Posted on 01/20/2008 3:14:48 PM PST by neverdem
Freakonomics
One year from today, a new president moves into the White House. This president will be eager to carry out any number of plans — including, surely, plans to help the segments of society that most need help. Extending a helping hand, after all, is one of the great privileges and responsibilities of the presidency.
But before charging ahead with such plans, the new president might do well to first ask him- or herself the following question: What do a deaf woman in Los Angeles, a first-century Jewish sandal maker and a red-cockaded woodpecker have in common?
A few months ago, a prospective patient called the office of Andrew Brooks, a top-ranked orthopedic surgeon in Los Angeles. She was having serious knee trouble, and she was also deaf. She wanted to know if her deafness posed a problem for Brooks. He had his assistant relay a message: no, of course not; he could easily discuss her situation using knee models, anatomical charts and written notes.
The woman later called again to say she would rather have a sign-language interpreter. Fine, Brooks said, and asked his assistant to make the arrangements. As it turned out, an interpreter would cost $120 an hour, with a two-hour minimum, and the expense wasn’t covered by insurance. Brooks didn’t think it made sense for him to pay. That would mean laying out $240 to conduct an exam for which the woman’s insurance company would pay him $58 — a loss of more than $180 even before accounting for taxes and overhead.
So Brooks suggested to the patient that they make do without the interpreter. That’s when she told him that the Americans With Disabilities Act (A.D.A.) allowed a patient to choose the mode of interpretation, at the physician’s expense. Brooks, flabbergasted, researched...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Bump
I’m shocked that the NY Slimes published this article!
Excellent! Thanks for posting.
This great article was in the NYT? Wonders never cease!
It’s classic. I knew someone who owned rental apartments. She specifically rented only apartments too small to rent to more than one, because the laws that protect families against landlords are bankrupting for the landlord in NYC.
So laws designed to protect the family, in essence kept them out of apartments.
An unintended consequence of laws mandating ethanol fuel is higher food prices, and likely will eventually be famines.
“I’m shocked that the NY Slimes published this article!”
It either slipped through the censors or they thought they were building the case for socialized medicine.
Is the NYT trying to salvage at least a vestige of its credibility?
Government will ALWAYS make things worse, it is not the solution to problems - but the cause. With thanks to RR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo
An appropriate time for the Hillary version of the Apple 1984 commercial.
I deal with the ADA everyday. People do not realize that ADA is not, I repeat, NOT, a building code. It is a Civil Rights Act.
Even if a property owner retrofits his property to meet the ADA guidelines he/she may still be sued if a disabled person thinks that some part of the facility is not 'accessible'. That's right. If, for example, the toilet is not 'accessible' to that person, and the person complains, and it is not made 'accessible' for that one person, that person can sue under the ADA ... even if the toilet was changed to meet the ADA Guidelines.
Also, a property owner can be sued if a person becomes lost on his property. Even non-blind people with 'cognitive difficulties' who cannot read directional signage or maps, have to be 'accomodated' in some other way or the property owner can be sued. (He does have some time to rectify the situation for each individual before he is sued). But, like the doctor in the story, he must make the accomodation at his own cost for each individual person who claims his property is 'inaccessible' in some particular and individual way.
These are just two examples out of possibly hundreds or more.
Ever wonder why so many places that used to have drinking fountaiins don’t have them any more? Thank the ADA. Place that provided them as a convenience but weren’t required to have them, took them out because they are a liability towards an ADA suit. Even if they are lowered for wheelchair users, tall people with back problems can sue if they are too low. So a lot of property owners simply took them out.
Ditto with restromms that weren’t required. Rather than retrofit them and still face a possible ADA suit, they were removed or made off limits to the public.
Innerestin’
almost any government program touted to address some inequity, injustice, or need is guaranteed to achieve the exact opposite of it’s stated intent.
On the local news the other night, they announced the upcoming story :
"President Bush and congress vow to help the economy-When can you expect your check in the mail".
Everyone should see this.
I could rant for an hour on this one. But I won’t.
The most egregious of laws that has a direct negative effect on our economy and society is the minimum wage law.
It’s damages run wide and deep.
Excellent article. Amazing that the Times published it. It goes against everything they stand for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.