To think a lot of MN are ableist?

[Sweetlifeofyours]

So I wasn’t going to post but as a mum with a disabled child myself I feel like I have to get things off my chest. I have read a couple of threads over the past week or so regarding mothers who are looking for advice and support for their disabled child/children (2 that stick out to me)

I was very sad to see that there were only a few posters who actually gave support and advice to the OP’s. The rest were in my opinion, downright rude and nasty and clearly just wanted to upset the OP’s even more for whatever reason.

As a mum with a SEN child, it is incredibly difficult and I myself don’t always get the correct help and support I need so to come on here and see that other women/parents show their (somewhat) true opinions of disabled children upset me.

I am completely 100% on board that autism shouldn’t be an excuse for everything, but surely some compassion wouldn’t go amiss to a struggling parent.

One of the worst things I read was a poster saying to the OP that they should make sure their child doesn’t turn into a sex offender because he enjoys hugs. Says more to me about the poster rather than the OP and their child.

I guess my AIBU is, do you think people (maybe especially on here) should have more compassion for the disabled community or have you read threads where you agree with the majority of comments (especially where we are talking about young children)?

That is the lottery of life. Is if fair? No, because life isn't fair. That is where the State steps in to 'support' but not replace parental obligation. Ultimately it will will care for the disabled once their parents die.

It depends.

Funding is not immediate, and does not always cover the full cost of employing an extra person - or funded hours are shorter than full days and don’t add up to a ‘sensibly sized job’.

So if a child joins a school and it becomes apparent that they need 1:1 support, it will usually be an existing member of staff who provides it. Good practice is for there to be more than one person on the timetable, to ensure cover for breaks, sickness etc and to reflect the fact that 1:1 support can be extremely stressful.

Once funding is secured, an extra person can be employed and may become 1:1 with that child, or may back-fill where the staff were pulled from, or may be an extra person on the ‘rota’.

It’s a more and more complex juggling act as funding gets tighter and tighter. Class TAs who can do ‘short term’ 1:1 during the recruitment process are now very rare, so when a new high needs child joins the school, it can be a juggling act, especially if the needs are obvious but no EHCP is yet in place.

So how would it work if a child is born disabled, or becomes disabled when very young, but their parent is in a minimum wage job which can in no way meet the medical, schooling and equipment cost for that child?

Does the child die for lack of medical care?

Even America, land of private healthcare, does have a minimal safety net and both federal and state taxation.

Not to mention eg health risks from many choosing not to have their waste collected; wholly uneducated children because parents couldn’t pay for schooling etc etc.

It’s not that long ago that many of the poor were illiterate (my grandfather learned to read as a teenager, having had to support his mother too much to attend school as a child); stunted by malnutrition (my grandmother stood at about 4’10”, my mother - child of food rationing that brought milk and vitamin C and a basic standard of nutrition- was 5’7”, taller than both of her parents); dying or disabled by avoidable diseases like polio (my other grandfather didn’t walk unaided over the age of 7). Do we really want to return there?

It seems we have made life far too complicated.

We have made it too easy for people to avoid accountability for their decisions. Needs have been replaced with wants and gratitude with entitlement.

I would like something in the middle but we seem to be edging closer to communism.

My son had cancer and due to some complications is now disabled as a result though is thankfully now in remission.

I can't even begin to imagine how much it cost and the vast, vast majority of parents wouldn't be able to self fund.

308 days in hospital including 7 weeks of specialist intensive care involving 3 different types of life support as well as dialysis
5 surgeries
4 rounds of chemotherapy as well as immunotherapy to lower the risk of relapse
many chest x rays
4 CT scans
1 bone density scan
2 echo scans (he will now need these heart scans for the rest of his life as he's now more at risk of heart failure due to some of the chemo drugs)

etc

Not to mention the cost now due to his disability and the medications he will now need to be on likely for the rest of his life.

@Kirbert2 - exactly.

To even suggest that everyone should pay for all their medical care comes from a position of extreme privilege (and lack of imagination)

What is the evidence that we are edging closer to communism?

I would suggest that actually our ‘ethical / political’ position is very similar to where it has been for a long time - since the founding of the NHS and the Welfare State. What has changed is a) the relative prosperity of the country as a whole; b) the success of the NHS and Welfare State and universal education in lengthening lifespan; c) globalisation, meaning that jobs and people move around the world, so we have lost meaningful employment opportunities to cheaper workforces.

Had to google that! You learn something new every day.

