6 ms·

In the long run these corporate solutions are what is needed. Why? Because currently there is no financial incentive, in the short term, to stay healthy. Health

In the long run these corporate solutions are what is needed. Why? Because currently there is no financial incentive, in the short term, to stay healthy. Health insurance costs continue to increase and adverse selection continually makes this worse. The bias in this article is disturbing because currently even the government is doing nothing to incentive people financially in the short term in this same way. Think 50 years down the line - if systems like this aren't in place we are in serious trouble. There is no perfect solution but to blame companies for tying health and its costs to short term costs is insane. This is a GOOD THING. Wake up people! This reminds me of a quote (paraphrasing). "The market is the worst form of economic distribution, except for all others."

vectorwhat 10y ago
Im so healthy my doctor told me I need to drink more and consume more salt. I don't need HR knowing anything about my health. F them and F crypto-fascists who argue this is a good thing.
- spectrum1234 10y ago
  You have a choice!!! Why are more short term incentives that are clearly lacking in the market a bad thing?!?!?!
  - vectorwhat 10y ago
    Because it MY data. It's voluntary now, but will it always be? You're a free market guy. What would you say about insurance companies deciding they'll only cover people who release all their data to them. Now I don't have a choice to release my data, do I? (since I'm forced to have insurance) How do I know what my doctor does with my electronic data? Legally, I have some assurances. Except we now know how much these legal assurances are in the electronic domain. This is soft paternalism. Freedom is being able to smoke a cigarette in your car with your 2 mo. old daughter in the back waving your middle finger at any holier-than-thou puritan who has a problem with it.
    - spectrum1234 10y ago
      The free market solution is different tiers of service that offer different qualities. Health care is tech which means it advances very quickly. It's illegal in the US to get the top tier service of 20 years ago (the only option is the best care right now). If I were you I would simply choose a lower tier service that is still nearly state of the art. Because the top tier is so expense you must share your data but the lower tier services is 95% as good for much lower cost. Look at literally every other industry to see how this is true - you have quality choices and its amazing and a beautiful thing. OR, get health care in say India. Cliffs: You don't have a choice in health care quality and since that's unsustainable corporations are also reducing choices when it comes to privacy.
tzmudzin 10y ago
... except that the market for health services is anything but healthy in the US. That's BTW also a major reason for the exploding cost of the health care - the lack of personal short term incentives isn't.
- spectrum1234 10y ago
  It sounds like you are agreeing with me not disagreeing... This is a short term incentive. That's why the bias here is disturbing!
  - tzmudzin 10y ago
    I do not agree with your views. Apologies if I did not make myself clear here -- English is not my first language (or second.. or even third...) Let me try to reword then: 1. Free market is NOT an appropriate solution for healthcare. There are plenty of reasons for this (assymetry of information, natural monopolies etc) 2. We can argue whether the US healthcare system is based on free market principles or not. It's exploding cost is however NOT driven by the lack of short-term personal incentives, but by the failure to link the amount billed to the true cost of the service rendered. 3. Every bill from a doctor you see is a very clear short-term incentive for keeping yourself healthy -- clearly more so than a $50 discount on your monthly insurance payment.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > 1. Free market is NOT an appropriate solution for healthcare. There are plenty of reasons for this (assymetry of information, natural monopolies etc) Also: * The free market distributes goods based on ability to pay; it's wrong to deny people health care based on their wealth. * The free market requires failures of businesses and services; that is not acceptable when people's health is involved. It's ok that the solution to bad casual gaming software vendors is that their customers are screwed and they go out of business. That's not ok for bad doctors, drugs, hospitals, etc.
      - WalterBright 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
neffy 10y ago
The better way to tackle that problem is to turn the incentives around in the US health sector, which currently runs on a piece rate model, which rewards the medical professions for finding as meany treatments as possible to deliver to the population as long as possible. Give them a flat rate percentage of GDP per patient, and motivate them to reduce the amount of work they do, by keeping everybody healthy, and you'd have a much better system.
- spectrum1234 10y ago
  Yes!!! And since this isn't happening how is what innovative corporations are doing a bad thing? It's embarrassing for the US government that they can't find other methods for short term incentives and the private sector is stepping up here.
analog31 10y ago
There's already a health incentive to stay healthy, by definition. If people won't obey a health incentive, why will they obey a financial incentive? And there's already a financial incentive as well: Discrimination provides a financial advantage to people who appear more healthy (younger, thinner, taller).
- nharada 10y ago
  Staying healthy is a really long term goal. You need to do it every day but there's no immediate penalty for not being healthy on a day to day basis. Penalizing someone financially is much more real and tangible than "that pizza you ate today is contributing very slightly to your degrading health"
  - analog31 10y ago
    That sounds plausible, but on the other hand, it also sounds plausible that the immediate discomfort of dieting for most people would outweigh the immediate financial incentive. An additional plausible explanation, that always has to be considered until it's eliminated, is that wellness reward programs don't work at all, but tap into the psychology of the HR managers who buy that kind of stuff. I was only thinking in terms of a simplistic "homo economicus" model, in which a worker acts rationally in their own best interest. If we abandon that model, I'm not sure we have a useful alternative.
- speeder 10y ago
  I disagree with OP point... but I also disagree with yours. For example, in the new year eve, my parents asked me my objective for 2017, I told them to become strong and healthy. Both of them were VERY skeptical, and thought it was absurd, specially because in their view, being strong and healthy won't make me pay my bills... And they are in a way, correct, to stay healthy you need resources and time, not always those are available, for example right now I am unemployed and have no contract, I have plenty of time, but no resources, and I am begging my parents to buy me some gymnastic rings I need for my exercises... but short term, I would be better if I stopped worrying for my health and went to get some short term job, even one blatantly unhealthy one (for example working with garbage). The thing is, I chased money (Because I was in debt) disregarding my health (out of necessity) from my 18 years until I was about 27 or 28... It is clear now the long term cost has been very, very high, my health is very damaged, yet if I had to go back, I don't think what I could have done differently, the path I took was the only path available to pay my debts, and in my country personal bankruptcy doesn't exist, not paying my debts wouldn't work.
pyrale 10y ago
> This reminds me of a quote (paraphrasing). "The market is the worst form of economic distribution, except for all others." Yeah, let's ignore all that has been done in Europe in terms of health, which did not involve markets but did work in practice. Us being rich, it's much more pleasant to financially harass the poor, rather than doing stuff like public health care, a preventive medical policy, or a real education system which would cost money to us, but would have a real impact.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
x0x0 10y ago
Not all increases in health care costs are bad. When we learn how to treat new diseases or conditions, that's good, even if it costs money.

