5 ms·
> If it's the latter (Anthem insurance doesn't change their premiums, but now rewards people for using preventative medicine), then how could anyone object? It
by aluhut 10y ago
> If it's the latter (Anthem insurance doesn't change their premiums, but now rewards people for using preventative medicine), then how could anyone object? It really is a win-win, and people who don't want to participate are no worse off.
I would object. What would stop them actually rising the bonus or the costs for the rest in the future? You've justified it in so many ways. It's the grand health initiative! Let's make America healthy again!
Easy to sell and all that sweet data can be used for other good causes.
Meanwhile the discussion over overpriced medicines disappears. You can (must?) even push the prices for medicines, therapies, etc. leading to the fact that the insurances best customers, people who can't do anything about their sickness (anymore) will be burdened even more. Enforcing the "sick and out" narrative in this sick system.
> What this actually means: The trying-to-be-healthy population are no longer subsidizing the not-trying-to-be-healthy population. I don't know if this is a bad outcome
It is. It's like taxes but we lost that viewpoint (US maybe never even had it but we did in Germany) because of privatization.
There are other ways to educate people on how to be healthy and what the benefits are. Starting doing it at school SERIOUSLY would be a step. Marking obviously unhealthy food as such is another. Misleading advertisements is a big one. And so on. It can be done but I don't believe there is a really strong lobby for that out there. Or not strong enough.
- unclenoriega 10y agoI think it makes sense in the US because health insurance is a for-profit business here. It seems odd to criticize an insurance business for giving lower pricing to people who are less likely to use the insurance. I think it's a terrible way to run a healthcare system, but that's a different discussion. Edit: (RTFA!) So, it's not the insurers, but the people paying for the insurance. One step removed from what I said, but I think the rest still applies.
- aluhut 10y ago> It seems odd to criticize an insurance business for giving lower pricing to people who are less likely to use the insurance. It looks naive to assume that, together with the infrastructure costs and the running costs for this system this for-profit business wants to make less money. What would the selling discussion have looked like? "Hey I have a system here that will make the most credit worthy clients pay less. Interested?"
- spectrum1234 10y agoThis is basically completely backwards. Also, you seem to be criticizing this solution because its not perfect. Hint: there is no perfect solution.
- aluhut 10y agoI don't criticize it because it's not perfect. I criticize it because it opens an massive exploit onto people who are already giving more away of themselves then it's good for anyone. There is also a critique towards the greed that drives those companies and will therefore lead to this exploit being exploited.