X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Approved-By:  Bill McGarry <wtm@SHELDEV.SHEL.ISC-BR.COM>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.l-hcap
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:30:53 EDT
Reply-To:     Bill McGarry <wtm@sheldev.shel.isc-br.com>
From:         Bill McGarry <wtm@sheldev.shel.isc-br.com>
Subject:      Handicap Digest # 2933

                             THE HANDICAP DIGEST

                                 Issue # 2933

                         Friday, September 04, 1992

Today's Topics:


                                ******


                          Re: Freedom of informati
                          American Health Care  1/
                          Reasonable Accommodation
                          Reasonable Accommodation
                          Reasonable Accommodation
                          Reasonable Accommodation
                          Government rejects oregon
                          Reasonable Accommodation
                          Re: Reasonable Accommodat
                        News from The Disney Channel


                                ******


To subscribe to the Handicap Digest mailing list or have your
thoughts in the next issue, please send electronic mail to
Bill McGarry at any of the following addresses:


UUCP:       uunet!bunker!wtm
INTERNET:   wtm@bunker.shel.isc-br.com
BITNET:     l-hcap@ndsuvm1.bitnet
Fidonet:    The Handicap News BBS (141/420)   1-203-337-1607
	    (300/1200/2400 baud, 24 hours)
Compuserve: 73170,1064

                              Bill McGarry (Moderator)
                              (203) 337-1518



------



Subject: Re: Freedom of informati
From: Ian.Hebert@f1125.n261.z1.fidonet.org (Ian Hebert)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:261/1125 - NFB NET, Baltimore MD


[This is from the AbleNews Conference]

JN>Joe Nicholson: *** Quoting Bill Smith to All ***

JN>QUESTION: Do we under the Freedom of Information Act have a right
JN>BS> to obtain a report if it WERE made and if so,

JN>Bill, isn't the Act a Federal regulation/law that applies ONLY
JN>to Federal agencies?  There may be a similar law in California,
JN>but you'd have to know its specific title and paragraphs that
JN>apply to your case, before you could ask for/demand a copy of
JN>the report.

Joe:

You may be right on this one.  Here is some information excerpted from
the Whole Earth Signal that might prove useful:

Fund for Open Information and Accountability

FOIA, Inc. is a volunteer crew assisting people in their uphill struggle
with the State, whether you're looking for your own files, researching a
book, or pressuring OSHA to release environmental records....  The Fund
survives on your help.  They'll send the necessary forms for $2....

Files Kit $2

Our Right to Know
(Newsletter)
Ellen Ray, Editor
$10/year, 2 issues

Both available from:

FOIA Inc.
145 West 4th Street
New York, NY 10012

(212)477-3188
_____________________________

A Citizen's Guide On Using the Freedom of Information Act
(House Report 100-199)
Committee on Government Operations, 1987; 50 pages.

Available for $1.75 postpaid from:

Superintendent of Documents
United States Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402

(202) 275-3238

This compact little pamphlet tells you how to request government
documents through the Freedom of Information Act and the 1974 Privacy
Act (which allows you to see what the government has on you in its
records), and also warns you which types of documents you can't get.
___________________

Hope you find this of use.

Ian Hebert

 * OLX 2.1 TD * 4:00 a.m. already?  Oh no, not again!!

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!261!1125!Ian.Hebert
Internet: Ian.Hebert@f1125.n261.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: American Health Care  1/
From: Ian.Hebert@f1125.n261.z1.fidonet.org (Ian Hebert)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:261/1125 - NFB NET, Baltimore MD


[This is from the AbleNews Conference]

In a message to Earl Appleby <08-08-92 (20:45)> Joe Chamberlain wrote:

JC> First, let me make it perfectly clear that I am a
JC> supporter of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.  However,
JC> I do not believe that we should fund every procedure and
JC> medical cure that comes down the pike.

JC> The obvious reason is that our country is in the midst of an economic
JC> crisis.  It not only can not afford to fully fund every
JC> medical procedure, but it also cannot afford to fund many
JC> of the thinggs which it is already funding.  The government
JC> must stop spending more than it takes in if our country is
JC> to retain autonomy.  Therefore, without raising taxes
JC> significantly, it absolutely must find ways to cut things
JC> that are already being funded.
____________________

Joe:

I thought I'd make a number of general comments from a Canadian
perspective.

First of all, it's really no wonder that health care has become such a
major election issue in the current presidential campaign.  With some 37
million Americans totally without health insurance, and millions more
with severely inadequate insurance, I am surprised that it has taken
this long to become an issue.  (It frankly boggles my mind that the
number of people in the U.S. without any health insurance coverage is
equal to one and one-half times the entire Canadian population!)

