5 ms·

If it actually works, an app like this could be worth 10x the price. Getting rid of all the time waste, all the stress of AD is worth a lot.

by bserge 5y ago

what_is_orcas 5y ago
Sure, but then isn't this just a "disability tax"? (I'm aware that the word disability is antiquated and not perfect here, but for the sake of being concise, this is what I wrote). The need for this app is a problem. Insurance should cover the cost of treatment (and insurance should be affordable and available; for transparency: I'm pro medicare for all, here in the US). Start ups have a bad habit of taking a systemic problem and trying to monetize a solution to it. In reality, the effort being put into this should be put, instead, toward making systemic changes that would make this app unneccessary.
- JohnBooty 5y ago
  Most of the folks on this thread seem to be objecting to the opt-out nature of their subscription service. I agree with them. On the other hand, you seem to be objecting to the very nature of money being charged for this app or any other healthcare service? It's gross, and I do not love this aspect of capitalism. I agree with you to that extent. But -- again, without ditching capitalism entirely -- what's the alternative? These folks are providing a service and that costs money. Aside from ditching capitalism entirely, what alternative is there to "charging $X to fix Y?" Literally anything amounts to a chronic or acute disability tax. The cost of asprin is a headache tax. And so on. The best capitalism has been able to do is roll these sorts of healthcare costs into insurance premiums, so we can share the cost collectively to an extent. Unfortunately I doubt an app like this is covered by any plan. The only other solution (within capitalism) I can imagine is if the creators of this app ran their company as a non-profit org. I have considered that in the past for a venture or two. But, the money would still need to come from somewhere.
  - what_is_orcas 5y ago
    You're right, I take a more aggressive stance on this sort of thing than others might. I'm also known to say "if you can't afford to pay your workers a living wage you can't afford to do business" of many retail/service environments. "But I need to make money, too" isn't an excuse. It wants to be, but it is not. I would agree that the biggest offender is the predatory model, but I would say that the way to do this _correctly_ is to do it free/OSS with a patreon. Let folks who use it pay what they think it's worth. The problem is that the incentive systems don't align. Someone elsewhere mentioned that this seemed to build dependency in its users (an anti-pattern in therapeutics (and elsewhere, but let's be specific to therapeutics for now)). With something like Patreon, the incentives are much closer aligned: the app _has_ to do good in order to well, because otherwise nobody will pay for it. Again, they (the developers) could also put their time & energy into enacting systemic change.
    - JohnBooty 5y ago
      "But I need to make money, too" isn't an excuse. It wants to be, but it is not. There's another way to phrase that. "But I would like to buy food, clothing, and pay my rent" isn't an excuse. It wants to be, but it is not. People need food and places to live. The vast majority of people on Earth aren't fortunate enough to have a year or two worth of savings to tide them over while they work on some dream project that I would say your incentives don't align. By effectively restricting the privilege of app/product creation to those people that have a strong economic cushion, you're effectively excluding most of the people on Earth, particularly those that not already wealthy and particularly those with people besides themselves to care for. "if you can't afford to pay your workers a living wage you can't afford to do business" of many retail/service environments. But app creators should just do it for free? Until the money maaaaybe rolls in? Most business/apps/etc fail.
      - what_is_orcas 5y ago
        > People need food and places to live. Yeah, and under capitalism, these are linked to some capitalist idea of productivity. We're getting a little far from the original point of this thread, but I'd argue that food & shelter & healthcare shouldn't be linked to "productivity". I think the way that this is applicable here is that when the private sector gets involved in an issue, it can be a lot harder for the issue to be addressed by the public sector. That's a really big topic, I'd suggest reading Winners Take All[0] for a more in-depth look at this. I'll leave this at: some things shouldn't be monetized (and this is one of them). > I would say your incentives don't align. I'm not sure what you mean. What are my incentives here? > But app creators should just do it for free? There are plenty of consumer spaces where I don't complain (publicly) about app-creators getting involved. This, being a "mental health" app, is an area where the public sector getting involved could be detrimental (see my comment elsewhere where I ask if this could be harmful in the long run). [0] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/539747/winners-take-all-by-anand-giridharadas/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/539747/winners-take...
- bserge 5y ago
  This is a solution to the main problem, which is healthcare being a steaming puddle of diarrhea and medication being gatekept by the industry and the government... for your own safety, of course. A poor solution imo (at least for any serious cases), but at least someone is trying something.

