- First openly racist Supreme Court Justice
- First openly sexist Supreme Court Justice

CatsGodot on April 9, 2012 at 6:43 PM

I’m a diabetic and I fully agree with Ed – something I rarely do.

It’s not a disability.

Man up.

Mind you, I’m not one to jump and yell “DISABILITY” at the drop of a hat (my father had suffered with polio when he was young; for his whole adult life, and while raising me and my siblings, he lived his life on crutches; quite a perspective this gives someone when you consider everyday living on crutches the norm).

Now, I admit, it does enforce a healthier lifestyle; I can’t rush through (or even skip) meals. I have to watch my blood sugar on a regular basis (4 times a day). If I don’t have my insulin (I take shots; and due to the amount that I take, I have no other alternative), I must rush home to pick some up. When I have had to work shifts other than 8-5, I still had to maintain my original meal and insulin schedule, or face the consequences.

I especially like work meetings that involve snacks–none of which are diabetic friendly. I may make a request (of which usually involves a discussion explaining *close and things like, “no only DIET 7Up; yes, bread is healthy, but not for a diabetic; orange juice is bad; etc”). Quite a stretch to compare to, say, wheelchair accessible entrances, but there is some common ground there.

Yes, hassles, I admit. Nothing like, say, living in an iron lung or having cerebral palsy. But to dismiss it as nothing more than “you shouldn’t eat sugar” is, well…quite insulting, sorry.

I don’t agree with the White House’s “let’s add this little checkmark” approach, but I also disagree with Ed’s dismissive attitude as well, wife with diabetes or not.

If you are one of those who polices the system well, and sees to it that the individual who CAN work doesn’t cheat the system, well kudos to you!

Turtle317 on April 9, 2012 at 4:16 PM

I work within the regulations, which are actually more complicated than you might think. I usually wind up recommending or writing more “unfavorable” decisions than I do favorable ones (as in, decisions denying benefits). Most of the favorable decisions that I write usually have CDRs requirements attached (meaning that the claimant will need to prove no medical improvement has occurred after a reasonable time period, usually 24 months).

So are pulled muscles from overreach.

Classic. Great to have Ed back.

Maybe its her golf game.

STL_Vet on April 9, 2012 at 4:16 PM

That’s a handicap, not a disease. But maybe this is what Obama was referring to. I wonder if Sotomayor plays golf?

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

I understand how you feel, and people should be a little more sensitive in how they phrase things, but I don’t think anyone here is belittling your mother or the condition (I have Type II). More so the fact that Obozo will use any opportunity or person to promote how awesome he is. Personally, if I were her (and not so completely devoted to him for a lifetime appointment) I would’ve called him out for divulging the information, even though it is public knowledge for anyone interested.

And now that I re-read your post I realize that you could’ve been insulted by Obozo in the first place. Whichever the case, I’m sorry for your loss.

Other notable accomplishment: country’s 1st brain damaged VP.

Also, when you think about it, Obama is our second disabled president, after that guy in the wheelchair. Being born without a soul should probably count as a disability.

The anger is very easy to explain, Mr. Regulator, and heed me well.

Either you are disabled, or you are not. Those who write the regulations seem to misunderstand what they are writing about. In Sonya Sotomayer’s case, either she is BY YOUR DEFINITION: 1) Disabled, not able to work and therefore unfit to serve in her role as Supreme Court Justice, or 2) able to serve and is therefore NOT disabled.

And it isn’t just you, it is the whole idea that the government decides who gets a paycheck or not, whether one is actually sick or disabled doesn’t really factor when it comes down to who gets a check. Its about VOTES.

If you are one of those who polices the system well, and sees to it that the individual who CAN work doesn’t cheat the system, well kudos to you!

I however, have seen too many cheats who got the money, and too many who desperately need it, but can’t.

I personally, think the whole d@mned thing needs to be overhauled. But it is clear Mr. Obama and his stooges will destroy it with ObamaCare before we get the chance.

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

You don’t have to prove need to get an entitlement. You just have to qualify.

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.

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.

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!

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.

Well, done, Ed. Very well done.

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.

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.

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?