I misunderstood the etiquette of sorts on this site so I had posted. But yeah, what will be will be.
I added this in post, but that question alone begs from me these thoughts, "Who determines what is or is not 'systematically disadvantaged'?", "Who decides what benefits they need in particular?", "When does someone cease being 'systematically disadvantaged'?", "Does someone who falls under multiple spectrums of 'systematic disadvantage' gain more benefits than those with fewer? Doesn't that put those people at their own disadvantage?", "What about those who are not 'systematically disadvantaged', what is their role? Do they need to take on the burden of other people? Is it by option or force?"
the sake of understanding my character and thus my statement
Again, while I find the notion of "helping make people more functional" to be a nice one and what I would want to see in any circumstance, I do not believe they are obligated to, especially not by law. Hypothetically, if I owned a company and found that to be an issue - let us say the fluorescent lighting - I would purchase and maintain an alternative to it. I as the owner made that choice to accommodate people; I was not forced by the government to do so. No less, as a tax payer, even one who falls into these categories that are considered other than normal, I do not agree with paying taxes to front or enforce these changes or policies, even if they would specifically benefit me; it isn't my job or my business to do so and certainly not the average American's. It is my job as a representative of my minorities to adapt and overcome my personal difficulties.