Canadian Law for Airlines a Dangerous Precedent
“Canadian airlines are scrambling to figure out how to meet the January 10th deadline for complying with “one-person, one-fare” policy mandated by the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA). It is groundbreaking legislation some hope — and others fear — may spread to the United States and beyond.”
I have seen much buzz about overweight people on planes and Whether they should be charged more. I have my views on that but this is not what this article is about. This article seems to discriminate *among* people with disabilities.
The author of the quoted article believes that “Few people will take issue with that.[an attendant receiving a free fair].” ([The airlines]”cannot charge more than one fare to persons with disabilities who cannot fly without the help of an attendant.”) I also have issue with the very misleading name of the law “one-person, one-fare.” Harriet Baskas also makes an unfair and very bias assertion of the airlines when she states “Now, after spending a year trying to weasel out of it with repeated court appeals, Canadian airlines are scrambling to figure out how to meet the January 10th deadline.” I am positive she would feel exactly the same way if the government came to her business and told her to give something away for free. How about this Harriet, kids in school write articles for free and kids in collage pay for this privilege. I think considering the latter that the government should tell you that you **have** to write for MSNBC for free.
But people are taking exception to the part of the law that states “[passengers] determined to be functionally disabled by obesity.” are being promised a free second seat for an attendant.” I also have issue with the very misleading name of the law “one-person, one-fare.” Harriet Baskas also makes an unfair and very bias assertion of the airlines when she states “Now, after spending a year trying to weasel out of it with repeated court appeals, Canadian airlines are scrambling to figure out how to meet the January 10th deadline.” I am positive she would feel exactly the same way if the government came to her business and told her to give something away for free. How about this Harriet, kids in school write articles for free and kids in collage pay for this privilege. I think considering the latter that the government should tell you that you **have** to write for MSNBC for free.
This is where I take issue. I do not know if it is because the author of the article is a woman and that women tend to respond in emotional ways and men in logical ways but it seems to me that her emotional response created blinders for her and she fails to see the whole issue.
The first issue is that it is not fair to ask a business to on continual basis loose money on a transaction. They are in business and have set prices to a level so that they can stay in business. I am not being insensitive, I am actually being sensitive to the business (do not get me wrong I am not friend of big business but I will defend them if they are not being treated fairly just as I will lambaste them when they treat consumers unfairly) and the others that will have to pick up the tab. A ramp for access to a public building is not unreasonable because it is a one time expense. A constant free ticket is an unfair burden.
The second issue is that it appears to me that Harriet Baskas believes that all handicapped people except the obese, have been this way from birth or it is not their fault. The reason I believe that she is convaying this is because she does not have trouble with the free ticket for any malady except obesity. It seems that although she does not say it outright she believes that obesity is that persons fault so they should not receive the free ride.
Putting Things Into Perspective
Obesity is not always the persons fault. Some have gland issues and others like me had to be on a steroid regimen to combat sudden allergies to antibiotics. Three times I went through this and my total weight gain was on the order of 120 pounds. I was use to liking sweets and honestly could raid an entire box of cookies or a half gallon of ice cream and never gain any weight. I was and still am active but the sugar would always burn off. After my steroid treatments I did not like sweets, I craved carbs, lots and lots of carbs. Bread and butter, chips, fries, potatoes, spaghetti, etc. So before I lost the weight I had two things against me, steroid weight is hard to loose, and I had to find a way to curb my carb cravings. I had to be ready to loose this weight because I wanted to succed. I started finally in January 2007; by January 2008 I lost 50 pounds. One of the things that I wanted to do was to loose the weight in a healthy way and give time for my skin to have time to recover as much of its elasticity so that I would not need cosmetic surgery to eliminate the extra skin. I do not have the money for this and I would rather be heavy than to have those ugly folds of skin. From January 2008 I have given myself a break and have gained some and lost the same weight. I will be starting again in January 2009 and by January 2010 I hope that I will have dropped another 50 pounds.
What is the Point?
My point to the previous is that it is not always an obese persons fault that they are obese and all the other people that have handicaps does not mean that it wa not their fault. If we discriminate against the obese because it is their fault then we also must discriminate against the para, quadriplegics and others because it is their fault.
There many handicapped people that caused their problem. One example would be a drunk driver that got into an accident. Unsuccessful suicide attempts, drugs, gang fights, and the myriad of other intentional acts that demonstrated lack of concern for others. The previous is not meant to include accidents that happened under ordinary circumstances just those that involve utter contempt for the safety of others and themselves.
This is one of the proverbial slippery slopes that serves to do nothing but continue to cause bigger and badder headaches and problems down the road if not stopped post haste.
I would like to add that there are other modes of transportation like by private vehicle that does not cause others to incur any of the cost.
I do not want to sound insensitive but I have a family of my own to take care of and at some point in time there are not going to be enough pockets to pick to fund all these programs without causing serious harm to others. What is the answer? I really do not know but this is not it.