5 ms·

There's a thing we do as a society which I think is unfortunate. We decide the someone ought to get help, that part is totally reasonable. But then instead of p

There's a thing we do as a society which I think is unfortunate. We decide the someone ought to get help, that part is totally reasonable. But then instead of providing that help out of our collective resources we instead pass a law requiring random third parties to provide it. So in this case we decide that disabled people ought to be able to take their assistance animals on planes. Fine. But then we the people should be paying the airlines to carry the disabled person and their service animal without depriving other passengers of the flight experience that they bought and paid for. We've collectively decided to help and we should collectively bear the cost.

cortic 7y ago
Or just pass another law forbidding the 'depriving [any] passengers of the flight experience that they bought and paid for'. I see no compelling reason for taxes to subsidize companies just to help them follow the law, i get no subsidies to help me not steal things or to obey traffic lights. And I'm not posting millions in profits.
- rayiner 7y ago
  There is a huge difference between laws that require you not to do something, and ones that require you to spend limited resources providing affirmative benefits to people.
  - matthewmacleod 7y ago
    No there isn’t. You can logically construct one set from the other. If you are unable to run a business that provides equal access to the level required by regulation, then your business is unsustainable and cannot function. This is the same situation as running a business that cannot afford to provide a service while meeting environmental regulations.
- PaulAJ 7y ago
  From the politician's point of view there is a very important difference. If you raise taxes and then use that money to pay for something then you are responsible for a tax increase. Opposition politicians can point to your tax increase and complain that this is costing the average taxpayer $N per year. However if you make a regulation which does the same thing then the cost does not cross the government's books, so nobody can say that you are costing anybody anything in particular. Its much better politics, regardless of the economics.
wisty 7y ago
There's a difference between getting help, and getting enabled. People with mental illness often make terrible decisions, but there's a trend to say we have to tolerate these terrible decisions because that's helping them, when it might do the opposite. OK, so service animals might be effective. But for a non-permanent disability, couldn't travelling without one be a milestone to work towards, rather than an unalienable right? Obviously it depends on individual circumstances, but who should make the call?
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  It's unlikely to be a goal for people with a service animal. It takes years and a lot of money to train a service animal - it's not a quick fix.
- geofft 7y ago
  Probably a doctor and not an airline should make the call? It seems like a useful principle that airlines should not be in charge of medical decisions, which would imply that airlines should never question traveling with a horse (besides checking the doctor's authorization) - if we think that someone is being overprescribed a horse, we-as-society should follow up with the prescribing doctor and perhaps medical licensing boards, but we-as-society shouldn't put indirect pressure on the doctor via the patient themselves via a flight attendant.
  - bradleyjg 7y ago
    I agree. I wonder if any doctor has ever been disciplined by a licensing board for his or her substantive judgment in one of these accommodation cases. (That is for an inappropriate decision rather than for some procedural lapse like not doing an examination or something.)
  - creato 7y ago
    I think it's reasonable for a doctor to prescribe a horse, and it's also reasonable for an airline to not accommodate someone flying with a horse. More generally, I don't think all of society needs to be forced to accommodate any possible prescription by a doctor.
rayiner 7y ago
People are more willing to spend other peoples’ money than their own. News at 11.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Buge 7y ago
By forcing airlines to allow horses, that means the airlines have to expend effort for that. That means they have to raise prices. That means all airline fliers are paying for it. I don't see a reason why all US citizens should pay for it instead of all US fliers paying for it. As far as depriving other passengers, it's up to the airlines how to do that. They are incentivized to provide a good experience to fliers in order to keep people willing to fly with them.
- morpheuskafka 7y ago
  The set of all US citizens, not the subset of US fliers, is the set that democratically elected the reps that enacted this law. They should be willing to pay for it. Too many laws are enacted on the basis that they will be popular only because a majority of people will not have to pay for them and thus see no downsides.
  - Buge 7y ago
    When the government pays for things, it distorts the economics, because the true cost of that thing is being hidden from the consumers. By including the cost of enforcement in the cost of the service itself, the market can balance better. For example, when allowing horses, that means the plane uses additional fuel. Usually the cost of the fuel is included in the ticket, so as fuel becomes scarcer, prices go up, and less people fly. But when the government starts paying for some of that fuel, it will hide that price increase from consumers, so they will fly more than they should, and use fuel faster than they should. Also, almost 90% of Americans have flown[1], so it's not like filers are some tiny minority. [1] http://survey.airlines.org/ http://survey.airlines.org/
- schappim 7y ago
  Yes, but how else will you be able to pull out your phone and start a video call with: “I’m on an aeroplane. Look down. I’m on a horse.”

