8 ms·

> She started getting frustrated, “it’s my fault, I don’t know how to use this thing properly.” This is heartbreaking. The woman is being excluded through no f

by dimal 2y ago

> She started getting frustrated, “it’s my fault, I don’t know how to use this thing properly.” This is heartbreaking. The woman is being excluded through no fault of her own, and she blames herself. I find this to be a common for people who don’t think of themselves as disabled but are made disabled by bad interfaces. They think there must be something wrong with themselves because everyone else has such an easy time, when really it’s the technology.

rubslopes 2y ago
I once saw an elderly woman trying to receive medical care at an urgent care clinic. She brought her documents and medical insurance card, but the receptionist told her she could only be checked in if she provided a two-factor authentication code from her insurance app. The woman was totally confused. It was heartbreaking to watch.
- MikeTheGreat 2y ago
  Where do you live? And how is this supposed to work? Like, at all? Does the urgent care place have 2FA set up for every insurance company? Just the insurance companies they accept? What about folks that don't have their phone on them (which is reasonable to forget if you need medical care urgently, even if it's not ambulance-grade urgently). Plus, you've got the fact that the elderly are both a major market for medical services and famously techno-phobic....
  - electricwire 2y ago
    The cynical side of me wonders if its not intended to work well
    - rubslopes 2y ago
      I don’t agree with the practice, but from what I understand, they’re trying to prevent clinics from scamming insurance companies by faking clinical visits. I've heard that this is a thing that happens here.
      - dylan604 2y ago
        When the attempt to stop bad actors stops/prevents others from using it, the system is bad. Insert baby/bathwater or nose/face comments here
        mh- 2y ago
        That was a bit difficult to parse, but I think you're saying that (some) anti-fraud systems can't afford false positives. And I would agree, point-of-use healthcare is certainly one of those systems.
  - jve 2y ago
    Isn't a document (what you own) + showing up physically so you can be scanned by eyeballs already not 2FA? What better authentication you can get than that?
    - Izkata 2y ago
      Only if the document or their system has a photo of you. Usually driver's license is used for this.
      - cesarb 2y ago
        > Only if the document or their system has a photo of you. Usually driver's license is used for this. In my experience, using the identity card is more common. Only drivers have a driver license, but nearly everybody has a identity card (and every identity card has a photo); and AFAIK, the identity card is one of the mandatory documents to get a driver license.
        Izkata 2y ago
        Not in the US at least. My driver's license is the only thing I have with a photo of me on it. There are state non-driver IDs but they're unusual to see.
        cesarb 2y ago
        The context was Brazil (see sibling reply a few levels up), and here indeed all identity cards have photos. Both the old per-state models and the newer federally standardized models have them, and nearly everyone has an identity card. It's not unusual to see identity cards being used everywhere; even some commercial buildings ask for (and take photos of) them from visitors (regulars have badges, and of course they had to present their identity card to get the badge).
  - rubslopes 2y ago
    Brazil. In my country, technology is growing rapidly, but in an unregulated way. On one hand, we have a modern banking system that allows instant money transfers to anyone at any time, and the government is developing its own cryptocurrency. With our electronic voting machines, the country knows election results within two hours after polls close. On the other hand, each company, including those providing essential services, creates its own solution without any regulatory oversight. This fragmentation extends even to official government services. In the case I mentioned, each private health insurance company freely determines its own procedures for patient check-in at affiliated clinics. With my insurance plan, my ID card is sufficient--for now.
the_other 2y ago
> I find this to be a common for people who don’t think of themselves as disabled but are made disabled by bad interfaces A lot of disabled people today subscribe to the "social model of disability" [0] rather than the "medical model". Under the social model, the obstacle is not some property of the individual experiencing an access issue, but are created by a system made by other people who didn't provide alternative access methods. Society and its inventions disable, rather than the individual's condition. Clearly, disabled people have mental or physiological conditions that produce non-mainstream access needs. None of them deny that... but the social model invites us to take a society-wide ownership of this, and to better support a wider range of access needs by default. In contrast, the medical model tends to situate the disability within the individual, based on their physiological condition. This tends to put the ownership on the individual (or their immediate carers), which in turn tends to perpetuate exclusion and access challenges. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_model_of_disability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_model_of_disability
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - tpxl 2y ago
    Disagree. Mandatory access ramps exists because we have decided it's a problem to be fixed by society, not the individual. The result is far greater access for people with wheelchairs. It's not about who's at fault, it's who has to provide a solution. Society has far more means to provide a solution than each individual.
    - rolph 2y ago
      when you[society] create the problem in the first place, its on you to fix it. major problem that needs fixing is leave things alone when there is no problem. forcing new tech, standards and spec, into place so even more money,influence,control can be attained is not a solution to any problem, its a source.

by dimal 2y ago

rubslopes 2y ago

I once saw an elderly woman trying to receive medical care at an urgent care clinic. She brought her documents and medical insurance card, but the receptionist told her she could only be checked in if she provided a two-factor authentication code from her insurance app. The woman was totally confused. It was heartbreaking to watch.

