Disability should be considered to be a feasibility of life:

There are two inevitabilities in life. First, you will be born, and second, you will die. But there is another possibility which could occur at any time between these two.

That prospect is you may become disabled. If such an event should occur, then you will find that you may need specific help and support just to put the pieces back together. What will happen if help and support aren't available or if they are grossly inadequate. If either of these are the case then you may discover that you have been plummeted into a class which ranks below a second-class citizen. This class goes by the name of third-class citizen. If you have the misfortune to land in this class than you may discover that help may be under attack by leaders who consider themselves to be fiscally conservative. How can help that could return you to being a taxpayer be condidered unsound fiscal policy? Shouldn't government help people return to productivity instead of making them dependent upon government aid?

If you live in a country where the disabled are placed on government aid, then you must show your leaders that this approach may not be fiscally sound because it may ensure that disability will continue to grow unchecked. Left unchecked will mean that more and more money will be required just to help the disabled. Any approach to disability which does this should be termed the ostrich approach.

If your leaders don't like the prospect of unchecked growth, then point out to them that it could possibly be prevented if they were to change the status quo. Then point out that such a change could mean millions if not billions to the economy of their country. As an example of the revenue which could be created, I would like to give my country as an example. If my country would institute changes in the status quo that would remove all external barriers to our employment then they could expect to see revenue which could exceed the THREE HUNDRED BILLION mark each fiscal year.

If my leaders would see the logic to this instead of practicing the ostrich approach, then millions of disabled could be made into taxpayers. If they would just remove one barrier, one dealing with liability, then they could possibly help seventeen groups become employed. Removal of this one barrier could possibly reduce our unemployment to somewhere around the national average or 6%. Presently it is estimated to be nearly 12 times this, or somewhere around 70%. Isn't it easier for one to gain employment if they are viewed as an asset instead of a liability? Isn't ensuring that the disabled can become taxpayers a way to plan for disability just like we now prepare for retirement?

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic