Month: May 2017

Chapman University, Media, and Society Fail

~ wheelhelmina ~ Leave a comment

Last night I heard a news story about Marty O’Connor and his mother, Judy. After becoming quadriplegic, Marty opted to enter Chapman University‘s MBA program.  When he graduated on May 20, Chapman awarded Judy an honorary degree. Judy apparently attended every class with Marty, helping him take notes and providing other physical assistance as necessary. The story has gone viral, and many of those sharing it indicate that the story makes them feel good. Not me. I’m pissed off.

First, I’m curious why Chapman can award an honorary degree but not reasonable accommodations. Chapman may be a private institution, but I have a hard time believing that it does not accept federal funding of any kind, including federal student loans to pay tuition.  Under the Rehabilitation Act, Chapman would be responsible for accommodating students with disabilities. One of the simplest accommodations to provide those with limited mobility is note taking services. There should not have been a need for Judy to attend classes with Marty. Even assuming that Chapman could not provide all of the services rendered by Judy – personal care, for example, would not be a reasonable accommodation in most circumstances – Marty should have been served by the California vocational rehabilitation (VR) program. VR is designed to help individuals with disabilities achieve and maintain their employment goals, and can provide a range of services including personal care, transportation, and assistive technology.

The fact that Judy did not leave her son’s side during his MBA program is not something to be celebrated. Would we fawn over an able-bodied student’s mother going to graduate school with him or her? No! We’d probably be disturbed. If that story was covered by the media at all, it would be to discuss millennials’ failure to launch or overbearing mothers; the mother would most certainly not be praised.

My intent not to malign Judy; I have no doubt that she sacrificed a lot in order to help Marty be successful. And I believe that the media covering the story probably have good intentions, and want to commend the selflessness of a loving parent.  But the current system designed to help people with disabilities relies far too heavily on parents to provide for adult children.  In Indiana, for example, parents must be more than 80 years old in order their adult children with developmental disabilities to qualify for emergency placement on a waiver that provides in-home services. More than a decade after retirement age, Indiana still expects parents to provide the majority of care for adults with disabilities. By praising parents like Judy, who willingly make these life sacrifices, I’m afraid that the media perpetuates the myth that these relationships like those of Marty and Judy should be the norm. Yes, mothers should love their children. But when those children become adults, they need to have the opportunity to gain independence and flourish independently.

I told the above to my own mother, discussing the story with her this afternoon. She said that I was one to talk; after all, I rely on her to provide my transportation to and from work every day. Which brings me to my final point – society is still failing people with disabilities. I would gladly hire someone else to drive me to and from work, but I cannot afford it, even as an attorney.  Though VR legally should have paid for my tuition, it refused, and I graduated with $83,000 in student loans, which I am still repaying.  Though I am on Indiana’s Medicaid buy-in program, it pays caregivers so little – less than $10 per hour – that I cannot attract the quality individuals on whom I must rely. My sister, for example, receives personal care assistance through an agency, and that agency has failed to send someone to get her out of bed more than five times in the last month. It seems that people like Judy and my own mom have to step in because the social programs designed to help us are so crappy.

The next time you read a story like that of Marty and Judy, I encourage you to do more than “feel good.” Ask yourself whether everything is as sunny as it appears. And if the answer is “no,” ask what you can do to help change it.

Banking by the Disabled

~ wheelhelmina ~ Leave a comment

This afternoon, I listened to a webinar produced by the Real Economic Impact Network regarding trends in banking by people with disabilities. It discussed the National Disability Institute’s (NDI) recent report, Banking Status and Financial Behaviors of Adults with Disabilities. The report was generated based upon the findings of the FDIC’s 2015 national survey.

Although it may not sound scintillating, banking issues have interested me since I finished Lisa Servon’s The Unbanking of America. Unbanking, or not having a bank account and instead using alternative resources to handle money, is not in and of itself a negative. In fact, if one has low income and few assets, refraining from the use of a bank account may be rational. However, not using mainstream banking services also comes with downsides, such as an inability to access lines of credit.

NDI’s report, unsurprisingly, finds that households in which at least one person has a disability are more likely to be unbanked or underbanked.  The exact number – 46% of households affected by disability – was larger than I expected. Moreover, the report determined that the particular type of disability affecting a household does not significantly influence the household’s banking status.

Another interesting section involved the manner in which households engage in financial transactions. While 71% of households without disability made electronic payments from their bank account, only 46% of households with disability did the same. This disparity remains statistically significant whether or not the household with a disability is unbanked or underbanked. To me, a person with a mobility disability, it is much easier to make financial transactions electronically. I expected it would also be easier and safer for individuals with other disabilities, such as visual impairments and intellectual disabilities. In fact, one of the worries discussed on today’s webinar was whether the trend to engage in even more banking online will adversely affect people with disabilities lacking the technology to participate.

The entire report is definitely worth reviewing. In addition to presenting the data, NDI also makes policy suggestions to improve the financial health of people with disabilities. For example, NDI suggests that ABLE accounts could serve as placeholders for those unable to access savings accounts by nature of means testing for public benefits. Check out the report and let me know what you think!

Review: In Our Hands

~ wheelhelmina ~ Leave a comment

You might’ve heard about political scientist and professor Charles Murray recently. He was the subject of a recent campus protest, and is also (in)famous for writing The Bell Curve. I picked up the most recent draft of his call for the creation of a universal basic income (“UBI”), In Our Hands: A Plan for Replacing the Welfare State.  As a person who relies on government welfare programs (e.g., Medicaid), I’m skeptical of most libertarian plans for reform. However, Murray and his book surprised me in a very positive way!

414BaCpkS+L._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Unsurprisingly, Murray calls for the elimination of most wealth transfer programs, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and additional programs that may not initially come to mind when one thinks about welfare (e.g., farming subsidies). However, people – citizens, at least – will not be left completely without government support. Wealth transfer programs will be replaced by UBI. The figure Murray gives is $13,000 per year for each individual aged 21 and older (the amount can be proportionally reduced by up to $6,500, depending upon how much income a given citizen receives each year). Lest you think this is going to cost taxpayers even more than current welfare programs, Murray’s proposal is actually less costly than the status quo!

Unlike current programs that place in enormous restrictions on how each form of wealth transfer may be used, Murray’s UBI has at least $3,000 each year must be used to purchase catastrophic health insurance. This should please Democrats, in that all Americans would have healthcare. It should also please Republicans, in that catastrophic care truly is health insurance. Believe it or not, I am also impressed by Murray’s proposal because he states that long-term care would be included in the mandatory health insurance packages. People with severe disabilities in need of personal care assistance have been looking for a Medicaid alternative for years – could Murray’s UBI be it?

There is much more to discuss in this short book, and perhaps this blog will revisit some of the other benefits of UBI at a later time. I’m intrigued with the idea, and have been mulling over Murray’s proposal all week. Needless to say, this is definitely a book I recommend to anyone interested in government reform.  AEI-affiliated ideas strike again!