vectorwhat 10y ago

Im so healthy my doctor told me I need to drink more and consume more salt. I don't need HR knowing anything about my health. F them and F crypto-fascists who argue this is a good thing.

spectrum1234 10y ago
You have a choice!!! Why are more short term incentives that are clearly lacking in the market a bad thing?!?!?!
- vectorwhat 10y ago
  Because it MY data. It's voluntary now, but will it always be? You're a free market guy. What would you say about insurance companies deciding they'll only cover people who release all their data to them. Now I don't have a choice to release my data, do I? (since I'm forced to have insurance) How do I know what my doctor does with my electronic data? Legally, I have some assurances. Except we now know how much these legal assurances are in the electronic domain. This is soft paternalism. Freedom is being able to smoke a cigarette in your car with your 2 mo. old daughter in the back waving your middle finger at any holier-than-thou puritan who has a problem with it.
  - spectrum1234 10y ago
    The free market solution is different tiers of service that offer different qualities. Health care is tech which means it advances very quickly. It's illegal in the US to get the top tier service of 20 years ago (the only option is the best care right now). If I were you I would simply choose a lower tier service that is still nearly state of the art. Because the top tier is so expense you must share your data but the lower tier services is 95% as good for much lower cost. Look at literally every other industry to see how this is true - you have quality choices and its amazing and a beautiful thing. OR, get health care in say India. Cliffs: You don't have a choice in health care quality and since that's unsustainable corporations are also reducing choices when it comes to privacy.

tzmudzin 10y ago

... except that the market for health services is anything but healthy in the US. That's BTW also a major reason for the exploding cost of the health care - the lack of personal short term incentives isn't.

