How dare they discriminate against Aspergers?

Post Reply New Topic

This will be my first hearing n front of an administrative judge.

Well if I had been approved for SSI, I think I would have kept my pay as you go 'smart phone' lol...its not that terribly impressive but it is my mp3 player, camra and has a keyboard for texting. But yes I could argue that I need a phone with the keyboard so I can text since talking on the phone makes me uncomfortable due to the aspergers.

Oh, right, because sitting in front of a computer to use Facebook is exactly like sitting in front of a computer to do any kind of work.

How can they determine that you can work just from whether you use social networks? I can sit in front of a computer, but I can't sit in front of a computer in many office environments because they're noisy and filled with people and fluorescent lights.

It seems that many cell phones nowadays come with conveniences once found only on Droids, BlackBerry's, and iPhones, so I guess you'd get texting and internet as part of whatever usage contract you have with the phone company. Not to mention that many phone companies provide TV, phone, and high-speed internet services bundled under one bill.

Did you know that 99 percent of people who apply for disability are rejected?? The system is set up to reject everyone who comes in the door becides those who are practicly totally immoble or have MR. even if you apeal, 99 percent of those who appeal are rejected, and it is not until a lawyer is involved that the stastistics change. 89 percent of those who take it to court actually win.

so save the hassile, just get a lawyer, but make sure that he/she only gets paid if you get benifits. I hear they are talking about doing away with back payments. Normally you get all your payments from the time you applied till when you are approved in one lump sum, well due to budget battles they are talking about doing away with that which will make paying for a lawyer more expensive. So you need to get a lawyer and get it over with before this hits Obama's desk.

Jojo

The thing that bothers me is that there seems to be an endless list of HYPOTHETICAL jobs a person with Autism can do. I can use a keyboard, and sit at a desk. I can drive. I can write. Hypothetically, there are jobs involving only these things. But there are not any ACTUAL jobs right now, especially in the US economy. Is someone going to find me this hypothetical job...? Guarantee that I get it? (my understanding is that I have to be a relative of my prospective employer...) Or is the fact that people can think up these hypothetical, ideal scenarios evidence enough to disqualify a person with autism from assistance of any kind....?

I have a net 10 pay as you go phone, I don't have a set income really so I feel thats the way to go so I am not obligated to pay a bill every month.

Once and that was SSDI but I didn't care because I didn't even need it then.




That pisses me off too. I was very amazed at Babycenter about the judgments people can make based on what items they have or what kind of car they drive or what they wear. I guess that means anything nice we get from our parents or from anyone else we must give back.

I mean what are poor people expected to do, sit at home and be bored because they aren't allowed to have video games or movies? What about books? Are they allowed books too?

Oh and don't get me started on foodstamps, are children with parents on it not allowed a birthday cake or some special food they want for their birthday? Are children with parents on it not allowed dessert or some pop every now and then? Are poor people not allowed to have some sweets or pop every now and then? I was also amazed at the judgments people make about it. They think if you're on foodstamps, you shouldn't get pop or anything unhealthy or you're "abusing the system." Last time I saw, I have seen a 12 pack being sold for under just five bucks at Wal Mart or a $1.98 at Wincos for Shasta when they were having a sale going on. And poor people can't afford that if they are on foodstamps? It's like they don't even realize you only get so much for every month and once they're gone, they're gone until the new month comes. But until then, they have to use their own money to buy their food.

My childhood was bad enough, but it would have been so much worse without the food stamps......at least we had the luxary of eating generic knock offs of popular brand name cerials.

I think that's ridiculous. By their logic, my inlaws can work then (since they can use the computer) while the doctor has told my father in law he can't and my mother in law can't work due to something in her brain and it caused her to lose her job.

Yeah, and for those who don't know, a lawyer can/may take your case contingent on you getting approved and getting those back payments (which go back to the date or your first application, which is usually at least a year). And if you don't get approved, then s/he doesn't get paid. So, there is incentive for them to do a good job.

