Op-Ed Follow up, by Founder, Paul Campos

On August 27th, 2007 I wrote an Op-ed piece about the treatment of our wounded soldiers returning from Iraq and how they are victims of mismanagement by the federal government, not unlike the treatment that people with disabilities have been dealing with most of their lives. Someone told me that I was just ranting about what's wrong with the system instead of coming up with some ideas that might help. Let me take a stab at making suggestions.

First, there should be a judge or a group of judges in charge of overseeing the decision-making process involved in the rehabilitation of our soldiers. Our soldiers who have volunteered to put their lives on the line should get whatever they need in order for them to "fully recover" from whatever condition they suffer in battle. As I said in the op-ed piece, the money that is allocated for the war should definitely include what is needed for the soldiers coming back home physically and mentally wounded.

Second, there should be a revamping of the rules and regulations that determine who is eligible to receive entitlements as well as the rules that allow a disabled individual to work. In other words, the rules and regulations should be written in a way that would give incentives or encourage individuals to be a part of society, work, and pay taxes like everybody else. I also think that Medicaid, SSI, Social Security and other entitlements should all be on the same page. Right now, if someone is working in a job, Social Security allows an individual to make up to $900 a month without it affecting their benefits. Medicaid, however, wants an individual to pay back 150% of the amount that you're making if you are working. For example, if you are making $600 a month, Medicaid wants you to pay them $900 back. No one in the working world would ever accept a health insurance plan that would make you pay 150% of your salary so that you can keep your insurance. Let's face it, this is complete insanity! It's bad enough that these rules affect people with disabilities who have not gone to war. I can't imagine what these rules would do to someone who has just come home from fighting for our country.

Another rule that doesn't make sense is the one that says that if you marry and one of you has a disability, the spouse that is not disabled, and has a career, must give up their career and their salary so that they can take care of the individual who is disabled. Let me just say that whether a disabled individual who needs home care is married or not, their need for home care doesn't change. I could understand people paying into Medicaid if a married couple's income is above a certain amount. It would work much like the spend-down program under the SSI (supplemental security income) entitlement. Let's say you're making $60,000 or more per year. For every two dollars you get from Medicaid, through SSI, you pay one dollar back into the system. As you can see, the precedent is already in place so that the changes can be made quite easily. There just needs to be a mandate for it.

Anyway, this is what I could come up with so far. I wonder what kind of response I would get from those who are on the inside track (like those in Congress), if they read this. I'm sure if enough noise is made someone would be able to come up with more sensible rules and regulations that can do more than the Bush administration's feeble attempt to reform Social Security. We can do this!