As a general rule, I understand that most Americans receive health
insurance benefits through their employer as a benefit.  With the
declining economy, with its associated rise in unemployment, many more
Americans have lost (and continue to lose) their medical coverage.

For Americans whose employers do not provide health care as a benefit,
the situation is even worse. The continued downward pressure on wages
makes is ever harder (if not impossible) to afford rapidly spiralling
health insurance premiums.

In * any * system, whether it's a so-called "free enterprise" based
medical system as you have in the United States, or whether it's a
so-called "socialized medicine" system, medical care is subject to
limitations of one kind or another.  There are * never * enough
resources to meet every demand--the only real difference is the manner
in which health-care resources are allocated.

Apparently, in the United States, the sole criteria for allocation of
medical care is the individual's ability to pay.  A wealthy individual
who requires a triple-bypass operation can see his doctor today, and be
on the operating table next week.  A person without adequate insurance
(or other resources), such as an unemployed person, more than likely
will have to either forego treatment or risk bankrupting himself and his
family to pay for the treatment.

I would judge from the tenor of your remarks that you are most likely a
conservative, right-wing Republican.  As such, you would probably agree
with President Bush's remarks made during his acceptance speech at the
Republican National Convention.  In this speech, he made remarks to the
effect that a socialized medical scheme would remove Americans' right
to choose their own doctor; to choose their own hospital.  He also made
remarks to the effect that socialized medicine would have 'all the the
compassion of the KGB.'

This is nothing but scaremongering.  We do not have "socialized
medicine" in Canada; we have "socialized insurance."  There is a
difference.  Instead of having 2,000 separate privately-run insurance
companies, we have a single payer system--that payer is the government
of the province wherein one resides, in this case, Ontario.  We have had
this so-called "socialized medicine" for a generation now; I have lived
in two provinces, Ontario and Quebec and I *never* have been told what
doctor or hospital to go to.  I choose my own physicans; I choose what
hospitals I go to.

As a matter of fact, it was reported in the news here that the Journal
of the American Medical Association (if memory serves me) contained an
interesting study.   This study concluded that if the United States did
nothing else but adopt a single-payer system as we have here in Canada,
the cost savings would be more than enough to provide health coverage
for every person in the United States.  In the current system in the
U.S. some 16 cents of your health care dollar goes for administration;
only 84 cents goes for actual health care.

You make reference to raising taxes and funding cuts.  Would it surprise
you to learn that Americans are among the lowest-taxed people in the
world?  If Americans scrapped the current bloated, inefficient system of
allocating health care there would be more than enough resources to
provide each and every American with health care.

But don't just take my word for it--the following quotes are from
Patricia Bregman, who is an American expatriate living in Canada.  She
has experience with the medical systems both in the U.S. and Canada.
Her comments make interesting reading.  Here they are:

Quoting: PATRICIA BREGMAN <07-22-92 (20:06)>  Ability Online, Toronto

PB> I agree - that [health care] is one of the big differences between
PB> Canada and the US. The US, or at least the government,
PB> think of health care as a privilege, not a right as we
PB> to here.  Now that fewer people can afford insurance or
PB> their insurance doesn't pay all of it they are beginning
PB> to understand how important it is.

PB>  ... I grew up in the US and can't move back
PB> because I can't get health insurance.  I also have a
PB> sister in Dallas who has a chronic illness - she has
PB> insurance but it is still very expensive (so is the
PB> insurance - some people pay more than $500/month for
PB> limited coverage).

PB> It is really sad to talk to people in the US who get
PB> sicker and sicker.   Some of the people I know with
PB> Crohns who need Home TPN (Intravenous nutrition) have
PB> a very hard time getting it paid for so they sometimes
PB> have to do without.

>>> Continued to next message

 * OLX 2.1 TD * The "Moral Majority" is neither.

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!261!1125!Ian.Hebert
Internet: Ian.Hebert@f1125.n261.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Reasonable Accommodation
From: Rick.Catania@f24.n3602.z1.fidonet.org (Rick Catania)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3602/24 - ADAnet One (tm) Net, Pinson AL


[This is from the AbleNews Conference]

MA>Just a couple of questions since we're still all learning the
MA>ropes when it comes to ADA:

Let me add my 2 cents worth here....

First of all we're all people.... My next belief is that we all have
disabling conditions! Some more pronounced than others... As the saying
goes, "Nobody's Perfect!" We all have our limitations which may have
been brought about by a mental, physical, and even an emotional
condition. Or a combination of them.

Many of the limitations can be overcome, through individual
perseverance and/or some form of assistance. Some limitations may
require much more assistance than mankind can presently provide. We as
a group (mankind) impose so many limitations upon ourselves.

