Before I begin thrashing around, let me clarify that when I write about the "Community of Disabled" or the"COD's" I include myself.
The COD stratum of modern society is so self-pitying, that it might as well wear "kick me" signs as a precondition of stepping or wheeling themselves from their homes.
I recently read a forum posting written by COD member who has a serious problem. This person was videotaped by a disability carrier, an insurer had hired a private investigator to follow this member of COD, video-taping said individual carrying a child around a supermarket, and performing various other "little" chores. The writer continued explaining that the check, the disability benefit, would be jeopardized, particularly because of the insurance carrier interviewing the subject, in this person's home, and confronting the COD with the evidence.
DO YOU THINK THIS IS FAIR?
DO YOU THINK THIS IS A VIOLATION OF ONE'S RIGHT TO PRIVACY?
DOES IT STRIKE YOU THAT THIS "PRACTICE", CASTS TOO BROAD A NET TO UNFAIRLY ENSNARE A POTENTIAL MALINGERER?
WOULDN'T A REAL CHEAT KNOW THAT INSURERS DO THESE THINGS?
IF SO, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT A REAL FAKER WOULD KNOW TO PROTECT HIMSELF OR HERSELF?
DO YOU KNOW A FAKE?
This rotten practice probably results in far more legitimately disabled people being heaved from the rolls than it does catching phonies. Have you ever been advised that stress and anxiety are beneficial for your condition?
- Draw the shades!
- Turn out the lights!
Answer this one question: WHY DO YOU TOLERATE THIS TRAMPLING OF YOUR RIGHTS?
I don't know many people who receive a check from an insurance company who aren't a little afraid of losing their benefits. I also don't know many disability recipients who have the financial resources to fight back effectively.
Did you know that if you had the dough, you could've purchased a private policy, prior to your becoming disabled that specifically promised that you'd never have to endure the indignity of potentially being hounded by a private investigator with a video camera. That is if you had had the money, and if your policy was large enough. It's a socio-economic thing; better benefits for the wealthy. The same is true of health care.
In this case, it's the middle and working class that suffers. Those segments of the spectrum are the target. If you're ready this, it probably means you.
I'm going to take up the banner, because it's just not fair and it certainly calls into question if your rights, your inalienable rights are being violated.
If I hear from you, I'll know that you want to know how to protect yourself.
If I hear from you, I'll ask you to pitch in. We need legal protection; we need representation and none of that's going to happen sitting behind closed drapes.
I'm shocked at the apathy of us COD's, particularly when I asked if you believed you had a right to recovery. Apparently, few among this readership think so.
Question #2: Do you believe that trampling your civil rights as a means to cutting or removing your paid-for benefits is fair?
Just comment yes or no; drop an email.
A tale of woe, after the fact is too little, too late. Take a stand. God bless, Colin
This episode is shameful as is our tolerance for it. We have allowed the right wing of the country to call the shots and we all experience examples of our rights being violated, and our right to privacy nonexistent
Posted by: jimdwalton | November 07, 2006 at 12:15 PM
Hi, I am from India and I do not belong to CODs but I can feel the pain of such an act. I would surely stand for it, if of any help. People who deserve it get deprived of it because of the people who fake it.
Insurance companies who send investigators behind people who claim that they are disabled are not wrong on their part because they have to keep a check on the fakers. Still if a person has self sufficiency of doing little daily chores or carry a child in the super-market does not mean that he does not needs help.
An option for people having the opportunity to purchase policy without prior disability is surely creating the gap between the have and the have nots or still the little haves. The should be mandatory for those who need it and not who do not deserve it.
Posted by: Divya Uttam | November 08, 2006 at 01:59 AM