5 ms·

Always bums me out a bit when I read about health insurance providers fighting tooth and nail to prevent or delay improvements in patient care.

by hh3k0 4y ago

number6 4y ago
Only acceptable answer would be to check if it really works and not some kind of scam.
oaiey 4y ago
That is most likely a general tactic. If you are an early adopter, you also carry the initial extra cost. Take exoskeleton, gene therapy, ... whatever. When they fight it for ... let us say ... 10 years, the cost has gone significantly down to a probably reasonable level. Health Insurance companies (especially non-totally-private ones) have an ugly battle of balancing the costs with the good of the many and not the individual.
DoreenMichele 4y ago
Most health insurance really should not exist. It's a fundamentally messed up idea. Insurance is a bet. You look at the odds and price things accordingly so you can cover the occasional big payout with the premiums from people who don't "win" so to speak. Playing with the lives and health of people to try to skew the bottom line one way or the other is fundamentally a stupid human practice. Government should provide some basic health services to protect the health of the nation as a whole, just like government tends to provide fire fighting services because letting one fool burn his own home down can burn down a lot more than just his home. It's a complicated topic and a pet peeve of mine. This approach to trying to keep people healthy is deeply flawed. Edit: Though I'm really not sure what your comment has to do with this article, to be honest.
- netrus 4y ago
  Insurance is a bet for the person taking the insurance, not the one offering it. Just as casinos are not gambling. Law of large numbers and all that. I agree that it's a weird business to be in (and certainly the US has not figured out the best approach), but this article is about Germany, and generally I think we strike the right balance here. Not in every detail, there is still a lot of room for improvement (too many insurances, too little competition between them, some questionable decisions about reimbursement) - but I wouldn't dare to claim that I could consistently make better decisions.
  - DoreenMichele 4y ago
    I worked in insurance for over five years. It's a bet by both parties and the law of large numbers matters less in health than it does in other kinds of insurance because (most) health outcomes are not actually the result of a random number generator going "Tag! You are it!" People make health choices every minute of every day and the landscape of health insurance is rapidly evolving due to the ability to track biometrics with wearables, among other things. I'm thrilled to see this article. It seems like really good news for people with paralysis.

Always bums me out a bit when I read about health insurance providers fighting tooth and nail to prevent or delay improvements in patient care.

by hh3k0 4y ago

Always bums me out a bit when I read about health insurance providers fighting tooth and nail to prevent or delay improvements in patient care.

number6 4y ago

Only acceptable answer would be to check if it really works and not some kind of scam.

oaiey 4y ago

That is most likely a general tactic. If you are an early adopter, you also carry the initial extra cost. Take exoskeleton, gene therapy, ... whatever. When they fight it for ... let us say ... 10 years, the cost has gone significantly down to a probably reasonable level. Health Insurance companies (especially non-totally-private ones) have an ugly battle of balancing the costs with the good of the many and not the individual.

DoreenMichele 4y ago

Most health insurance really should not exist. It's a fundamentally messed up idea. Insurance is a bet. You look at the odds and price things accordingly so you can cover the occasional big payout with the premiums from people who don't "win" so to speak. Playing with the lives and health of people to try to skew the bottom line one way or the other is fundamentally a stupid human practice. Government should provide some basic health services to protect the health of the nation as a whole, just like government tends to provide fire fighting services because letting one fool burn his own home down can burn down a lot more than just his home. It's a complicated topic and a pet peeve of mine. This approach to trying to keep people healthy is deeply flawed. Edit: Though I'm really not sure what your comment has to do with this article, to be honest.

netrus 4y ago
Insurance is a bet for the person taking the insurance, not the one offering it. Just as casinos are not gambling. Law of large numbers and all that. I agree that it's a weird business to be in (and certainly the US has not figured out the best approach), but this article is about Germany, and generally I think we strike the right balance here. Not in every detail, there is still a lot of room for improvement (too many insurances, too little competition between them, some questionable decisions about reimbursement) - but I wouldn't dare to claim that I could consistently make better decisions.
- DoreenMichele 4y ago
  I worked in insurance for over five years. It's a bet by both parties and the law of large numbers matters less in health than it does in other kinds of insurance because (most) health outcomes are not actually the result of a random number generator going "Tag! You are it!" People make health choices every minute of every day and the landscape of health insurance is rapidly evolving due to the ability to track biometrics with wearables, among other things. I'm thrilled to see this article. It seems like really good news for people with paralysis.