MikeTheGreat 2y ago
Where do you live? And how is this supposed to work? Like, at all? Does the urgent care place have 2FA set up for every insurance company? Just the insurance companies they accept? What about folks that don't have their phone on them (which is reasonable to forget if you need medical care urgently, even if it's not ambulance-grade urgently). Plus, you've got the fact that the elderly are both a major market for medical services and famously techno-phobic....
- electricwire 2y ago
  The cynical side of me wonders if its not intended to work well
  - rubslopes 2y ago
    I don’t agree with the practice, but from what I understand, they’re trying to prevent clinics from scamming insurance companies by faking clinical visits. I've heard that this is a thing that happens here.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      When the attempt to stop bad actors stops/prevents others from using it, the system is bad. Insert baby/bathwater or nose/face comments here
      - mh- 2y ago
        That was a bit difficult to parse, but I think you're saying that (some) anti-fraud systems can't afford false positives. And I would agree, point-of-use healthcare is certainly one of those systems.
- jve 2y ago
  Isn't a document (what you own) + showing up physically so you can be scanned by eyeballs already not 2FA? What better authentication you can get than that?
  - Izkata 2y ago
    Only if the document or their system has a photo of you. Usually driver's license is used for this.
    - cesarb 2y ago
      > Only if the document or their system has a photo of you. Usually driver's license is used for this. In my experience, using the identity card is more common. Only drivers have a driver license, but nearly everybody has a identity card (and every identity card has a photo); and AFAIK, the identity card is one of the mandatory documents to get a driver license.
      - Izkata 2y ago
        Not in the US at least. My driver's license is the only thing I have with a photo of me on it. There are state non-driver IDs but they're unusual to see.
        cesarb 2y ago
        The context was Brazil (see sibling reply a few levels up), and here indeed all identity cards have photos. Both the old per-state models and the newer federally standardized models have them, and nearly everyone has an identity card. It's not unusual to see identity cards being used everywhere; even some commercial buildings ask for (and take photos of) them from visitors (regulars have badges, and of course they had to present their identity card to get the badge).
- rubslopes 2y ago
  Brazil. In my country, technology is growing rapidly, but in an unregulated way. On one hand, we have a modern banking system that allows instant money transfers to anyone at any time, and the government is developing its own cryptocurrency. With our electronic voting machines, the country knows election results within two hours after polls close. On the other hand, each company, including those providing essential services, creates its own solution without any regulatory oversight. This fragmentation extends even to official government services. In the case I mentioned, each private health insurance company freely determines its own procedures for patient check-in at affiliated clinics. With my insurance plan, my ID card is sufficient--for now.

the_other 2y ago

> I find this to be a common for people who don’t think of themselves as disabled but are made disabled by bad interfaces A lot of disabled people today subscribe to the "social model of disability" [0] rather than the "medical model". Under the social model, the obstacle is not some property of the individual experiencing an access issue, but are created by a system made by other people who didn't provide alternative access methods. Society and its inventions disable, rather than the individual's condition. Clearly, disabled people have mental or physiological conditions that produce non-mainstream access needs. None of them deny that... but the social model invites us to take a society-wide ownership of this, and to better support a wider range of access needs by default. In contrast, the medical model tends to situate the disability within the individual, based on their physiological condition. This tends to put the ownership on the individual (or their immediate carers), which in turn tends to perpetuate exclusion and access challenges. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_model_of_disability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_model_of_disability

carlosjobim 2y ago
[flagged]
- tpxl 2y ago
  Disagree. Mandatory access ramps exists because we have decided it's a problem to be fixed by society, not the individual. The result is far greater access for people with wheelchairs. It's not about who's at fault, it's who has to provide a solution. Society has far more means to provide a solution than each individual.
  - rolph 2y ago
    when you[society] create the problem in the first place, its on you to fix it. major problem that needs fixing is leave things alone when there is no problem. forcing new tech, standards and spec, into place so even more money,influence,control can be attained is not a solution to any problem, its a source.