spectrum1234 10y ago
It sounds like you are agreeing with me not disagreeing... This is a short term incentive. That's why the bias here is disturbing!
- tzmudzin 10y ago
  I do not agree with your views. Apologies if I did not make myself clear here -- English is not my first language (or second.. or even third...) Let me try to reword then: 1. Free market is NOT an appropriate solution for healthcare. There are plenty of reasons for this (assymetry of information, natural monopolies etc) 2. We can argue whether the US healthcare system is based on free market principles or not. It's exploding cost is however NOT driven by the lack of short-term personal incentives, but by the failure to link the amount billed to the true cost of the service rendered. 3. Every bill from a doctor you see is a very clear short-term incentive for keeping yourself healthy -- clearly more so than a $50 discount on your monthly insurance payment.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > 1. Free market is NOT an appropriate solution for healthcare. There are plenty of reasons for this (assymetry of information, natural monopolies etc) Also: * The free market distributes goods based on ability to pay; it's wrong to deny people health care based on their wealth. * The free market requires failures of businesses and services; that is not acceptable when people's health is involved. It's ok that the solution to bad casual gaming software vendors is that their customers are screwed and they go out of business. That's not ok for bad doctors, drugs, hospitals, etc.
    - WalterBright 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

neffy 10y ago

The better way to tackle that problem is to turn the incentives around in the US health sector, which currently runs on a piece rate model, which rewards the medical professions for finding as meany treatments as possible to deliver to the population as long as possible. Give them a flat rate percentage of GDP per patient, and motivate them to reduce the amount of work they do, by keeping everybody healthy, and you'd have a much better system.

spectrum1234 10y ago
Yes!!! And since this isn't happening how is what innovative corporations are doing a bad thing? It's embarrassing for the US government that they can't find other methods for short term incentives and the private sector is stepping up here.

analog31 10y ago

There's already a health incentive to stay healthy, by definition. If people won't obey a health incentive, why will they obey a financial incentive? And there's already a financial incentive as well: Discrimination provides a financial advantage to people who appear more healthy (younger, thinner, taller).

nharada 10y ago
Staying healthy is a really long term goal. You need to do it every day but there's no immediate penalty for not being healthy on a day to day basis. Penalizing someone financially is much more real and tangible than "that pizza you ate today is contributing very slightly to your degrading health"
- analog31 10y ago
  That sounds plausible, but on the other hand, it also sounds plausible that the immediate discomfort of dieting for most people would outweigh the immediate financial incentive. An additional plausible explanation, that always has to be considered until it's eliminated, is that wellness reward programs don't work at all, but tap into the psychology of the HR managers who buy that kind of stuff. I was only thinking in terms of a simplistic "homo economicus" model, in which a worker acts rationally in their own best interest. If we abandon that model, I'm not sure we have a useful alternative.
speeder 10y ago
I disagree with OP point... but I also disagree with yours. For example, in the new year eve, my parents asked me my objective for 2017, I told them to become strong and healthy. Both of them were VERY skeptical, and thought it was absurd, specially because in their view, being strong and healthy won't make me pay my bills... And they are in a way, correct, to stay healthy you need resources and time, not always those are available, for example right now I am unemployed and have no contract, I have plenty of time, but no resources, and I am begging my parents to buy me some gymnastic rings I need for my exercises... but short term, I would be better if I stopped worrying for my health and went to get some short term job, even one blatantly unhealthy one (for example working with garbage). The thing is, I chased money (Because I was in debt) disregarding my health (out of necessity) from my 18 years until I was about 27 or 28... It is clear now the long term cost has been very, very high, my health is very damaged, yet if I had to go back, I don't think what I could have done differently, the path I took was the only path available to pay my debts, and in my country personal bankruptcy doesn't exist, not paying my debts wouldn't work.

pyrale 10y ago

> This reminds me of a quote (paraphrasing). "The market is the worst form of economic distribution, except for all others." Yeah, let's ignore all that has been done in Europe in terms of health, which did not involve markets but did work in practice. Us being rich, it's much more pleasant to financially harass the poor, rather than doing stuff like public health care, a preventive medical policy, or a real education system which would cost money to us, but would have a real impact.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

x0x0 10y ago

Not all increases in health care costs are bad. When we learn how to treat new diseases or conditions, that's good, even if it costs money.