• @systemglitch
    link
    English
    515 months ago

    In Canada that would be labelled a legit disability without blinking an eye.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      205 months ago

      Yeah, but here in the US, if you can work even the simplest job you shouldn’t qualify for disability! That just encourages people to enjoy communism! These literally half blind mfers need to get off their ass and get to work, the lazy sons of bitches! Don’t they love freedom?

      • @GamingChairModel
        link
        English
        95 months ago

        This is wrong, because you’re talking about disability insurance in a comment thread about disability discrimination.

        Disability is very broadly defined for the purpose of disability discrimination laws, which is the context of this comment chain.

        Disability is defined specific to a person’s work skills for the purpose of long term disability insurance (like the US’s federally administered Social Security disability insurance). Depending on the program/insurance type, it might require that you can’t hold down any meaningful job, caused by a medical condition that lasts longer than a year.

        For things like short term disability, the disability is defined specific to that person’s preexisting job. Someone who gets an Achilles surgery that prevents them from operating the pedals of a motor vehicle for a few weeks would be “disabled” for the purpose of short term disability insurance if they’re a truck driver, and might not even be disabled if their day job is something like being a telemarketer who sits at a desk for their job.

        • toomanypancakes
          link
          English
          4
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Just wanted to expand on this

          Depending on the program/insurance type, it might require that you can’t hold down any meaningful job, caused by a medical condition that lasts longer than a year.

          For SSI or SSDI, you basically have to be bed bound (“less than sedentary”), statutorially blind (corrected visual acuity 20/200 in the good eye), have a condition severe enough it meets the strict requirements in SSA’s listings of impairments, or have a mental condition that prevents you from being at all able to fulfill the demands of unskilled work. The rules get more lenient after age 50 the older you get though.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      75 months ago

      Iirc for the US government to consider you disabled due to vision, your GOOD eye has to be 20/200 or worse.

      So yeah if you only have one eye and you can barely read the giant E at the top of the vision chart, sorry!

      • @dohpaz42
        link
        English
        65 months ago

        Not true. Look up the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by the EEOC. Here, I’ll do it for you. But if I am mistaken, I’d love to know where it defines the vision criteria for exclusion.

        Actually, when I was looking it up, it sounds like you’re talking about being considered legally blind and qualifying for Social Security disability benefits, which is not the same as being protected under the ADA.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          35 months ago

          The latter. The government considering you disabled therefore you qualify for disability benefits.

      • @systemglitch
        link
        English
        45 months ago

        Not really, it was a figure of speech, which I realized would be taken as a pun and decided to leave it. It unintentionally fit the theme.