Despite their capability to contribute to their adopted country? Doesn't it sound a little phony and render things like UN conventions on rights of persons with disability meaningless?
Subramani -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geetha Shamanna Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 2:52 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AI] Disabled, and Waiting for Justice - New York Times This might be true with any country in the world, not just canada. No country welcomes disabled immigrants with open arms. Geetha ----- Original Message ----- From: "Subramani L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 2:42 PM Subject: Re: [AI] Disabled, and Waiting for Justice - New York Times > Adding to this, I heard that persons with disability may not be welcomed > as emigrants to Canada as they are seen as dependents on medical > assistance. The irony is, they allow persons with Type 2 Diabetes since > it is considered a common medical problem! > > Subramani > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of pamnani > Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:32 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [AI] Disabled, and Waiting for Justice - New York Times > > For those who love the USKanchan > > Disabled, and Waiting for Justice - New York Times > The New York Times > > December 11, 2007 > Editorial > > Disabled, and Waiting for Justice > > We know what is behind President Bush's sudden enthusiasm for fiscal > discipline after years of running up deficits and debt: political > posturing, just in > time for the 2008 election. But one should not forget the damage that > his administration has also inflicted by shortchanging important > domestic programs > in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy and his never-ending Iraq war. > > A case in point is the worsening bureaucratic delays at the chronically > underfunded Social Security Administration that have kept hundreds of > thousands > of disabled Americans from timely receipt of their Social Security > disability benefits. > > As laid out by Erik Eckholm in The Times on Monday, the backlog of > applicants who are awaiting a decision after appealing an initial > rejection has soared > to 755,000 from 311,000 in 2000. The average wait for an appeals hearing > now exceeds 500 days, twice as long as applicants had to wait in 2000. > > Typically two-thirds of those who appeal eventually win their cases. But > during the long wait, their conditions may worsen and their lives often > fall apart. > More and more people have lost their homes, declared bankruptcy or even > died while awaiting an appeals hearing. > > In one poignant case described by Mr. Eckholm, a North Carolina woman > who is tethered to an oxygen tank 24 hours a day has been waiting three > years for > a decision. She finally got a hearing last month and is awaiting a final > verdict, but, meanwhile, she has lost her apartment and alternates > sleeping at > her daughter's crowded house and a friend's place. > > The cause of the bottlenecks is well known. There are simply too few > administrative law judges - 1,025 at present - to keep up with the > workload. The Social > Security Administration is adopting automated tools and more efficient > administrative practices, but virtually everyone agrees that no real > dent will be > made in the backlog until the agency can hire more judges and support > staff. > > The blame for this debacle lies mostly with the Republicans. For most of > this decade, the administration has held the agency's budget requests > down and > Republican-dominated Congresses have appropriated less than the > administration requested. Now the Democratic-led Congress wants to > increase funding to > the Social Security Administration, and the White House is resisting. > > Last month, Congress passed a $151 billion health, education and labor > spending bill that would have given the Social Security Administration > $275 million > more than the president requested, enough to hire a lot more judges and > provide other vital services. But Mr. Bush vetoed that bill as > profligate. > > Democrats in Congress are working on a compromise to meet Mr. Bush half > way on the whole range of domestic spending bills. The White House is > not interested > in compromise. > > If the president remains intransigent, federal agencies may have to limp > along under continuing resolutions that maintain last year's spending > levels. That > would likely, among many other domestic problems, crimp any new hiring > at the Social Security Administration and might require furloughs, > leading to even > longer waits. Mr. Bush should back down from his veto threat and accept > a reasonable compromise. Both sides should ensure that real efforts are > made to > reduce these intolerable backlogs. > To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with the subject unsubscribe. > > To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, > please visit the list home page at > > http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.i > n > > To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with the subject unsubscribe. > > To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, > please visit the list home page at > http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.i n > To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.i n To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in
