@nina_kali_nina I think this is a problem that requires subsidizing the costs of. There are a couple of ways this is already done (speaking from a US perspective) - hearing aids have some coverage under many health insurance plans, and schools receive funding that is supposed to be exclusively for accessibility improvements. But this is clearly not enough.

More government funding is required. And it sounds like that applies beyond the US.

@shroudedscribe
Government funding for colleges has only resulted in college tuition getting more expensive.

If people are paying $1000 now, and the government offers $500 in assistance, and the seller raises the price to $1400 - well, you're only spending 900 now, so it's still cheaper for you

You can't solve high prices by throwing money at the problem. Imo what we need is for people to undercut the sellers.

Solve the prices at the root.

@nina_kali_nina

@shroudedscribe
And from a purely ethical perspective: if a company is deliberately price gouging people they know are desperate, why should we reward that behavior by giving them more money in the form of subsidies?

@nina_kali_nina

@shroudedscribe @nina_kali_nina @pixx depends a bit on how much the market is actually a free market. Universities aren't because there is little substitution at the high end and the price is so often deferred/paid by not the consumer that prices aren't kept in check.

Accessibility aids probably suffer from few suppliers, so the market isn't very free.

But I'm not sure their is a better real solution to the high prices other than subsidies.

@LovesTha
Or competitors.

I'd rather government subsidies specifically for cheaper competitors.

I'm not saying subsidies cannot work, just - they need more thought to work around the inherent problems

@shroudedscribe @nina_kali_nina

@LovesTha
Basically, pay people to enter the market. Make it a freer market.

This has an inherent advantage: you can turn off the subsidies after a while and have a continued impact on prices.

Cover the upfront costs of entering the market somewhat to incentivize competition. Once people are in the market, you can withdraw the subsidy.

Instead of ongoing, per-
unit costs.

@shroudedscribe @nina_kali_nina

@LovesTha
Make it a binding contract. Money upfront, but it's a loan. Loan is partly forgiven, starting when product hits market, at .6 percent of the original value per month, as long as the price remains in a specified range.

If the price dips out of the range, no big deal, but it's not forgiven at all *for that month*. Interest kicks in for all unforgiven months after, say, 1 year after the loan is given.

Anyone playing by the rules, even the existing companies, benefits from this as long as they keep prices low for five years.

This has a bonus effect: it helps meet demand at a lower price, making subsequent demand more flexible (i can hold off on getting a new one, i already have one, even if mine is slowly dying. I can wait a few months for a sale...), it rewards the good behavior, and it still gives upfront *cash* to nrw entrants so long as they can demonstrate that they're likely to actually bring a product to market.

Inspired heavily by some local homeowner assistance grants.

@shroudedscribe @nina_kali_nina

@LovesTha
Add a few clauses to handle e.g. supply side problems (if materials get more expensive let's not hold it against them) and make sure all the incentives are as intended, and that it's also fair to the people accepting it (a year might be a bit of a crunch for instance, which favors existing players unfairly!)

Point is it's a solvable problem, just requires the will and to get up and talk to the people with the power to make it happen.

The only group that senators etc really don't care about at all, in a democracy, are the people who don't vote. .1% of voters can be a significant amount; it's not stupidly rare for that to affect the outcomes of an election. 100% of nonvoting people, not so much.

@shroudedscribe @nina_kali_nina