2 ms·

Our entire framework of accommodation is a mistake. If we wish for people—disabled, pregnant, whatever—to be subsidized we should collectively bear the costs. W

Our entire framework of accommodation is a mistake. If we wish for people—disabled, pregnant, whatever—to be subsidized we should collectively bear the costs. We shouldn’t insist that whoever they randomly come across be forced to eat those costs. That’s both unjust and a recipe for resentment, reluctant service, and hidden avoidance.

bombcar 4y ago
Some of the costs are "universal" (such as requiring all commercial buildings have wheelchair ramps) and so don't need to be "funded". Other costs are not universal and only appear when serving a customer/patient/person with the condition. And we already handle the worst cases (where someone is disabled such that they need round-the-clock assistance, the state will hire said assistant; everyone expects Walmart to provide a handicap stall, nobody expects Walmart to change someone's diaper), so why not handle more?
sterlind 4y ago
Are you on team "collectively bear the costs" or team "remove accomodations?" Because one of the two parties always looks to cut government spending, and most voters don't care about the disabled. I'd vote for government rebates for accessible construction and services, but if you got rid of the mandate there'd be no accountability left, and the rebate program would get axed the next time Republicans want to pass a tax cut. There is so much apathy towards the disabled. I had to take a lift to exit a parking garage in my wheelchair, which needed an attendant key. I called the number listed and the lady just told me "oh, it's broken, find another garage." But it wasn't broken. She just didn't want to come over and unlock the elevator for me. Her coworker finally helped me though, after much pleading.
- bradleyjg 4y ago
  I’ll be honest and say it depends. But for many things I am on team bear the costs collectively. I do want people in wheelchairs to be able to participate fully in the life of the nation. I think the apathy you see is, in part, because companies are being forced to bear the cost. If every time you used a garage, the company got a check I think you’d see a different attitude.

bombcar 4y ago

Some of the costs are "universal" (such as requiring all commercial buildings have wheelchair ramps) and so don't need to be "funded". Other costs are not universal and only appear when serving a customer/patient/person with the condition. And we already handle the worst cases (where someone is disabled such that they need round-the-clock assistance, the state will hire said assistant; everyone expects Walmart to provide a handicap stall, nobody expects Walmart to change someone's diaper), so why not handle more?

sterlind 4y ago

Are you on team "collectively bear the costs" or team "remove accomodations?" Because one of the two parties always looks to cut government spending, and most voters don't care about the disabled. I'd vote for government rebates for accessible construction and services, but if you got rid of the mandate there'd be no accountability left, and the rebate program would get axed the next time Republicans want to pass a tax cut. There is so much apathy towards the disabled. I had to take a lift to exit a parking garage in my wheelchair, which needed an attendant key. I called the number listed and the lady just told me "oh, it's broken, find another garage." But it wasn't broken. She just didn't want to come over and unlock the elevator for me. Her coworker finally helped me though, after much pleading.

bradleyjg 4y ago
I’ll be honest and say it depends. But for many things I am on team bear the costs collectively. I do want people in wheelchairs to be able to participate fully in the life of the nation. I think the apathy you see is, in part, because companies are being forced to bear the cost. If every time you used a garage, the company got a check I think you’d see a different attitude.