So... who has the authority to say who is "normal" or who is "disabled".
Every human being is a combination of both. We just have to admit it...
and work together to overcome mankind's greatest disabling condition,
the need to discriminate and group ourselves into categories based on
limitations.

And, in my opinion.... the ADA is a step in that direction....

MA>1) If there is no determination of mental or physical disability,
MA>   does ADA apply?

It may be the only guideline available.

MA>2) Was the transfer really "required" under ADA, or was it a
MA>   broad interpretation of the law's intent?

Considering my beliefs, it was required. If the law is to work for one,
it must work for all.

MA>Basically, it's my belief that an employer ought to do whatever
MA>is "reasonable" to keep a well-trained employee on the job since
MA>it's both more economical and more humanitarian.  That's with
MA>or without the ADA ruling.  However, after reading the parts of
MA>ADA dealing with reasonable accommodation, I wonder if things
MA>weren't too broadly interpretated in feeling that this situation
MA>fell under the scope of ADA.

Or... purposely written that way so people wouldn't fall through the
cracks and get lost in the bureaucratic jungle.

 * SLMR 2.1 #T375 * We're all different, but then again we're all the same!

 # Origin: The Special Needs BBS * Whiting, Indiana (94:2190/1)

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!3602!24!Rick.Catania
Internet: Rick.Catania@f24.n3602.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Reasonable Accommodation
From: Mike.Adams@f10.n19.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Adams)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:19/10 - Majik Shoppe BBS, Altus OK


[This is from the AbleNews Conference]

JC>MA>her problem.  Finally, she went for counselling, and she
JC>MA>decided that it was the nature of her work in the child
JC>MA>welfare unit which was responsible for her having emotional
JC>MA>problems which also included substance abuses of various kinds.

JC>If the counselor thought that the individual's emotional problems wer
JC>caused by her work, then the ADA does apply.  I would also think that even
JC>workman's compensation might kick in if such a finding was reached by a
JC>psychologist.

As I indicated, I've no problem with doing whatever is necessary
to maintain a valuable employee's effectiveness.  If it means
moving the employee to less stressful work, fine.  However, I am
concerned that there might be some abuse of the intent of ADA in
some respects here.  it's unintentional, but it isn't the first
time that someone tried to do the right thing the wrong way.

 * SLMR 2.1 *

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!19!10!Mike.Adams
Internet: Mike.Adams@f10.n19.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Reasonable Accommodation
From: Mike.Adams@f10.n19.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Adams)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:19/10 - Majik Shoppe BBS, Altus OK


[This is from the AbleNews Conference]

RC>MA>Just a couple of questions since we're still all learning the
RC>MA>ropes when it comes to ADA:

RC>Let me add my 2 cents worth here....

You're selling yourself short <grin>.  Everyone's opinion here is
valuable <IMO>.

RC>First of all we're all people.... My next belief is that we all have
RC>disabling conditions! Some more pronounced than others... As the saying
RC>goes, "Nobody's Perfect!" We all have our limitations which may have
RC>been brought about by a mental, physical, and even an emotional
RC>condition. Or a combination of them.

I can see some problems with broad interpretations such as this,
though.  Does reasonable accommodation apply to all of us?  If so,
I believe the force of the law is significantly reduced.

RC>So... who has the authority to say who is "normal" or who is "disabled".
RC>Every human being is a combination of both. We just have to admit it...
RC>and work together to overcome mankind's greatest disabling condition,
RC>the need to discriminate and group ourselves into categories based on
RC>limitations.

I think you're opening up some serious issues here.  Overall, I agree
that too much is made of what is NORMAL and what is NOT NORMAL, since
the solution to that puzzle differs with each of us.  However, if
we're talking about accommodating certain groups of people to ensure
that they obtain access to the same benefits and privileges that
others have without accommodation, we need some guidelines as to
how those folks are to be identified in the first place.  That's the
thrust of my question.

RC>And, in my opinion.... the ADA is a step in that direction....

The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, or so
the old Chinese proverb goes.  True enough.  ADA is full of good
intent and possesses the potential to serve many people well.  My
concern lies in diluting its intent through too broad an interpretation
of its purposes.

 * SLMR 2.1 *

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!19!10!Mike.Adams
Internet: Mike.Adams@f10.n19.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Reasonable Accommodation
From: Joe.Chamberlain@p1.f175.n150.z1.fidonet.org (Joe Chamberlain)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:150/175.1 - Busted Flush BBS, New Castle DE


[This is from the AbleNews Conference]

In a message to Ann Thomas <23 Aug 92 08:31> Mike Adams wrote:

 >AT>  May I ask a question:
 >AT>          Is alcholism and drug addiction considered as disabilities under
 >AT>          ADA?  They are both in the DSM-IIIR.

