Decision is Made

SEE - Signed Exact English.


p.s. Are we talking about Husky or Craftsman tool boxes here? :lol:
 
KristinaB said:
Good God!!!! I meant "full tool-box" As in having ASL or whichever actual recognized sign language for the country the person lives in, NOT, SEE or some crap like that. Also, speaking if able, but not forcing the child to take speech therapy. Also HA's if they will help. If they get a CI, then hopefully it will work to some advantage. I have seen too many instances stating both positives and negatives and personally, no one in my family has one, so I am not about to debate the pros and cons of a CI, so don't go there.

I was not speaking of a tool box like tools of the trade as in HA, CI, and speech only. Now, I will not be back to this thread as I do not want to get involved into the petty indifference of some3 people regarding CI's.

Good day!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Like I said, "full tool-box" is subjective.

One man's crap is another man's treasure. :)
 
KristinaB said:
Good God!!!! I meant "full tool-box" As in having ASL or whichever actual recognized sign language for the country the person lives in, NOT, SEE or some crap like that. Also, speaking if able, but not forcing the child to take speech therapy. Also HA's if they will help. If they get a CI, then hopefully it will work to some advantage. I have seen too many instances stating both positives and negatives and personally, no one in my family has one, so I am not about to debate the pros and cons of a CI, so don't go there.

I was not speaking of a tool box like tools of the trade as in HA, CI, and speech only. Now, I will not be back to this thread as I do not want to get involved into the petty indifference of some3 people regarding CI's.

Good day!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Understand you perfect. But to understand how a tool box can be of benefit for deaf, or what it really means, I belive one have to be deaf. Most hearing people are lost in various and conflicting perspectives on what it means. They are stuck with subjective perspectives because they lack experiences. That's why it makes little sense to argue over it. This is was I was trying to say.
 
saywhatkid said:
That was where the smugness odor was detected.
Click to expand...








draft_lens3130832module20472362photo_1236891343gif_cat_nervous_twitch.gif
 
LoveBlue said:
Just an expresssion used for saying something is subjective.
Click to expand...

If that is your interpretation, so be it. You need to know the posters a bit more, before declaring you understand the words alone.
 
And SEE isn't crap. It isn't a language, but it is accepted education methodology for teaching reading to deaf students.

Still used by very well educated Deaf teachers of the deaf.
 
Bottesini said:
And SEE isn't crap. It isn't a language, but it is accepted education methodology for teaching reading to deaf students.

Still used by very well educated Deaf teachers of the deaf.
Click to expand...
I agree with the post where SEE is described as crap, because I think the poster maybe was thinking about SEE, as a artifically created system, used for everyday communication or special needs tool, rather than a state of ASL where one discuss any written/spoken languages.

Storytelling and poems in SEE is nothing but torture.
 
"Full toolbox" -- I've understood that to mean a full set of communication strategies from which to choose in any given circumstance. Including sign language for opportunities where that mode is best utilized / others are using sign, spoken language for opportunities where that mode is best / where others are using spoken language, various modes/coded versions of those languages such as Cued speech, SEE, and written English (or whatever the local spoken language) for certain circumstances / specific needs, such as learning to read / reading, speechreading for occasions when that method is most effective.

So, I've often been surprised to see people who were outspokenly against the use of or the optimizing of access to spoken language (which requires both an expressive and receptive component) claim to be for the full toolbox approach when he or she feels that ASL is the only language necessary. Similarly, I wouldn't expect a fan of AVT to be for the "full toolbox" approach when he or she feels that spoken language is the only tool required.

Using the "full" toolbox analogy indicates the acceptance, development and availability of multiple tools / skills available for use in a variety of situations.
 
GrendelQ said:
"Full toolbox" -- I've understood that to mean a full set of communication strategies from which to choose in any given circumstance. Including sign language for opportunities where that mode is best utilized / others are using sign, spoken language for opportunities where that mode is best / where others are using spoken language, various modes/coded versions of those languages such as Cued speech, SEE, and written English (or whatever the local spoken language) for certain circumstances / specific needs, such as learning to read / reading, speechreading for occasions when that method is most effective.

So, I've often been surprised to see people who were outspokenly against the use of or the optimizing of access to spoken language (which requires both an expressive and receptive component) claim to be for the full toolbox approach when he or she feels that ASL is the only language necessary. Similarly, I wouldn't expect a fan of AVT to be for the "full toolbox" approach when he or she feels that spoken language is the only tool required.

