Gary Bishop brought up a very valid point in Monday night's recitation that the cost of assistive technology (that is, technology that helps mitigate a disability) is outrageous. Some of the devices a disabled person might use include computer screen reading software ($800-$1200), a Braille writer ($700-$1100), Braille computer keyboard ($1800+), and scan and speech machines ($2500+). These prices go along with the fact that most disabled people often come from a poor background and often have to rely on the generosity of others to obtain such equipment.
Should the price of this equipment really be so high? Some of the most influential people in the world have had disabilities. Most people are familiar with names such as Stephen Hawking (Lou Gehrig's Disease), Helen Keller (blind, deaf and mute) and Beethoven (deaf). However, there are many more people that have recovered from disabilities to become incredibly influential people. Thomas Edison could not read until he was twelve years old, Franklin D. Roosevelt had polio, and Woodrow Wilson was severly dyslexic. My point is that the high cost of assistive technology could in fact be disabling the next great mind of the world. Do you think the government should regulate the pricing of assistive technology, and if not, what do you think their role should be?
However, while the argument above is very compelling, there is also a counterargument. The cost of teaching and training a disabled person is obviously much higher than teaching someone without a disability. Furthermore, we must remember that many great people have not had disabilities. The chances of training the next Bill Gates or Albert Einstein are greater for someone without a disability than they are someone with a disability. Therefore, should the cost of assistive technology be as high as it is because of the cost it takes to train and teach disabled people? What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that the cost of assistive technology is a lot a money to invest for the average citizen, especially for those who need it most who often have a low socioeconomic status. However, probably due to the technology behind the machinery used and the prevalence of the machines being used by individuals, may explain why the prices are so high. It is agreed that training takes money, but I think it is not a reason why the cost of assistive technology is high.
ReplyDeleteThink about it this way. As much as we would like the government to somehow regulate the prices, the fact is that most of this technology are produced by privately owned companies who are trying to make a profit. It is like pharmaceutical companies. There are many drugs out there that help with symptoms of rare diseases that are not on the market, but because the demand is small since there are not many people who have the disease, the drug is therefore not on the market. The same can be applied to assistive technology.
If companies want to make a profit but be able to offer the technology needed by disabled people, they raise their prices (especially since more than one company is competing). It is question of economics and not so much government regulation. Much of the government budget goes to welfare and social security (about half).
I believe the government should play a bigger role concerning aid to disable persons, but the government has other priorities to attend to that are part of the larger picture - such as addressing the poverty issue that affect many, particularly disabled individuals.
Interesting economic take on this topic. Is it economically beneficial to provide these technologies with public money or price controls (maybe we enable the next einstein). Economically, it is essentially never beneficial in terms of total production for the government to mess with market prices. However, the big question remaining is whether it is "fair" for the individuals with disabilities who cannot afford market prices. Is it worth the disruption of the market (and subsequent loss of a certain amount of productivity) to help a small minority who cannot afford these technologies?
ReplyDeleteI think the next step towards reducing these prices is to increase awareness. If certain research foundations or computer companies were to invest in the market of enabling technologies, then it might lead to great incentives for programmers to create more and better products, thus reducing prices. If the government can't help regulate their prices, then proponents and creators of such technologies should turn to private businesses/industries. Also, by increasing awareness of such enabling technologies, it may attract more potential workers to become proficient in the use of such tools and thus decrease training costs. One possible way to increase awareness is to create public service announcements that advocate the use and need of assistive devices, similar to how the t.r.u.t.h. campaign advocates for the anti-smoking position.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I would like to ideally think that increased awareness would help bring the prices of sssistive technologies down, I do not think it will make much of a difference. Attracting potential workers cannot bring down costs if no one is willing to pay more for more workers - part of the business with specialized technology is it will cost more because a portion of companies have a oligopoly over these technologies.
ReplyDeleteWhat I think would bring the costs down of these assistive technologies is if these technologies were able to expand somehow into providing services in a different way ie. have various uses other than for assisting the disabled. I think if you could take parts of the technology, they could be applied or developed into other technologies that would help another industry or group of people.
For example, speech machines are not only used for the disabled, but for use for businesses, hospitals and other sectors. If you were to perhaps advertise or alter these technologies so that they could be used differently than just for the disabled, then maybe the prices can go down.
In response to whether if it is fair for individuals with disabilities to pay for the market prices, the answer is: of course it's not fair. However, sadly that is how it is in society. Although there are ways to get help or assistance with paying for the technology, the government cannot simply just make it cheaper for the disabled; the government would have to do the same for all other groups of people who need cheaper medication, for example, for the poverty, etc. Sadly enough, the government will probably be able to do enough to help the small minority - budget is tight already and as always, the need is to find solutions to the bigger picture at hand.
I definitely think that the government should help fund some of these programs for disabled children. I think you bring up some very interesting points about disabled people who have had a very big influence on our lives. If we choose not to fund these programs and just "mainstream" these children, as Gary Bishop mentioned is happening, we risk not properly educating these children properly, which is simply unfair. So, I definitely think it is important to help fund these programs to give everyone a fair advantage and the education they deserve.
ReplyDeleteI'm not necessarily saying I agree with the high cost of assistive technologies but there may be some compelling reasons for these prices points. First, like pharmaceuticals drugs, a lot of R&D goes into developing these machines. Out of the 100s of prototypes that are tested only a handful will make it to market. Even if the cost of producing these machines is minimal, these companies still need to recoup their development costs. Second, the market for these technologies is small which makes it difficult to produce mass quantities and drive down production costs and prices.
ReplyDeleteI agree with w ashley and I don't think the government should regulate the price of this type of equipment. Instead, the government could do more in terms of grant programs and tax breaks for individuals that may need these technologies but cannot afford them.
Perhaps government funding assistance for disabled people to either use or own these products would be a good idea, but I do not think that the government intervening in market values and fixing prices is a good answer to this dilemma. Call it impersonal, but we live in a capitalist country and that is how our society works.
ReplyDeleteThe high price of such technologies is disheartening but understandable when taken into perspective. Research and development companies will have no incentive to create such advances if prices are regulated. Similar to Jon's comment, these companies often incur very high costs in finding the one 'perfect product.' I think governmental regulation would initiate a very slippery slope. There are many specific disabilities and circumstances which place some at a disadvantage when compared to others. Who's right is it to decide which of these programs are worthy?
ReplyDeleteI think the high price is something that can't be helped as of yet because all this new technology does cost a lot to develop and make. Also, it would be hard for the price to go down quickly because it isn't something that everyone wants to buy, so the number of these assistive technologies sold will be low. The government does already give money to help those that are disabled, and at this rate, it would be hard to find more money to alleviate the costs of these technologies.
ReplyDelete