You are probably right. Somewhere in the middle which is kind of what we had 40 years ago. There were benefits but it was considered embarrasing to be on them so everybody worked unless they lost their job temporarily.

The only disabled people seemed to be downs or spina bifada or such diseases.

We do appear to be becoming a communist state don't we. My recollection from school was that they don't work because nobody has any motivation to work hard as they get the same income anyway so they end up as failed states.

Actually Jeez i think the UK is becoming a communist state. I mean everyone seems to get the same or more benefits than the workers. Everybody is losing the motivation to work and lets be honest the UK is heading for bankruptcy.

So the UK is new USSR

Well I'm certainly not Nigel F if that is what you are suggesting but like many others I am considering voting for him next time round.

Yes it would certainly require everyone to be more responsible and save their money more for health and pensions and the like. I don't think most people would mind that though. Bearing in mind you are paying no tax and so you can save that each month instead. It would give everyone great incentive to be slim and eat well and do all they could to avoid ill health. However if they get ill, they have lots of savings or perhaps health insurance like America.

It would also mean people would save before having kids and only have what they can afford. Again shouldn't be an issue as people are paying no tax or NI so have a bigger income each month to save.

I mean it's weird isn't it. We are all supposed to be adults. Yet we have some adults having to hand over part of their income to another adult who they don't know because they don't work. Most people really don't care about strangers so why should you share your income with them? It's just bizarre when you actually think about it.

So all parents would have savings because no tax or ni each month. Also everybody would pay health insurance. I mean we have insurance for our pets, our dental care. Insurance for our own health is just the next natural step. Not so weird - only 80 years ago we all paid for our own healthcare.

Parents who were so poor that they couldn't afford to save even with no tax or NI would just have to accept they couldn't afford kids. I mean kind of sensible no?
You don't get a dog unless you can afford it. You don't go on holiday unless you can afford it. Kids are a choice same as everything. There is no need to have them if you don't want them or can't afford them.

Most parents would take out good policies for health insurance which would cover unexpected things like disabilities. People would probably be more practical in terms of carrying on with a pregnancy if they knew it was going to be disabled especially if they thought they couldn't provide the child with a good quality of life.

I just find it so strange that Mr Blue hands over a portion of his income each month to Mr Green to look after his kids. Why is Mr Blue responsible for anything to do with Mr Greens kids. There not his kids. Bearing in mind there is no state pension so we don't need the youngsters to fund this anymore. Plus there is not exactly a shortage of people in the world is there.

I reckon loads of people would really go for a system like that.

There is birth control now. Before people couldn't stop babies coming (assuming their husbands were demanding sex).

Now people can live their lives and only have babies if they want to.

Surely once people see that they really are 'on their own' they would start being more responsible. Presumably most people are decent enough to not have kids when birth control is so easy now if they thought they could not afford to keep them.

Bearing in mind lots of the 'lower end' of society only has kids because they know it guarantees them a bunch of benefits. I reckon they would stop having kids if they knew there was no benefit.

But you wouldn't pay for it at point of use. You would take out a good health insurance policy using some of the saved money from not paying tax and NI each month.

Like car insurance - some people would claim alot, others wouldn't claim much at all. The insurance company would still make money as they would just adjust the premiums.

Paying health insurance and your own pension would just become completely normal. People would have full control over the own lives.

I mean if you write off your car because you have an accident you don't fork out 20K for a new one do you. The insurance that you pay each month covers it. Yes your premiums might go up in the future but you are still okay.

I mean at the moment you have house insurance in case your house burns down. Your house could be worth £300K. It's just the same principal.

By your logic, having children would become something only the extremely wealthy could afford. That’s not how society functions, and it ignores the fact that we need a sustainable reproductive rate to maintain our population. Many essential jobs are low-paid, and imagining a society made up entirely of solicitors, doctors, or engineers is unrealistic. Someone still has to perform the work at the bottom of the economic ladder. When you grow old and need help with basic care, it won’t be a stockbroker assisting you. Society depends on a wide range of roles, not just high-status professions

Communism is probably a bit extreme, But it's a slippery slope when the government pushes or plans to push policies that stifle growth whilst effectively telling people how they should use their money. Whether its higher taxes or directing saving towards the UK stock market rather than ISAs, or limiting house wealth rather than dealing the causes of wealth inequality it starts to look like a lot like the top down control that communism relies on rather than a guiding hand. I would argue that this is a different position.

Yes the other things you have mentioned have all happened. But when the government is pushing / likely to be pushing the above policies but refuses to get their spending under control, how can anyone have any faith that this is the team to deal with a, b an c?