Using the "full" toolbox analogy indicates the acceptance, development and availability of multiple tools / skills available for use in a variety of situations.
Click to expand...
When CIs are available for all economic levels, then your comments might have a bit more merit. Until then, it is similar to driving your shiny new BMW through Harlem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
saywhatkid said:
When CIs are available for all economic levels, then your comments might have a bit more merit. Until then, it is similar to driving your shiny new BMW through Harlem.
Click to expand...

I believe they are. Medicaid has been known to pay for cochlear implants, and, the majority of people on Medicaid are on the lower economic spectrum.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
I believe they are. Medicaid has been known to pay for cochlear implants, and, the majority of people on Medicaid are on the lower economic spectrum.
Click to expand...

Not every deaf person is on Medicaid.

Not every deaf person has insurance that has CI coverage.
 
AlleyCat said:
Not every deaf person is on Medicaid.

Not every deaf person has insurance that has CI coverage.
Click to expand...

Yes. And in addition Medicaid is state dependent. Meaning you're eligable for different things in different states.
I also think that although CI is going to continue to be covered by private insurances, they're going to REALLY crack down on eligabilty, and only cadillaic insurances will cover bilaterals or they will only cover bilaterals with very low speech understanding. Health care costs are out of control, and the CI bubble is going to burst!
 
Oceanbreeze said:
I believe they are. Medicaid has been known to pay for cochlear implants, and, the majority of people on Medicaid are on the lower economic spectrum.
Click to expand...

Some states' medicaid program will pay for the implant, and some won't. I know Colorado's Medicaid recently stopped covering CIs.
 
cdmeggers said:
Some states' medicaid program will pay for the implant, and some won't. I know Colorado's Medicaid recently stopped covering CIs.
Click to expand...

It DID? For adults or kids? Yup, with budget cuts I think that's coming too....they're either going to stop covering the CIs or limit who can get them.
 
deafdyke said:
It DID? For adults or kids? Yup, with budget cuts I think that's coming too....they're either going to stop covering the CIs or limit who can get them.
Click to expand...

Adults for sure, not sure about kids. My audie worried about this for me, but I have Wyoming Medicaid so I was ok to go.
 
AlleyCat said:
Nobody was going anywhere with this. I don't know the reasoning behind SWK's post (I don't pretend to read his mind), but when OB jumps in with her nonsense, I felt a sense of obligation to correct an untruth. I have been posting in this thread with constructive information about CI brands and audis and such (on previous pages); I guess I will assign some blame to myself for responding to Cloggy's obvious baiting this morning (where was HIS constructive information?) by being bleary-eyed at 5:45 am because my dog wanted to go outside. As it is, it's a beautiful day out and I'm going outside to work in the yard -- I am done with this nonsense.
Click to expand...

At the risk of being redundant, I googled and found out my "nonsense" actually was rooted in truth. I just had a few facts mixed up. Turns out, Medicaid does pay for the CI for children, but leaves it up to each to use discretion as to whether or not they will for a CI for an adult.

Here's a link:

Cochlear Implant Coding

Q: Does Medicaid cover cochlear implants?

Medicaid coverage and payment for CIs and related services differs from state to state. The federal government provides general benefits category requirements for the states, including early and periodic screening, diagnosis and treatment (EPSDT), which requires coverage of services and related prosthetic devices and durable medical equipment for children. For adults, however, federal regulations give discretion to states for coverage of specific devices and services.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
At the risk of being redundant, I googled and found out my "nonsense" actually was rooted in truth. I just had a few facts mixed up. Turns out, Medicaid does pay for the CI for children, but leaves it up to each to use discretion as to whether or not they will for a CI for an adult.
Click to expand...

So, basically, my response to your post was correct. Your grief over SWK's post was unnecessary, and just another example of "supporting your friends" rather than posting with factual knowledge. You ended up having to google it after, and had some facts mixed up, hm?
 
AlleyCat said:
So, basically, my response to your post was correct. Your grief over SWK's post was unnecessary, and just another example of "supporting your friends" rather than posting with factual knowledge. You ended up having to google it after, and had some facts mixed up, hm?
Click to expand...

I posted that link to interject some facts into this discussion rather than supposition. People wanting information deserve that.

As for supporting my friends, you were once my friend until you decided different. I have nothing against you, but apparently, you have something against me.

I've not changed my beliefs one bit since joining this site eight years ago, so, whatever happened between us, happened because you decided it would.

That's OK, though. I'm not bitter. Have a nice day, AC. :hug:
 
Back
Top