This really could swing either way - companies will have a far greater incentive to focus on preventative health care, which is far more cost effective that the treatments cost years or decades later (smoking, sugar intake, lack of exercise, regular checkups). Also if they can do something about the insane cost of healthcare in the US, than can only be a good thing. Insurance companies have never addressed that.
On the other hand, your employer knowing everything about your health might not be a good thing. You can see a future where compensation, promotion and other decisions could be made with health considerations in mind, or even decisions about lay-offs. Employees could be more dependent than ever on their employers (COBRA isn't great but it can give you a cushion) so losing your job or quitting because of some unacceptable factor at work, would cost you more than ever.
Of course, the fact that this is even something they need to consider doing, because healthcare in this county is such a freaking mess, is the real tragedy.
Regarding your last paragraph, the US isn’t the USSR. We don’t need or want Government Healthcare. There is nothing that can be done by the private sector that cannot be made worse when the Federal government gets involved. The entire insurance and healthcare industries are ripe for massive deregulation and innovation shakeups. People will (against current beliefs) come to see that less interference is better and more competition is much better.
Enron. We can come up with plenty of examples where the private sector screwed up when it’s in their interest to do so. Federal government, oversight, and regulation fulfill valid job-to-be-done use cases.
The Federal government wasn’t in the same business as Enron and nothing improved after the Feds got involved!
It's an example of a private company in what is often a heavily government regulated business, running their business according to their own interests only. The point being that the interests of pure-private aren't always best for consumers, employees, or citizens.
Do you seriously think government politicians, regulators and the lawmaking establishment are not composed wholly of individual human beings who are also self-interested? The difference is this: bad companies eventually fail, bad governments are FAR HARDER TO GET RID OF.
1.1 million probably isn't a large enough pool to constrain costs. The reason federally run insurance programs like Medicare have been more successful in controlling costs vs. private insurance is specifically due to it being a nationwide pool. These three groups probably have a lot less leverage than they think, or else they're not admitting some other part of the plan...like jettisoning older employees from employment (i.e., those that aren't in upper level management).
This really could swing either way - companies will have a far greater incentive to focus on preventative health care, which is far more cost effective that the treatments cost years or decades later (smoking, sugar intake, lack of exercise, regular checkups). Also if they can do something about the insane cost of healthcare in the US, than can only be a good thing. Insurance companies have never addressed that.
On the other hand, your employer knowing everything about your health might not be a good thing. You can see a future where compensation, promotion and other decisions could be made with health considerations in mind, or even decisions about lay-offs. Employees could be more dependent than ever on their employers (COBRA isn't great but it can give you a cushion) so losing your job or quitting because of some unacceptable factor at work, would cost you more than ever.
Of course, the fact that this is even something they need to consider doing, because healthcare in this county is such a freaking mess, is the real tragedy.
Regarding your last paragraph, the US isn’t the USSR. We don’t need or want Government Healthcare. There is nothing that can be done by the private sector that cannot be made worse when the Federal government gets involved. The entire insurance and healthcare industries are ripe for massive deregulation and innovation shakeups. People will (against current beliefs) come to see that less interference is better and more competition is much better.
Enron. We can come up with plenty of examples where the private sector screwed up when it’s in their interest to do so. Federal government, oversight, and regulation fulfill valid job-to-be-done use cases.
The Federal government wasn’t in the same business as Enron and nothing improved after the Feds got involved!
It's an example of a private company in what is often a heavily government regulated business, running their business according to their own interests only. The point being that the interests of pure-private aren't always best for consumers, employees, or citizens.
What’s “best” isn’t for a politician or society to decide.
Of course it is. We decide what we value. If we decide that letting a private company manage energy utilities in our cities isn't a good idea because they can get too greedy and go unchecked or scam their books or cheat their employees are rip-off citizens, then we decide how we want to change that, including regulation.
If you don't like laws and regulations, you are free to full Unibomber and live in a cabin in the woods and dig a well.
I knew it, I knew it, I knew it! I’ve been saying for years, ‘get rid of this horrendous ACA, deregulate healthcare and businesses will provide answers’. I assumed Walmart, Amazon, Google/Alphabet and Apple would be among those jumping in and Bezos just made the first move. Expect Amazon stock to be richly rewarded and Apple stock to be kicked in the teeth for their timidity.
