7 ms·

Always be skeptical when the person giving you a diagnosis also directly benefits from giving you a particular diagnosis. This goes for dentists, banking and so

by spupe 4y ago

Always be skeptical when the person giving you a diagnosis also directly benefits from giving you a particular diagnosis. This goes for dentists, banking and so much more.

TheFreim 4y ago
Insurance is a similar one. The one who benefits from not paying is the one who chooses to accept or deny claims.
- semicolon_storm 4y ago
  It looks that way to the consumer, but I don’t believe that to be true. I’ve worked in the industry for a few years and most of insurance products I’ve seen are structured in a way that the company reviewing and processing the claim isn’t actually responsible for paying out the claim.
  - manfre 4y ago
    The reviewing company is paid by the other company. There is the incentive to decide in its favor to ensure contract renewals.
  - ValentineC 4y ago
    > I’ve worked in the industry for a few years and most of insurance products I’ve seen are structured in a way that the company reviewing and processing the claim isn’t actually responsible for paying out the claim. Is this in the US context, or whereever you're from? It sure doesn't seem that way here in Singapore.
  - spaetzleesser 4y ago
    The reviewing company is hired by the paying company. they will still do whatever it takes to please who is paying them.
weego 4y ago
Bricks and mortar opticians.
paulcole 4y ago
Can you give an example of a professional for whom this isn’t the case? Maybe a general practice doctor referring to a specialist? But often this involves trips back to the GP for checkups as well.
- criddell 4y ago
  How about a fiduciary? Or maybe certain home inspectors?
  - zippergz 4y ago
    Most home inspectors are beholden to real estate agents. While it may seem like you are the client because you are paying them, at the end of the day it's the real estate agent they want to make happy, so they keep sending them business. That may mean not being too thorough, in order to not "kill the deal," or finding some stuff to request repair/credit for to show the buyer how hard the agent is working to earn their commission, but rarely does it mean fully working in the best interests of the buyer.
    - criddell 4y ago
      That's why I qualified with the word certain. I'd never use an inspector recommended by my agent and I'm not sure how to find a trustworthy inspector. In the past I've used a person recommended by somebody I trust. What you said is true though and it became clear to me during the inspection. At the time my realtor told me my inspector was being ridiculous because he was documenting lots of things that weren't really problems but were recommendations and things to be watched.
      - bombcar 4y ago
        I don't even really consider "home inspector finds a fault that cancels the sale" to be a "thing" - I'm mainly hiring them to find all the likely things I'll need to work on going into the house. And the quality varies incredibly because they're basically paid to rubber stamp things (and usually if they DO find something, it's already been disclosed or is quite obvious). Some go to more trouble and I'd say that running a camera down the sewer line is a good indicator that they're doing this (and ALWAYS GET THIS DONE if the house hasn't been lived in recently, or just in general). https://structuretech.com/all-blogs/ https://structuretech.com/all-blogs/ is an example of one that uses their blog to promote, and they mention "roof walk" and "sewer camera" as examples of their value-add. They also have an example report to look at (many, many reports end up with fifty pages of photographs and 'an expert should look at this' which is great for covering the inspector's arse but useless for the homeowner). Inspectors that openly offer inspections for houses that are not being sold would be another one, they have to provide value.
psim1 4y ago
In my state, annual automobile safety inspections are required. I have always been suspicious of this because naturally the auto shop doing the inspection offers to repair any flaws they discover. In most cases, the safety issues are obvious (thin tire treads, worn brakes, rust damage) so if you have a little bit of understanding you can verify the shop's claims and seek repairs elsewhere if the cost is too high.
- bombcar 4y ago
  California has "test only" smog stations, though this was mainly to combat stations that would "just pass everyone" but they couldn't prove it. Something like that can be worthwhile if you don't know who to trust; find someone who doesn't sell anything but the test.

by spupe 4y ago

Always be skeptical when the person giving you a diagnosis also directly benefits from giving you a particular diagnosis. This goes for dentists, banking and so much more.

TheFreim 4y ago

Insurance is a similar one. The one who benefits from not paying is the one who chooses to accept or deny claims.

semicolon_storm 4y ago
It looks that way to the consumer, but I don’t believe that to be true. I’ve worked in the industry for a few years and most of insurance products I’ve seen are structured in a way that the company reviewing and processing the claim isn’t actually responsible for paying out the claim.
- manfre 4y ago
  The reviewing company is paid by the other company. There is the incentive to decide in its favor to ensure contract renewals.
- ValentineC 4y ago
  > I’ve worked in the industry for a few years and most of insurance products I’ve seen are structured in a way that the company reviewing and processing the claim isn’t actually responsible for paying out the claim. Is this in the US context, or whereever you're from? It sure doesn't seem that way here in Singapore.
- spaetzleesser 4y ago
  The reviewing company is hired by the paying company. they will still do whatever it takes to please who is paying them.

weego 4y ago

Bricks and mortar opticians.

paulcole 4y ago

Can you give an example of a professional for whom this isn’t the case? Maybe a general practice doctor referring to a specialist? But often this involves trips back to the GP for checkups as well.

criddell 4y ago
How about a fiduciary? Or maybe certain home inspectors?
- zippergz 4y ago
  Most home inspectors are beholden to real estate agents. While it may seem like you are the client because you are paying them, at the end of the day it's the real estate agent they want to make happy, so they keep sending them business. That may mean not being too thorough, in order to not "kill the deal," or finding some stuff to request repair/credit for to show the buyer how hard the agent is working to earn their commission, but rarely does it mean fully working in the best interests of the buyer.
  - criddell 4y ago
    That's why I qualified with the word certain. I'd never use an inspector recommended by my agent and I'm not sure how to find a trustworthy inspector. In the past I've used a person recommended by somebody I trust. What you said is true though and it became clear to me during the inspection. At the time my realtor told me my inspector was being ridiculous because he was documenting lots of things that weren't really problems but were recommendations and things to be watched.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      I don't even really consider "home inspector finds a fault that cancels the sale" to be a "thing" - I'm mainly hiring them to find all the likely things I'll need to work on going into the house. And the quality varies incredibly because they're basically paid to rubber stamp things (and usually if they DO find something, it's already been disclosed or is quite obvious). Some go to more trouble and I'd say that running a camera down the sewer line is a good indicator that they're doing this (and ALWAYS GET THIS DONE if the house hasn't been lived in recently, or just in general). https://structuretech.com/all-blogs/ https://structuretech.com/all-blogs/ is an example of one that uses their blog to promote, and they mention "roof walk" and "sewer camera" as examples of their value-add. They also have an example report to look at (many, many reports end up with fifty pages of photographs and 'an expert should look at this' which is great for covering the inspector's arse but useless for the homeowner). Inspectors that openly offer inspections for houses that are not being sold would be another one, they have to provide value.

psim1 4y ago

In my state, annual automobile safety inspections are required. I have always been suspicious of this because naturally the auto shop doing the inspection offers to repair any flaws they discover. In most cases, the safety issues are obvious (thin tire treads, worn brakes, rust damage) so if you have a little bit of understanding you can verify the shop's claims and seek repairs elsewhere if the cost is too high.

bombcar 4y ago
California has "test only" smog stations, though this was mainly to combat stations that would "just pass everyone" but they couldn't prove it. Something like that can be worthwhile if you don't know who to trust; find someone who doesn't sell anything but the test.