4 ms·

> STDs spread. It's not just the one patient who benefits, is it? You're making the case that the market would have the incentive to provide these things becau

> STDs spread. It's not just the one patient who benefits, is it? You're making the case that the market would have the incentive to provide these things because the insurance company would rather pay for an expensive test than have a larger number of claims if the disease spreads.

quantified 2y ago
People would rather stick their heads in the sand on average. Insurance companies would be spending on cheaper preventions for all kinds of things instead of expensive cures if they operated like you describe. They'd be ripping a new one in the meat industry to forestall antibiotic resistance, for example.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > Insurance companies would be spending on cheaper preventions for all kinds of things instead of expensive cures if they operated like you describe. The existing law has a massive defect that prevents any of that sort of thing from happening right now. We capped insurance company profits as a percentage of claims, so the only way they can make more money is by paying out more and bigger claims. We basically banned them from having any incentive to lower costs because now lower costs mean lower profits instead of higher ones. But that's a flaw in the existing system, not a flaw in the general concept. > They'd be ripping a new one in the meat industry to forestall antibiotic resistance, for example. There are already various state and federal laws restricting the use of antibiotics in livestock. But in general what leverage does an insurance company have over the meat industry?
  - relaxing 2y ago
    > But in general what leverage does an insurance company have over the meat industry? Same leverage they have over any of their customers. Raise cost of premiums or refuse to issue policy.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      The insurance company wants the farmers to stop using antibiotics on animals, not to get the farmers to switch insurance companies.

quantified 2y ago

People would rather stick their heads in the sand on average. Insurance companies would be spending on cheaper preventions for all kinds of things instead of expensive cures if they operated like you describe. They'd be ripping a new one in the meat industry to forestall antibiotic resistance, for example.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> Insurance companies would be spending on cheaper preventions for all kinds of things instead of expensive cures if they operated like you describe. The existing law has a massive defect that prevents any of that sort of thing from happening right now. We capped insurance company profits as a percentage of claims, so the only way they can make more money is by paying out more and bigger claims. We basically banned them from having any incentive to lower costs because now lower costs mean lower profits instead of higher ones. But that's a flaw in the existing system, not a flaw in the general concept. > They'd be ripping a new one in the meat industry to forestall antibiotic resistance, for example. There are already various state and federal laws restricting the use of antibiotics in livestock. But in general what leverage does an insurance company have over the meat industry?
- relaxing 2y ago
  > But in general what leverage does an insurance company have over the meat industry? Same leverage they have over any of their customers. Raise cost of premiums or refuse to issue policy.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    The insurance company wants the farmers to stop using antibiotics on animals, not to get the farmers to switch insurance companies.