Fox Host Tells Caller Her Bipolar Disorder Is "Made Up" And "The Latest Fad" For Money | Blog | Media Matters for America

This is why I fight, because ignorant fucks like Tom Sullivan,,,

“I’m very skeptical. And I’ve got to tell you, if you haven’t been told, I will tell you. I think bipolar is like the latest fad. Everybody and their brother is getting diagnosed with bipolar. And last time I checked, we all have good days and we all have bad. And I don’t consider that an illness. And I don’t consider it a disability.”

Latest "fad" my ass!! Another able-bodied, privileged, white male telling us how life really is. Honey child, you wouldn't last 24 hours in my world on my best day. You would be crawling back to your momma asking to suckle on her teet and protect you from the monster that is your brain (if you have one).

Oh and Tom in answer to your question, "What were these people called 25 years ago?" They were called manic depressives back then, it was my original diagnosis 22 years ago. You may want to brush up on your pre-Hippocratic history to understand more and then follow up with a more contemporary history. It was in the 1850s that the "concept" of manic-depression (or what we call bipolar disorder) took its current place in psychiatry beginning with Baillarger and Falret. Kraeplin continued in the early 1900s coining the term manic depressive psychosis. It progresses from there,,, [Edited to add: The DSM-III (1980) is the first official publication in the US where the nomenclature surrounding bipolar disorder was changed from manic-depression.]

Make no mistake in believing that this was "just" an off-hand comment(ary). Unless one was living on a remote island, who can forget Romney's forty-seven percent comment. But this animosity towards the under-served and disadvantaged seems to be a common thread among the Reich. Consider, Rand "get them a job on the first floor" Paul's recent statement alluded to in the article:

You know, the thing is is that with all of these programs, there's always somebody who's deserving and everybody in this room knows somebody who is gaming the system. What I tell people is, "If you look like me and you hop out of your truck, you shouldn't be getting a disability check." You know, over half the people on disability are either anxious or their back hurts. Join the club! [Laughter] Who doesn't get up a little anxious for work every day and their back hurts?! Everybody over 40 has a back pain.

This is no coincidence, the Reich has made it clear what they are trying to accomplish. As TPM points out, it has been going on for 80 years:

Social Security, in more ways than one the mother of all U.S. entitlement programs, has been the dragon that conservatives have succeeded in slashing, but never slaying, over its 80-year history. Their opposition has morphed from outright ideological grounds as the program was being debated during the New Deal era to a campaign masked in careful rhetoric once Social Security became virtually untouchable as a political animal.

Republicans know they have a new opportunity with the disability trust fund and a leverage point that comes along once every 20 years, and they're seizing it. Price floated some favorite proposals like means-testing, increasing the eligibility age, and individual accounts (otherwise known as privatization). He described it as the GOP's effort to "normalize the discussion and debate about Social Security."

Privatization is their goal and has been since the early 80s, beginning in earnest with Reagan's luke-warm attempt at revamping the program.

Privatization -- called "individual accounts," which had people investing their money, eliminating the base benefit that Social Security had been conceived as -- was the goal. They considered young people "the most obvious constituency for the private alternative" and pondered ways "to detach, or at least neutralize" the older Americans who were or would soon be benefitting from the program in its current form.

It continues to this day.

As one of its first orders of business upon convening Tuesday, the Republican House of Representatives approved a rule that will seriously undermine efforts to keep all of Social Security solvent.

The rule hampers an otherwise routine reallocation of Social Security payroll tax income from the old-age program to the disability program. Such a reallocation, in either direction, has taken place 11 times since 1968, according to Kathy Ruffing of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

But it's especially urgent now, because the disability program's trust fund is expected to run dry as early as next year. At that point, disability benefits for 11 million beneficiaries would have to be cut 20%. Reallocating the income, however, would keep both the old-age and disability programs solvent until at least 2033, giving Congress plenty of time to assess the programs' needs and work out a long-term fix.
,,,
The rule change reflects the burgeoning demonization of disability recipients, a trend we've reported on in the past. it's been fomented by conservative Republicans and abetted by sloppy reporting by institutions such as NPR and "60 Minutes."

Disability recipients are easily caricatured as malingering layabouts by politicians, academics and journalists too lazy to do their homework. They'll say disability benefits are easy to obtain, so lavish they discourage work, and convenient substitutes for welfare payments. None of that is true.

As Jason Easley explained in response to Bernie Sander's statement, "[t]he rule change is a part of a Republican effort to kill Social Security. If the disability fund can’t be replenished, Benefits will have to be cut, and some of the most economically vulnerable people in our society will be pushed deeper into poverty. According to experts, the problem with the Social Security disability cash assistance programs is that it limits the earnings of disabled individuals to just above the poverty line. This creates a trap that makes it impossible for individuals who can’t work to escape poverty."

The Reich is doing what they do best, continuing their insidious attack against those that are unable defend themselves. Creating a wedge issue where one should not be by polarizing the lower and middle classes against each other while the rich just get richer.  "[N]ormalizing the discussion and debate about Social Security" means only one thing, cut it.

During his January 16, 2005, interview with the Washington Post, President George W. Bush corrected the reporter's use of the term "privatization plan", insisting on the phrase "personal savings accounts." Privatization is no longer the term used by Republicans to describe the plan, due to its poor performance in polls and focus groups.  Another euphemism was deployed by Karl Rove during a February 9, 2005, interview with Hannity & Colmes on Fox News. According to the News Hounds blog, Mr. Rove spoke of modernizing Social Security.

Rove's favorite euphemism was also used in a memo sent to the Social Security Administration's regional and public relations directors in February 2004. It stated that "Modernization must include individually controlled, voluntary personal retirement accounts." Also in the memo were talking points on the "long-term challenges facing Social Security." Critics said the memo was evidence of the Bush administration instructing a government agency to promote a certain political agenda.

Fox Host Tells Caller Her Bipolar Disorder Is "Made Up" And "The Latest Fad" For Money | Blog | Media Matters for America