Personally, I’d be more comfortable trusting Apple with my healthcare, but Amazon gets the first mover advantage... again.
Hmm yah I don’t think you’ll be so hoorah when your employer decides the treatments you want cut too close to the bottom line.
I see less reason to trust my employer with making the best decisions for my health when it can be against their interests to do so.
You’re making the classic mistake of thinking this particular announcement is the end of it. This is just the beginning. Expect a lot of assumptions about what is or isn’t “healthcare” to be challenged.
Ok but what addressing what I said? To me there is a financial conflict of interest between what employers want and what patients want.
There's a conflict of interest between what I want and my what my insurer wants. What's the difference? The insurer takes yet another cut off the top to guarantee a profit. Bezo's and company wants to remove the additional profit on top of the the cost to provide the service. How would that be a bad thing?
I don't think I'd want my employer to be my healthcare provider. Especially one known for its mastery of mining data. I'd certainly want the strongest of firewalls between the healthcare side and the HR side.
But give people the chance to save (potentially) thousands of dollars annually on healthcare and they’ll be customers for life. With Amazon’s general reputation for quality and low price (not always the case, I know) they could easily dominate a new type of healthcare system for people. I expect big things fast when Amazon gets involved.
This is an exciting development, but I'm not sure the ethos of Amazon is a good fit for healthcare. The opportunities for "creepy" use of data are endless. Will Alexa auto-order Kleenex and Nyquil if they hear me sniffling? Or perhaps they'll ask me if I'm sure when I order a case of soda. It could be worse though: Facebook could be involved.
1.1 million probably isn't a large enough pool to constrain costs. The reason federally run insurance programs like Medicare have been more successful in controlling costs vs. private insurance is specifically due to it being a nationwide pool. These three groups probably have a lot less leverage than they think, or else they're not admitting some other part of the plan...like jettisoning older employees from employment (i.e., those that aren't in upper level management).
This really could swing either way - companies will have a far greater incentive to focus on preventative health care, which is far more cost effective that the treatments cost years or decades later (smoking, sugar intake, lack of exercise, regular checkups). Also if they can do something about the insane cost of healthcare in the US, than can only be a good thing. Insurance companies have never addressed that.
On the other hand, your employer knowing everything about your health might not be a good thing. You can see a future where compensation, promotion and other decisions could be made with health considerations in mind, or even decisions about lay-offs. Employees could be more dependent than ever on their employers (COBRA isn't great but it can give you a cushion) so losing your job or quitting because of some unacceptable factor at work, would cost you more than ever.
Of course, the fact that this is even something they need to consider doing, because healthcare in this county is such a freaking mess, is the real tragedy.
Regarding your last paragraph, the US isn’t the USSR. We don’t need or want Government Healthcare. There is nothing that can be done by the private sector that cannot be made worse when the Federal government gets involved. The entire insurance and healthcare industries are ripe for massive deregulation and innovation shakeups. People will (against current beliefs) come to see that less interference is better and more competition is much better.
Enron. We can come up with plenty of examples where the private sector screwed up when it’s in their interest to do so. Federal government, oversight, and regulation fulfill valid job-to-be-done use cases.
The Federal government wasn’t in the same business as Enron and nothing improved after the Feds got involved!
It's an example of a private company in what is often a heavily government regulated business, running their business according to their own interests only. The point being that the interests of pure-private aren't always best for consumers, employees, or citizens.
There’s no arguing with people like this guy. He read Atlas Shrugged and now refuses to accept any other ideas.
This really could swing either way - companies will have a far greater incentive to focus on preventative health care, which is far more cost effective that the treatments cost years or decades later (smoking, sugar intake, lack of exercise, regular checkups). Also if they can do something about the insane cost of healthcare in the US, than can only be a good thing. Insurance companies have never addressed that.
On the other hand, your employer knowing everything about your health might not be a good thing. You can see a future where compensation, promotion and other decisions could be made with health considerations in mind, or even decisions about lay-offs. Employees could be more dependent than ever on their employers (COBRA isn't great but it can give you a cushion) so losing your job or quitting because of some unacceptable factor at work, would cost you more than ever.
