civil partial disability from 74 to 85% with the corrective economic measures. Analysis of a rule unfair. With art. 10 of Decree Law No. 78 May 31, 2010 (the operation of public spending cuts that would be necessitated by the economic crisis) was raised the threshold that gives entitlement to disability allowance from 74% Civil 85%.
The aim is to reduce government expenditure by cutting (no retroactive effect because the increase only applies to applications for recognition submitted after June 1, 2010) Disability benefits for those who have partial disability up to 84 %.
The savings estimated by the organizations representing the interests of the disabled seems to be about 30 million a year pending the small amounts paid and the lower limit redditualeper have the right (we're talking about an economic service for just € 256.67 per month with a limit of annual income for 2010 amounted to € 4408.95 for.)
This regulatory change, however, was approved without having been previously revalued tables disabilities through which the percentages are attributed to various disabling conditions (the each capable of disabling disease is established by law with a fixed percentage or a percentage variable between a value and another, it is up to the competent Medical Boards to determine the exact proportion between the minimum and maximum shown).
Already in the past (1992) was raised the percentage threshold for entitlement to the economic performance of the check from 67% to 74% but, simultaneously, the new tables were approved for the result of a disability support appropriate assessment of medico-legal part of a special study commission.
In a totally irrational, however, the current economic measure raises simply the percentage without any prior re-evaluation of special scientific committee of the percentages attributed to each disease.
The effect of this way of proceeding is to deprive the social assistance provided guaranteed by the Constitution and those persons who although suffering from debilitating diseases and particularly important (such as endogenous depression or severe chronic delusional syndrome for which the current disability tables provide between 71 and 80%) that will surely prevent the conducting a successful job (who would take a severe depressive or a schizophrenic with delusional syndrome?).
It 'obvious that the increase in the percentage divorced from an overall reform of the matter taking into account first to make a fair assessment rate to the various pathologies on the basis of forensic studies, is considered unfair and probably unconstitutional for opposition to 'Art. 38 of the Constitution (che sebbene faccia riferimento testualmente al cittadino inabile comprendere sia gli invalidi totali che quelli con alti livelli di invalidità parziale) anche con riferimento all'art. 3, secondo comma, ed all'art. 2, secondo comma (ove si fa riferimento ai doveri inderogabili di solidarietà politica, economica e sociale).
Attualmente, a seguito delle proteste sostenute soprattutto dalle associazioni di disabili, sono allo studio delle soluzioni correttive. Pare che sia stato proposto un emendamento con il quale la percentuale del 74% sarebbe conservata per quelle patologie che da sole determinano un'invalidità pari o superiore al 74%.
In pratica l'assegno di invalidità non sarebbe riconosciuto a chi ha un'invalidità 74% determined by several conditions none of which alone reaches 74%.
This solution demonstrates the absolute legal and legislative improvisation of those who endorse a standard wrong and try to limit the damage with another rule equally questionable.
Anyone familiar with the concept of equality art. 3 of the Constitution will become immediately aware that the provision is clearly unconstitutional because it creates unequal treatment of the disabled to 80% for a single disease (or more diseases which causes a disability equal to 74%) and ' invalid for more than 80% of the diseases which none exceeds 74%.
While the first is entitled alla prestazione economica il secondo, nonostante abbia il medesimo grado di invalidità, non ne avrà diritto.
Possibile che uno dei sette paesi più industrializzati del mondo non abbia alternative diverse per risanare i conti pubblici?
Possibile che per far fronte ad una situazione di crisi economica debbano per forza essere colpiti i soggetti più deboli della societa?
Mi chiedo che idea di stato e di democrazia è alla base di queste scelte legislative con le quali i principi di solidarietà sociale si applicano al contrario: non si chiede un sacrificio ai più ricchi (magari con un pressoché impercettibile aumento delle aliquote fiscali considerato che il risparmio di spesa stimato è assai modesto) per aiutare those in society who are in conditions of social distress, but on the contrary, it requires a sacrifice mobility for the public good!
I hope that we can find an alternative solution for cost-savings that do not deprive military invalids who already provide a partial amount is so low as to constitute only a modest help (survival) to live with minimum dignity of their lives .
Mr. Luca Di Francesco, Lecce Retelegale