But that is a different conversation to 'is MN ableist?'

To suggest that a grown adult should pay their own bills is outrageous?

That is what you are saying. Adults should not be .......adults?

To me the system we have is much more complicated than all of us just paying for ourselves. We would all just take our good health insurance for our entire family, same as house, car, pet insurance.

I find it so weird that others (presumably adults) are shocked at the idea of being responsible for themselves. I mean is that not the very definition of being an adult.

I'm part of a few parents of children with cancer groups, one of them is majority American and one of the most popular discussions is them frantically worrying about what their insurance will or won't cover all whilst their child is fighting for their life.

Not everyone would be able to afford ''good'' health insurance and even then, I'd be surprised if nothing but the most expensive, amazing health insurance would cover 10 months in hospital and all of what my son endured during that time as well as what he currently needs and will need for the rest of his life.

Poor people would still have children because poor people have always continued to have children

I don't want to live in a society where a child getting cancer could potentially bankrupt a family unless they are wealthy and have the right insurance.

You can’t get health insurance for pre existing conditions and there are expenses on top of insurance.

yes but remember you keep your own tax and NI each month so you are better off. So what if really poor people couldn't have kids. Plenty others would have them. I mean there are lots of arguements to say the country is too crowded anyway. We don't need everyone to have kids.

I don't think just the extremely wealthy would be having kids at all. Most parents work and so most parents would still have kids. Just diverting their saved tax /NI to good health insurance and a better pension scheme and private schooling. I reckon 70% of the current parents would still have their kids.

Maybe the very poorest in society might not have kids but then surely that is a good thing. They won't be under so much stress to pay for stuff they can't afford. Instead they can have a good life focusing on other things. Lots of less intelligent people who do lower paid jobs are perfectly happy. Often more so than highly paid stressed out people.

You would just have taken out insurance before you give birth so there is no pre-existing conditions so everything would be covered. Okay your premiums might go up next year but that happens with your house, your car, your pet, your dental insurance. We would just get used to it.

I actually think lots of people wouldn't have children if they knew they would get no benefits/council housing. I mean everyone on here gets outraged but we all know some people that do this to milk the system. If they have kids they can't afford then they suffer the consequences of that. I mean how many times do you see a person heartbroken because their pet is ill and they can't afford to get surgery for it because they have not taken out insurance. This is a terrible shame of course but they have to get the animal put down.

The percentage of people who would put themselves in this position would be tiny. If you got pregnant by mistake you would just abort. Otherwise everyone would just be more diligent about birth control. I mean there is no need to get pregnant unless it is planned is there.

Everyone would get insured prior to the birth of their baby. So the baby would be insured even before childbirth in case anything goes wrong. So no pre-existing conditions.

Yes there would be a catch up period but once everyone was insured from birth it would all be fine.

Remember you are not paying tax or NI. So you put that away every month you have a nice bundle of cash to pay for anything you can't get insurance for.

Everyone would just be much more sensible and accountable and ensure they always had a good bank of savings.

I would be interested if you could provide me with a link to an insurance company which will provide life-long cover to an unborn baby, in the event that they are born with a severe health condition. As far as I am aware no such policy exists, but I am sure someone as well-informed as yourself, who has clearly given a great deal of thought to the tax-free utopia you are espousing and who hasn't remotely extracted the idea from their fundamental oriphice with no thought whatsoever, will be able to correct me.
Also, have you ever tried to get health insurance, life insurance or travel insurance as a severely physically disabled person? If you ever had you would know that insurance brokers deliberately make premiums prohibitively high to discourage us buying their products as we are too risky a proposition and they do not want our custom. Would you force insurance companies to provide cover to anyone who wants it in your libertarian Neverland or is it just our tough luck if providers consider us uninsurable?
If I were to begin picking holes in your foolproof plan I would be here all day but let me start by pointing out that many of the services you use every day are provided by low-paid workers. Carers, shop workers, delivery drivers and countless other professions may not earn the same as a top lawyer or a stockbroker but they are absolutely essential to our daily lives. The fact they are paid less is a result of your beloved capitalism which has a weird and skewed value system rather than a reflection on how hard they work. I would warrant a carer on minimum wage works a damn sight harder and is more valuable to society than an investment banker earning many times their salary.

How do you explain the many, many children who are born every day in countries that don't have benefits or council housing?

A child getting cancer has nothing to do with benefits or milking the system. So if you have the 'wrong' insurance and your child gets cancer, would they have to be put down like a dog? Is that what you are saying?