Those both skirt around the correct way to think about it, which is the costs way.there are extra costs associated with having a disability. the two models you propose are the disabled person pays or everyone else pays. Everyone else pays is not the correct model because it coerces people into mazsive costs that dont necessarily make sense for them. Disabled person pays isnt correct either because there are many near zero cost things we could do if we just thought about it at design phase. There should be ahealthier middle ground that routinely gets the cheap stuff done and leaves an easy path for the expensive stuff without coercing spending

▲

jnovek 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> Disabled person pays isnt correct either because there are many near zero cost things we could do if we just thought about it at design phase.

??? This is the social model on a nutshell.

	▲	snapplebobapple 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No it isn't because it isn't cast in cost/opportunity cost/etc. The reality of implementation is top down dictation without apparent consideration of cost (For example, I redid the front door of our office and I now have two buttons to open the automatic door that look like crap and are at waist height and at the floor. This was dictated in the code in my region as a new concession that I never would have done because it is broadly stupid in my context.) Maybe highly cost sensitive and more optional social model would be a better description.