Your Tax Dollars At Work

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Carolyn Blakelock says:

    I agree that there are a lot of not very sensible decisions being made, and I hate to be the one defending this one, but unlike the $7500 dollar dedicated device, the iPhone is a multifunction device that has a recurring cost (the phone/data connection). Who pays for that?

  2. Jon Siegel says:

    Hmmm . . . good question. Inasmuch as the needed functionality for ALS sufferers is not the phone but a speech app on the phone, I would say that the insurance should just pay for the device and the app and then if the user wants to use the device as a phone as well, it’s up to the user to pay for that service.

  3. Umm, iPod Touch?

    Also, this same problem afflicts copyright law. The provisions allowing reproductions for the blind and disabled require the use of “a specialized format exclusively for use by blind or other persons with disabilities,” i.e. a deliberately broken one. Of course, there’s it at the behest of copyright owners.