cortic 7y ago

Or just pass another law forbidding the 'depriving [any] passengers of the flight experience that they bought and paid for'. I see no compelling reason for taxes to subsidize companies just to help them follow the law, i get no subsidies to help me not steal things or to obey traffic lights. And I'm not posting millions in profits.

rayiner 7y ago
There is a huge difference between laws that require you not to do something, and ones that require you to spend limited resources providing affirmative benefits to people.
- matthewmacleod 7y ago
  No there isn’t. You can logically construct one set from the other. If you are unable to run a business that provides equal access to the level required by regulation, then your business is unsustainable and cannot function. This is the same situation as running a business that cannot afford to provide a service while meeting environmental regulations.
PaulAJ 7y ago
From the politician's point of view there is a very important difference. If you raise taxes and then use that money to pay for something then you are responsible for a tax increase. Opposition politicians can point to your tax increase and complain that this is costing the average taxpayer $N per year. However if you make a regulation which does the same thing then the cost does not cross the government's books, so nobody can say that you are costing anybody anything in particular. Its much better politics, regardless of the economics.

wisty 7y ago

There's a difference between getting help, and getting enabled. People with mental illness often make terrible decisions, but there's a trend to say we have to tolerate these terrible decisions because that's helping them, when it might do the opposite. OK, so service animals might be effective. But for a non-permanent disability, couldn't travelling without one be a milestone to work towards, rather than an unalienable right? Obviously it depends on individual circumstances, but who should make the call?

lazyasciiart 7y ago
It's unlikely to be a goal for people with a service animal. It takes years and a lot of money to train a service animal - it's not a quick fix.
geofft 7y ago
Probably a doctor and not an airline should make the call? It seems like a useful principle that airlines should not be in charge of medical decisions, which would imply that airlines should never question traveling with a horse (besides checking the doctor's authorization) - if we think that someone is being overprescribed a horse, we-as-society should follow up with the prescribing doctor and perhaps medical licensing boards, but we-as-society shouldn't put indirect pressure on the doctor via the patient themselves via a flight attendant.
- bradleyjg 7y ago
  I agree. I wonder if any doctor has ever been disciplined by a licensing board for his or her substantive judgment in one of these accommodation cases. (That is for an inappropriate decision rather than for some procedural lapse like not doing an examination or something.)
- creato 7y ago
  I think it's reasonable for a doctor to prescribe a horse, and it's also reasonable for an airline to not accommodate someone flying with a horse. More generally, I don't think all of society needs to be forced to accommodate any possible prescription by a doctor.

rayiner 7y ago

People are more willing to spend other peoples’ money than their own. News at 11.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Buge 7y ago

By forcing airlines to allow horses, that means the airlines have to expend effort for that. That means they have to raise prices. That means all airline fliers are paying for it. I don't see a reason why all US citizens should pay for it instead of all US fliers paying for it. As far as depriving other passengers, it's up to the airlines how to do that. They are incentivized to provide a good experience to fliers in order to keep people willing to fly with them.

morpheuskafka 7y ago
The set of all US citizens, not the subset of US fliers, is the set that democratically elected the reps that enacted this law. They should be willing to pay for it. Too many laws are enacted on the basis that they will be popular only because a majority of people will not have to pay for them and thus see no downsides.
- Buge 7y ago
  When the government pays for things, it distorts the economics, because the true cost of that thing is being hidden from the consumers. By including the cost of enforcement in the cost of the service itself, the market can balance better. For example, when allowing horses, that means the plane uses additional fuel. Usually the cost of the fuel is included in the ticket, so as fuel becomes scarcer, prices go up, and less people fly. But when the government starts paying for some of that fuel, it will hide that price increase from consumers, so they will fly more than they should, and use fuel faster than they should. Also, almost 90% of Americans have flown[1], so it's not like filers are some tiny minority. [1] http://survey.airlines.org/ http://survey.airlines.org/
schappim 7y ago
Yes, but how else will you be able to pull out your phone and start a video call with: “I’m on an aeroplane. Look down. I’m on a horse.”