Of course, the fact that this is even something they need to consider doing, because healthcare in this county is such a freaking mess, is the real tragedy.
Regarding your last paragraph, the US isn’t the USSR. We don’t need or want Government Healthcare. There is nothing that can be done by the private sector that cannot be made worse when the Federal government gets involved. The entire insurance and healthcare industries are ripe for massive deregulation and innovation shakeups. People will (against current beliefs) come to see that less interference is better and more competition is much better.
Enron. We can come up with plenty of examples where the private sector screwed up when it’s in their interest to do so. Federal government, oversight, and regulation fulfill valid job-to-be-done use cases.
The Federal government wasn’t in the same business as Enron and nothing improved after the Feds got involved!
It's an example of a private company in what is often a heavily government regulated business, running their business according to their own interests only. The point being that the interests of pure-private aren't always best for consumers, employees, or citizens.
Do you seriously think government politicians, regulators and the lawmaking establishment are not composed wholly of individual human beings who are also self-interested? The difference is this: bad companies eventually fail, bad governments are FAR HARDER TO GET RID OF.
Without having specific items to discuss, I think there are less profit motivators for regulators than there are for executives. I worked in oil & gas for a decade and when youre drilling underwater oil fields regulation has a very real purpose, particularly with regards to safety and ecological impact. BSEE isn't motivated by individuals' greed.
It has happened before. The original Kaiser health plan was intended for employees of Kaiser Steel company in California. It has morphed into one of the largest and best health care systems.
Kaiser is a terrible health care system. Great for preventive but terrible if you're actually sick. Kaiser doctors are only so-so and Kaiser administrators care nothing but for the bottom line. A decade ago they killed a bunch of kidney transplant patients to save money. They dump patients, they delay or minimize mental health treatment, they don't comply with patient care data regulations, you can't sue them because if you use them you have to go through their arbitration process unless you jump through hoops to avoid it. The reason is when you do get to sue the outcome is often this:
"Her attorneys said the physicians’ refusal to authorize the MRI was an example of Kaiser trying to keep costs low."
No fucking thank you. I like my health insurance to come from another company. I don't mind all the corporate initiatives to improve health of employees but there's a huge conflict of interest between employees needing health care and corporations who are always trying to minimize costs.
I knew it, I knew it, I knew it! I’ve been saying for years, ‘get rid of this horrendous ACA, deregulate healthcare and businesses will provide answers’. I assumed Walmart, Amazon, Google/Alphabet and Apple would be among those jumping in and Bezos just made the first move. Expect Amazon stock to be richly rewarded and Apple stock to be kicked in the teeth for their timidity.
Personally, I’d be more comfortable trusting Apple with my healthcare, but Amazon gets the first mover advantage... again.
Hmm yah I don’t think you’ll be so hoorah when your employer decides the treatments you want cut too close to the bottom line.
I see less reason to trust my employer with making the best decisions for my health when it can be against their interests to do so.
You’re making the classic mistake of thinking this particular announcement is the end of it. This is just the beginning. Expect a lot of assumptions about what is or isn’t “healthcare” to be challenged.
Ok but what addressing what I said? To me there is a financial conflict of interest between what employers want and what patients want.
There's a conflict of interest between what I want and my what my insurer wants. What's the difference?
I can argue, challenge, and conduct legal proceedings with my insurance company without fear of losing my job. There is no logical reason my healthcare should be part of my employer's domain. The idea is alien.
This really could swing either way - companies will have a far greater incentive to focus on preventative health care, which is far more cost effective that the treatments cost years or decades later (smoking, sugar intake, lack of exercise, regular checkups). Also if they can do something about the insane cost of healthcare in the US, than can only be a good thing. Insurance companies have never addressed that.
On the other hand, your employer knowing everything about your health might not be a good thing. You can see a future where compensation, promotion and other decisions could be made with health considerations in mind, or even decisions about lay-offs. Employees could be more dependent than ever on their employers (COBRA isn't great but it can give you a cushion) so losing your job or quitting because of some unacceptable factor at work, would cost you more than ever.