I was reading an old thread where someone had paid a lawyer to help them apply for SSDI/SSI. I could be wrong, but it sounded like the lawyer might've cheated him.

A lawyer you hire is someone you're supposed be able to trust (and you really have little choice), which can make it doubly treacherous when they are "bad" (act in bad faith; don't do their job properly). I had to deal with a (not hugely serious) situation for my parents where I had to fire the first layer and hire another. That sucks and is hard when the person you're firing is "the expert," and you can't tell if they're telling the truth or lying to protect their a** and stay employed. (And that doesn't include the stress, if you hate confronting people.) So, if one won't take your case on contingency, then I'd say keep trying to find one who will.

(I figure lawyers' attitudes towards disability will be a cross section of society's. And that means some of them may see most people applying for benefits as not really needing them and trying to cheat the system. And some may decide, "why not cheat the wanna-be cheats? It's would almost be moral to do that.")

I was approved the first time. Having so many documentation from professionals growing up and then at the time of applying seemed to have helped. But a lawyer did all the paperwork as I am not good with paperwork. Also I cannot stand the idea of the prospect of not working. So since I've been on it and even before my focus in life is being self-sufficient. Since 10 years old or so and even at the age of 7 working has been my interest. I would like to work 15 hours a week in the mainstream. That is why I created an inclusion campaign where I live.

Unfortunately, I'd suggest that anyone who can remotely do any kind of job, even if it results in a nervous breakdown/getting sicker, do it. At least when you end up in a psych ward or in intensive care, they can't say that you're "faking it" to work the system.

This society doesn't give a sh*t about its people and they think anyone who has a disability is a waste on resources. If they could, they would probably euthanize anyone whom they think just might cost them money. The only reason they don't is that it's become one of those "socially unacceptable" things since we beat the Nazis.

Anyone who applies for assistance might need to lie a little or exaggerate. People who really need help from government entities have always done it as a means of self preservation. They know they can't make it without assistance and it's better to lie than to end up homeless or hungry. Besides, the system is designed specifically to hinder people who need help the most and does NOT play fair.

Heh.. Fraud is a crime and against the law.

Heh.. People are not always mean like that.

Your reply is depressing but I think comes from depression.

Oh no. Unfortunately, it is just that grave. I've seen too much to think the neglect of those with disabilities is all due to benign, isolated circumstances.

And I'm not suggesting "fraud" either. If you need help and the system is supposed to and it doesn't, it's their failure to do their job.

They are often ignorant of what it means to have a disability so one really needs to exaggerate in order for them to even understand that you really need help. They do not understand the nuances of a disability like asperger's so you'll have to make it very clear to them you absolutely cannot work.

I actually basically tried that and it was still bad. I ended up unable to work at all (physically or cognitively), and only had a diagnosis of CFS, which by itself is a diagnosis of "no-one-takes-this-seriously syndrome." Among other things, I passed out in the parking lot at work twice, once ending up in the ER. But they called it 'dehydration' (after accusing me of being on drugs), so it wasn't any help.

Luckily, I still had $2000 in the bank, which I spent on tests which I knew would be taken seriously, and fortunately that was enough. (And I had to arrange all of it myself because even my doctors were not taking me seriously (until those test results came back).) If I hadn't had that money, I would've been screwed.

But anyway, yeah: the system sucks.



Yeah, but euthanizing people costs money and why waste money on worthless, disabled trash? Soylent Green or compost -- that's the moral way to deal with those slackers. Maybe they could fight each other to the death in a cage or something.

(Because they all are slackers, you know. If G-d had wanted them not to be punished & made into compost, then he wouldn't have made them ill and poor in the first place!)

/rant



In a perfect world there would never be a need for that, but this is far (far, far, far) from a perfect world. I have a hard time judging someone facing being homeless while ill or g-d knows what circumstance, and doing what they need to do to survive.

(OTOH, the people on Wall Street, who legally steal so much money, can rot in hell for all I care.)

And anyone who thinks "legal" and "illegal" is the same as "moral" and "immoral" needs to examine the workings of the world more closely.