The question, "Why is government building XXXX" is often a function of the general distaste for unfunded government mandates - that is, the expectation that government assume the cost for regulatory changes. If you are building a new facility the expectation is it is built to code and doing such is the cost of doing business. Changing your building to reflect new regulation is costly and often burdensome, especially for small business.
Holly_in_Cincinnati
· 11 months ago
Hi Pete! Since I work in the design and construction industry and can be considered disabled, I'd like to address this.
If it were not for the Americans with Disabilities Act, most facilities open to the public would not have handicapped ramps. This would impede the lives of numerous US citizens (including our veterans). Accessibility is a right and therefore not subject to the good graces of churches, synagogues and charitable organizations.
My synagogue built a new home 5 years ago and we made (and continue to make) an effort to go beyond what is required by law in terms of accessibility. For a year or two, we had a member who used a motorized wheelchair due to cerebral palsy, an attorney with an impressive educational pedigree. Thanks to ADA, he was able to graduate from Yale and Harvard Law and function professionally. I was one of a small team of members who would drive to his condo building, pick up the keys to his accessible van, help him get into it, and drive him to and from shul and other functions. My friend has since moved to NYC for other reasons.
Ramps help everyone, not just people confined to wheelchairs. They make it a lot easier to load and unload materials and equipment.
Pete Abel
· 11 months ago
Holly and Surakmn -- Thanks for the follow up, although I assumed the cuts in S.C. mentioned in the WaPo article referred to construction of home-based wheelchair ramps, not ramps in public buildings complying with the ADA -- i.e., ramps for individual use (covered by Medicaid) not for public use (which I assume are ADA-required private investments). If that's correct, and there are cuts being made to the former, that's where I think we have to get serious about how private charities can bridge the gap.
Jim_Satterfield
· 11 months ago
The answer is very simple. Private charities can't bridge the gap. This is the great fallacy of Republicanism. They ask a question about something when the answer is right in front of their eyes. THE CHARITIES DON'T HAVE THE MONEY!!! Yes, I meant to "yell". Let me tell you what's been on the news around here when it comes to charities. Video of empty shelves in charities that provide food and necessities to the needy. Interviews with the managers telling how many more people they are seeing, including droves of the working poor and people who have recently lost their jobs. They have shown the families living in homeless shelters after losing their homes because of unemployment while the charities admit that they just don't have the room for everyone that needs shelter. Meanwhile, conservatives ask questions like the one you posed because they just really don't have a clue as to how extensive this nation's needs are. And how far do you think donations to these charities are dropping in today's economy, anyway?
And on one simple point, when it comes to the choice of Medicaid building an access ramp at someone's house or putting them in either a nursing home or assisted living (Does Medicaid even cover assisted living?), which do you think it best for the person involved and most cost effective?
adelinesdad
· 11 months ago
This is something I've been thinking about recently, especially in relation to the health care debate. Ideally, private charities would be enough to take care of the needs of the poor, and I've heard some more libertarian folks argue against more government-funded healthcare for that reason. However, considering private charities are not able to help all of those that need help even when the government is helping, why should I believe private charities would step up to the plate if the government were to get out of the welfare business?
But in any case, I agree that it is an important question to ask: why aren't private charities able to do enough? Is it lack of funding or lack of organization or both? For those who think, as I do, that the ideal way would be for private charities to take on the welfare functions currently run by the government if they could, it is more important to answer that question than it is to argue against government programs.
All Comments
Here is a link to Wikipedia on ADA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Dis...
Here is a link to the United States Access Board (many resources): http://www.access-board.gov/
If it were not for the Americans with Disabilities Act, most facilities open to the public would not have handicapped ramps. This would impede the lives of numerous US citizens (including our veterans). Accessibility is a right and therefore not subject to the good graces of churches, synagogues and charitable organizations.
My synagogue built a new home 5 years ago and we made (and continue to make) an effort to go beyond what is required by law in terms of accessibility. For a year or two, we had a member who used a motorized wheelchair due to cerebral palsy, an attorney with an impressive educational pedigree. Thanks to ADA, he was able to graduate from Yale and Harvard Law and function professionally. I was one of a small team of members who would drive to his condo building, pick up the keys to his accessible van, help him get into it, and drive him to and from shul and other functions. My friend has since moved to NYC for other reasons.
Ramps help everyone, not just people confined to wheelchairs. They make it a lot easier to load and unload materials and equipment.
And on one simple point, when it comes to the choice of Medicaid building an access ramp at someone's house or putting them in either a nursing home or assisted living (Does Medicaid even cover assisted living?), which do you think it best for the person involved and most cost effective?
But in any case, I agree that it is an important question to ask: why aren't private charities able to do enough? Is it lack of funding or lack of organization or both? For those who think, as I do, that the ideal way would be for private charities to take on the welfare functions currently run by the government if they could, it is more important to answer that question than it is to argue against government programs.