 MA> That is part of my question as well.  I personally don't believe that

According to our expert in Delaware on ADA, alcholism and drug
addition are covered under the ADA in cases where where the
individual is undergoing treatment.  Document every accomodation.

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!150!175.1!Joe.Chamberlain
Internet: Joe.Chamberlain@p1.f175.n150.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Government rejects oregon
From: Patricia.Bregman@f24.n3602.z1.fidonet.org (Patricia Bregman)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3602/24 - ADAnet One (tm) Net, Pinson AL


[This is from the AbleNews Conference]

JC>The point is, if we don't solve the problem of returning to a policy of
  >economic growth, we will never solve the health care problem.  Cost
  >containment will never work at all -- it will just kill people.

        Actually, there are a number of health care researchers who
        think that cost containment may save lives - because fewer risky
        procedures will be done.

        Whether or not that is true, I agree that cost containment per
        se should not drive health care. I was very disturbed to see a
        piece on one fo the national networks in the US talking about
        comparative shopping for doctors - putting up signs saying
        how much each charges so you can choose your doctor and tests by
        price. They compared it to a mechanic - eg. if you can't afford
        an oil change you just get gas.  What they didn't discuss was
        giving you the information to choose GOOD physicians, based on
        quality.

        However, I also think that cost containment is an important part
        of health care.  There is little question that in the US
        administrative costs are high. In both Canada and the US the
        cost of drugs is skyrocketing well beyond inflation.  Simply
        having economic growth isn't going to change the fact that
        proportionately, the amount of money spent on health care has
        grown - it will grow again.

        The trick is to make cost containment a quality issue - what
        services are we getting that are not necessary or are harmful,
        etc.

 * OLX 2.1 TD * I'm in shape ... round's a shape isn't it?
===
 * QNet3 * ADANET:41/62/19:Ability OnLine - Toronto Canada - 416/650-5411

 # Origin: ADAnet(tm) NetHub Birmingham, Alabama (205)854-9074  (94:94/1)

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!3602!24!Patricia.Bregman
Internet: Patricia.Bregman@f24.n3602.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Reasonable Accommodation
From: Mike.Adams@f10.n19.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Adams)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:19/10 - Majik Shoppe BBS, Altus OK


[This is from the AbleNews Conference]

JC>According to our expert in Delaware on ADA, alcholism and drug additi
JC>are covered under the ADA in cases where where the individual is undergoin
JC>treatment.  Document every accomodation.

I presume there's a reason for the documentation (apart from the
obvious desire to show there was reason for it in the first place)?

Is there a significant difference between "addiction" and "abuse"
in the definitions applied by ADA?

 * SLMR 2.1 *

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!19!10!Mike.Adams
Internet: Mike.Adams@f10.n19.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: Re: Reasonable Accommodat
From: Mike.Adams@f10.n19.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Adams)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:19/10 - Majik Shoppe BBS, Altus OK


[This is from the AbleNews Conference]

CS>Its like working at McDonalds and finding I cant be a cashier any
CS>longer because I cant deal with customers.  McDonalds is not
CS>obligated to move me 'making frenchfries' instead.

Interesting analogy.

CS>ADA only deals with disability as in handicap.

That was my impression as well, but since the law is new, I thought
it might be a good idea to see how those who knew more about it than
I perceived the situation.  There have been some details I've left
out of this case history because they were peripheral to the issue
in my opinion, but the basics are as I've presented them.  I still
tend to believe that unless there has been documented evidence of
disability, it's a little murky calling upon ADA for guidance.

Thanks for your input.

 * SLMR 2.1 *

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!19!10!Mike.Adams
Internet: Mike.Adams@f10.n19.z1.fidonet.org




------



Subject: News from The Disney Channel
From: Joe.Nicholson@f123.n202.z1.fidonet.org (Joe Nicholson)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:202/123 - The General Alarm, La Mesa


[This is from the AbleNews Conference]

                           Adventures in Wonderland
                                Disney Channel

            This series attempts to make kids curious and even more
          curious about language.  The episode of September 3 will
          offer another lesson -- accepting people who appear to be
          different.
            The Mad Hatter's cousin, Hedda Hatter, will arrive in a
          wheelchair -- an effort to instill an appreciation of
          diversity at an early age by the creators of this series.

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!202!123!Joe.Nicholson
Internet: Joe.Nicholson@f123.n202.z1.fidonet.org




------






                                ******

                  End of Issue # 2933 of the Handicap Digest

                                ******
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU