extremely “brittle” and have to deal with hypoglycemic unawareness (a chronic condition that arose before I developed IDDM, oddly enough), I had to stop driving. Even if I check frequently and carry snacks or glucose tablets, it’s too risky. When I was younger, especially, my family wouldn’t trust me to go anywhere by myself because it would get so scary, so fast. (They still don’t, honestly.) I haven’t worked outside my home for nearly 20 years because any little variation in my routine, including changes in temperature, who I talk to or how much I read, has a dramatic impact. And I don’t even try to keep my levels tight anymore–too dangerous. Tell me that’s not a disability. I do not collect any sort of disability payment or welfare, although I probably will get a subsidy when/if the bambicare mandate goes into effect, but I don’t have a problem acknowledging I have a problem.

We’re not all alike, and plenty of diabetics do just fine and shouldn’t be considered disabled just because they have the disease. It depends on the particulars, like anything else.

VerbumSap on April 9, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Speaking AS A TYPE I DIABETIC, I have great issues with people who describe this disease as a freaking disability. I am a full time employee and a professional in my field, and do not rely on the SSA to send me a Godd&mned check just because I have diabetes. If it IS a disability as defined by the all-wise and all-knowing f*ckups in the SSA, then where the h@ll have my disability checks?

You won’t get any because of the bolded text. You’re a full-time employee. Don’t know what your salary is, but I’m sure you’re at what we call “substantial gainful activity.”

I thought so. So you can use the term disability to prop yourself up in the world of politispeak, but when it comes down to shelling out the checks for this “disability” I never see one?

Do me a favor Vyce, and get a real job that doesn’t require putting labels on those of us so-called disabled types who WORK for a living.

Turtle317 on April 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Why get angry with me? I’m not “propping myself up.” I’m offering information. I’m telling those not informed here that yes, diabetes is a disability under the SSA regulations. Sorry if that offends you. I don’t write the regulations.

And who’s putting labels? You don’t get benefits unless you apply for them. You don’t seem so inclined. That’s good, because if you’re working for a living, you’re not supposed to “need” them anyway.

Vyce on April 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM

“So are pulled muscles from overreach.”

Well, done, Ed. Very well done.

peachaeo on April 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Willard mitt Romney will put progressive’s on the bench. Have a nice 4 years.

astonerii on April 9, 2012 at 4:02 PM

I have children with Type I diabetes. They can do anything (sports etc etc) that anyone else can do. As parents, we have made sure they understand their diabetes will not stop them from doing whatever they want. Plenty of professional athletes etc etc have Type I diabetes and treatment is much better than it used to be (and continues to improve). Plus there are more and more promising potential cures (take a look at some of Dr. Denise Faustman’s research).

I’m tired of the victimhood mentality Obama and many of his cohorts want to push. Everyone has challenges, some worse than others. As far as things go, however, Type I diabetes is a very surmountable challenge and my kids will never be victims. As Ed noted some disabling secondary effects do occur (with improved treatment we now have, those will also decline) but, overall, the disease is NOT a disability.

batter on April 9, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Ed this dates back to Jan. 1, 2009 when the ADA was expanded to the ADAAA (ADA Amendments Act) to include diabetes. The Regulations were cemented in May of 2011.

Also via Exec Order 13548: Increasing Federal Employment of Individuals With Disabilities the diabetes ploy was repeated.

Also today the WSJ is up in arms over the fact that Govt Contractors must have 7% people with with disabilities.

Upshot:
1. A gift to the Trial Lawyers via the ADA.
2. Political ploy to show how Dems are helping the “disabled” in record numbers.
3. As it relates to Govt. Contractors I’d think 7% of their existing employees have type II diabetes.
4. In 2009 the Ninth Circus held Type II Diabetes applied to the ADAAA.
Just another set up for the upcoming GOP war on Diabetics!

Afterseven on April 9, 2012 at 4:08 PM

batter on April 9, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Get used to it. If they ever do find a cure it will be blacklisted by the government and every pharmaceutical company the world over. You do not make big money with cures, you make big money with treatments, life long treatments are the biggest money makers. Just look at how they try to shut down your Doctor Denise Faustman.

astonerii on April 9, 2012 at 4:10 PM

It’s a filthy shame that the disability industry has made such a joke out of itself, that much of the scorn displayed above is, unfortunately, deserved.

My neighbor was Type I, and there was no disability whatsoever – until the complications started. Then it was four years of hell for him with the circulatory shutdowns and organ failures and widespread internal maladies. He finally got a transplant, but still spent another four years dealing with all the near-miss crap that the diabetes had left behind before finally working itself out of his system. Ultimately, he only lost a leg and part of his hand, and is on anti-rejection drugs for the rest of his life.

No, Type I diabetes is not a disability – but the complications if/when they hit surely are. Having witnessed my neighbor in the full throes of the disease, I pray for Justice Sotomayor.

ss396 on April 9, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2