If it actually works, an app like this could be worth 10x the price. Getting rid of all the time waste, all the stress of AD is worth a lot.

by bserge 5y ago

If it actually works, an app like this could be worth 10x the price. Getting rid of all the time waste, all the stress of AD is worth a lot.

what_is_orcas 5y ago

Sure, but then isn't this just a "disability tax"? (I'm aware that the word disability is antiquated and not perfect here, but for the sake of being concise, this is what I wrote). The need for this app is a problem. Insurance should cover the cost of treatment (and insurance should be affordable and available; for transparency: I'm pro medicare for all, here in the US). Start ups have a bad habit of taking a systemic problem and trying to monetize a solution to it. In reality, the effort being put into this should be put, instead, toward making systemic changes that would make this app unneccessary.

JohnBooty 5y ago
Most of the folks on this thread seem to be objecting to the opt-out nature of their subscription service. I agree with them. On the other hand, you seem to be objecting to the very nature of money being charged for this app or any other healthcare service? It's gross, and I do not love this aspect of capitalism. I agree with you to that extent. But -- again, without ditching capitalism entirely -- what's the alternative? These folks are providing a service and that costs money. Aside from ditching capitalism entirely, what alternative is there to "charging $X to fix Y?" Literally anything amounts to a chronic or acute disability tax. The cost of asprin is a headache tax. And so on. The best capitalism has been able to do is roll these sorts of healthcare costs into insurance premiums, so we can share the cost collectively to an extent. Unfortunately I doubt an app like this is covered by any plan. The only other solution (within capitalism) I can imagine is if the creators of this app ran their company as a non-profit org. I have considered that in the past for a venture or two. But, the money would still need to come from somewhere.
- what_is_orcas 5y ago
  You're right, I take a more aggressive stance on this sort of thing than others might. I'm also known to say "if you can't afford to pay your workers a living wage you can't afford to do business" of many retail/service environments. "But I need to make money, too" isn't an excuse. It wants to be, but it is not. I would agree that the biggest offender is the predatory model, but I would say that the way to do this _correctly_ is to do it free/OSS with a patreon. Let folks who use it pay what they think it's worth. The problem is that the incentive systems don't align. Someone elsewhere mentioned that this seemed to build dependency in its users (an anti-pattern in therapeutics (and elsewhere, but let's be specific to therapeutics for now)). With something like Patreon, the incentives are much closer aligned: the app _has_ to do good in order to well, because otherwise nobody will pay for it. Again, they (the developers) could also put their time & energy into enacting systemic change.
  - JohnBooty 5y ago
    "But I need to make money, too" isn't an excuse. It wants to be, but it is not. There's another way to phrase that. "But I would like to buy food, clothing, and pay my rent" isn't an excuse. It wants to be, but it is not. People need food and places to live. The vast majority of people on Earth aren't fortunate enough to have a year or two worth of savings to tide them over while they work on some dream project that I would say your incentives don't align. By effectively restricting the privilege of app/product creation to those people that have a strong economic cushion, you're effectively excluding most of the people on Earth, particularly those that not already wealthy and particularly those with people besides themselves to care for. "if you can't afford to pay your workers a living wage you can't afford to do business" of many retail/service environments. But app creators should just do it for free? Until the money maaaaybe rolls in? Most business/apps/etc fail.
    - what_is_orcas 5y ago
      > People need food and places to live. Yeah, and under capitalism, these are linked to some capitalist idea of productivity. We're getting a little far from the original point of this thread, but I'd argue that food & shelter & healthcare shouldn't be linked to "productivity". I think the way that this is applicable here is that when the private sector gets involved in an issue, it can be a lot harder for the issue to be addressed by the public sector. That's a really big topic, I'd suggest reading Winners Take All[0] for a more in-depth look at this. I'll leave this at: some things shouldn't be monetized (and this is one of them). > I would say your incentives don't align. I'm not sure what you mean. What are my incentives here? > But app creators should just do it for free? There are plenty of consumer spaces where I don't complain (publicly) about app-creators getting involved. This, being a "mental health" app, is an area where the public sector getting involved could be detrimental (see my comment elsewhere where I ask if this could be harmful in the long run). [0] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/539747/winners-take-all-by-anand-giridharadas/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/539747/winners-take...
bserge 5y ago
This is a solution to the main problem, which is healthcare being a steaming puddle of diarrhea and medication being gatekept by the industry and the government... for your own safety, of course. A poor solution imo (at least for any serious cases), but at least someone is trying something.