Of course, the fact that this is even something they need to consider doing, because healthcare in this county is such a freaking mess, is the real tragedy.
Regarding your last paragraph, the US isn’t the USSR. We don’t need or want Government Healthcare. There is nothing that can be done by the private sector that cannot be made worse when the Federal government gets involved. The entire insurance and healthcare industries are ripe for massive deregulation and innovation shakeups. People will (against current beliefs) come to see that less interference is better and more competition is much better.
Enron. We can come up with plenty of examples where the private sector screwed up when it’s in their interest to do so. Federal government, oversight, and regulation fulfill valid job-to-be-done use cases.
The Federal government wasn’t in the same business as Enron and nothing improved after the Feds got involved!
It's an example of a private company in what is often a heavily government regulated business, running their business according to their own interests only. The point being that the interests of pure-private aren't always best for consumers, employees, or citizens.
There’s no arguing with people like this guy. He read Atlas Shrugged and now refuses to accept any other ideas.
They don't talk about the part where Ayn Rand enrolled in social security and used medicare to help pay for her medical bills after decades of unhealthy living decisions, picked up by the taxpayer. Oops!
I knew it, I knew it, I knew it! I’ve been saying for years, ‘get rid of this horrendous ACA, deregulate healthcare and businesses will provide answers’. I assumed Walmart, Amazon, Google/Alphabet and Apple would be among those jumping in and Bezos just made the first move. Expect Amazon stock to be richly rewarded and Apple stock to be kicked in the teeth for their timidity.
Personally, I’d be more comfortable trusting Apple with my healthcare, but Amazon gets the first mover advantage... again.
Hmm yah I don’t think you’ll be so hoorah when your employer decides the treatments you want cut too close to the bottom line.
I see less reason to trust my employer with making the best decisions for my health when it can be against their interests to do so.
You’re making the classic mistake of thinking this particular announcement is the end of it. This is just the beginning. Expect a lot of assumptions about what is or isn’t “healthcare” to be challenged.
Ok but what addressing what I said? To me there is a financial conflict of interest between what employers want and what patients want.
There's a conflict of interest between what I want and my what my insurer wants. What's the difference?
I can argue, challenge, and conduct legal proceedings with my insurance company without fear of losing my job. There is no logical reason my healthcare should be part of my employer's domain. The idea is alien.
Oh, we’re in agreement there. There should be absolutely no requirement an employer offer employees any kind of insurance coverage, except if it is voluntary and in response to competitive pressures.
The more potential disruptors the better. Healthcare is a ridiculously huge percentage of GDP in the US. Despite recognition and attempted reforms since at least the 1990s, the system is still bloated (mostly imho for reasons sketched by Rob above). The watch is HUGE individual empowerment for a healthy lifestyle. And Apple's electronic records facilitates larger social improvements. In short, complements the latest news from Amazon, Berkshire, Citi.
This really could swing either way - companies will have a far greater incentive to focus on preventative health care, which is far more cost effective that the treatments cost years or decades later (smoking, sugar intake, lack of exercise, regular checkups). Also if they can do something about the insane cost of healthcare in the US, than can only be a good thing. Insurance companies have never addressed that.
On the other hand, your employer knowing everything about your health might not be a good thing. You can see a future where compensation, promotion and other decisions could be made with health considerations in mind, or even decisions about lay-offs. Employees could be more dependent than ever on their employers (COBRA isn't great but it can give you a cushion) so losing your job or quitting because of some unacceptable factor at work, would cost you more than ever.
Of course, the fact that this is even something they need to consider doing, because healthcare in this county is such a freaking mess, is the real tragedy.
Regarding your last paragraph, the US isn’t the USSR. We don’t need or want Government Healthcare. There is nothing that can be done by the private sector that cannot be made worse when the Federal government gets involved. The entire insurance and healthcare industries are ripe for massive deregulation and innovation shakeups. People will (against current beliefs) come to see that less interference is better and more competition is much better.
Enron. We can come up with plenty of examples where the private sector screwed up when it’s in their interest to do so. Federal government, oversight, and regulation fulfill valid job-to-be-done use cases.
