リハ難民

08:51 Sep 24, 2016 

Wow! Great Patricia. Thank you for your feedback.
In future, you may perhaps consider putting such expanded info as a translator's footnote.
It's a convenient option that all clients welcome when they realise how hard we work to deliver them a translation of optimal clarity.
You chose the right course : what great links Cinefil and Port City did supply!
Cheers and take care...:-)

07:38 Sep 24, 2016 

mmb42,
As I wrote in my comments. I chose your answer because you gave the idea to extend the translation beyond one phrase. However, I did not use your words. I also did not shun the advice of my Japanese colleagues as you put it.
I actually feel that the most accurate answer came from cinefil, but his response is a reference comment and not an actual answer, so I could not pick his. Actually, you were the only person who actually answered the question (to be totally honest).
The final translation came out a bit long but it was something to the effect of patients who required rehabilitation but could not be admitted to rehab wards because six months had passed since the initial onset due to limits set in 2006.
Then I left a note for the original author.
So far, the author seems satisfied with my work. However, sometimes it takes a month before I get any feedback.

05:44 Sep 24, 2016 

'- BTW, when in doubt about a passage involving Japanese Current Affairs, Patricia, do not shun the advice of a Japanese colleague. Whether or not with a Proz "P" badge to his/her name, the depth of background knowledge instantly available from such a helper is likely to be far richer and reliable than that of a 'Proz "P" plater' [:-)] with good research skills but in need of more work and time to arrive at the same conclusions.
Anyway, we all learn so much from one another, and on this Kudoz venue it's great to have their inputs. It surely is the right place to come. Cheers to all. :-)

05:38 Sep 24, 2016 

'- BTW, this Current Affairs TV segment incidentally proves the Insurers'thinking as too simplistic and out-of-date (we now know that the brain's neural network is plastic and, surprisingly, can rewire itself through alternative pathways in response to patient's pro-active reconditioning).
That self-motivating factor is a key to better outcomes for everyone concerned : patients, carers, administrators. So, for patients who still have that spirit in them, that 2006 revision could be reviewed. The insurance industry got off-the-hook on a wrong premice. It could be required to subsidise the patients leasing these cycling wheelchairs as a continuing program. That industry could see this as a way of restoring their public image at a fraction of earlier treatment costs .
Legally speaking, they could not reject such a compromise since the change they obtained in 2006 seems to apply to all stroke patients, including those that are now making recovery progress -- a possibility that was not considered when that public health care law was revised.

05:07 Sep 24, 2016 

- "(The losers of the 2006 revised rehabilitation program)"?
That's the idea, but the tone is not right. In American English, "loser" is at best a cold economist's class qualifier. (The source text would not validate the worst take for "loser" here, i.e. a dismissive put-down of the referend's character.)

- Does the term calls for an empathetic overtone, as conceivable in the commentary? something like : "the victims of ...?", "the patients abandoned/'jettisoned' by/sacrificed in the ...?", ".
Nope. These go too far and would suggest a polemic tone not expressed in the source text.

- So, ultimately, would be inclined to settle for:
(the rehab' patients losing out from 2006 onward)
or even closer to the literal source wording:
(the rehab' patients left out in a bind from 2006 onward)

But for either of the latter selections, a translator's footnote explaining what happened in 2006, or an iNet link to this issue, would be strongly recommended.

05:02 Sep 24, 2016 

This development, as summarised in the subtitle, looks shocking -- a pattern seen in many countries getting poorer and making budget cuts at the expense of those too weak to fight for their rights-- but the audio track (0:17-0:19) of this video does specify that the insurers' termination of their supported care applies only to patients that incurred (脳血痰しかの場合) a stroke from which the recovery rate at an advanced age, they argue, is 'practically nil'. Their closing argument being: Providing an open ended public health support for this type of patients didn't make sense and had to be adjusted accordingly.

05:01 Sep 24, 2016 

Pat', my apologies for this cautionary note that may arrive too late.

The most useful hint you can get to solve such an elliptic reference is the one clarifying the circumstances from which "難民" takes up its particular meaning. My offering, which you picked, was rushed and did not do that. The situation raised by Port City accounts much better for the use of 難民 as a group of people-in-need left out in the lurch.

So, have another look-and-listen to her 1st YouTube link about this little cycling wheel-chair boom in Japan. Set the progress bar to "0:16~0:19/14:17", and there you have it, subtitled in 'blue and white': the key information that clarifies the reason for those patients' plight.

This clearer context helps us realise that "2006" was not the starting point of a defined duration, but an epocal point-in-time when the insurers' lobby obtained a change in law limiting rehab' patients' care support claiming period to 6 months from the date of their diagnosed incapacity, and beyond which they now have to fund their own care and support.

04:38 Sep 19, 2016 

That does make better sense, Port City-san, you are right.

23:34 Sep 18, 2016 

I think リハ難民 refers to "patients without access to adequate rehabilitation programs" and I would translate it just as such, although it's more an explanation than a translation. It's not that they have absolutely no access to rehabilitation services, but it's past a certain period of time that they lose access to subsidised rehabilitation services under the national healthcare system.

Maybe "... continual rehabilitation programs" to indicate programs past the certain period.