The Federal government wasn’t in the same business as Enron and nothing improved after the Feds got involved!
It's an example of a private company in what is often a heavily government regulated business, running their business according to their own interests only. The point being that the interests of pure-private aren't always best for consumers, employees, or citizens.
There’s no arguing with people like this guy. He read Atlas Shrugged and now refuses to accept any other ideas.
The headline says "Amazon, big finance spearhead healthcare effort withoutprofit-making incentives". As though not having profit-making incentives it is something odd or out-of-the-ordinary.
Most of the US healthcare spending -- which is hospitals, physician/clinical groups, nursing homes, and the federal/state/local government (collectively, about 75% of the $3.2 trillion in US health spending) -- is in the not-for-profit or government sectors.
I knew it, I knew it, I knew it! I’ve been saying for years, ‘get rid of this horrendous ACA, deregulate healthcare and businesses will provide answers’. I assumed Walmart, Amazon, Google/Alphabet and Apple would be among those jumping in and Bezos just made the first move. Expect Amazon stock to be richly rewarded and Apple stock to be kicked in the teeth for their timidity.
Personally, I’d be more comfortable trusting Apple with my healthcare, but Amazon gets the first mover advantage... again.
Hmm yah I don’t think you’ll be so hoorah when your employer decides the treatments you want cut too close to the bottom line.
I see less reason to trust my employer with making the best decisions for my health when it can be against their interests to do so.
You’re making the classic mistake of thinking this particular announcement is the end of it. This is just the beginning. Expect a lot of assumptions about what is or isn’t “healthcare” to be challenged.
Ok but what addressing what I said? To me there is a financial conflict of interest between what employers want and what patients want.
There's a conflict of interest between what I want and my what my insurer wants. What's the difference?
I can argue, challenge, and conduct legal proceedings with my insurance company without fear of losing my job. There is no logical reason my healthcare should be part of my employer's domain. The idea is alien.
Companies used to self-insure their employees before healthcare costs exploded. There are several groups to blame for the ridiculous increase in costs, in no particular order, greedy doctors, greedy insurance companies, greedy doctor's medical groups, Wall Street, and greedy prescription companies. Blaming ACA (@SpamSandwich) doesn't get to the root cause. Starting to cover your own employees hopefully would get rid of the money-sucking middle companies, especially the insurance companies. All you have to do is look at the insane profits companies like Anthem (market cap of $62B, stock price 400% increase in last 5 years) makes for pushing paper to understand where the problem lies. You can complain all you want about socialized medicine and government waste but your medical insurance costs are driven by Wall Street greed and not by our government. Why are so many people involved in paying our medical bills? Every extra person who touches that money takes their cut and they don't deserve it. Get rid of these companies and costs would go down--as long as one of the other middle companies doesn't do a money grab to keep it where it is.
The larger problem is insurance companies are treated like banks, too big to fail. More and more companies are being added to that list making it very difficult to streamline any business to save consumers money. (Take consumers either way you want, plural or possessive.) I hope these companies can actually find a way to reduce medical costs but is they simply take a short cut and continue to outsource their medical accounts handling to an insurance company they haven't improved anything.
“Greed” isn’t a root cause of the massive spike in costs, regulation and real market competition interference is the root cause. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, is individually self-interested, whether they are willing to admit this fundamental truth or not.
When COMPETITION instead of top-down control is involved, it is competition that squeezes out that self-interest which serves immediate needs in favor of long-term mutual self-benefit.
If there was no competition and unlimited demand for cell phones, a single cell phone company could charge anything it wanted for a phone and there would be nothing anyone could do about it.
Well that’s the standard free market theory anyway.
Healthcare isn’t a good purchased directly. It’s purchased by your insurance company and when you or they are often in a position not to be able to argue the costs. There’s not much shopping around to be done in a life or death situation. You are brought to whatever emergency capable hospital is closest and the health care provider is in fact a monopoly. It’s not like taking a few weeks to buy a phone.
Thats not the only problem with a free market health policy which inevitably depends on insurance - which it must. Health Insurance is a form of distribution akin to socialism. It’s privatised socialism. It’s not quite that everybody pays according to their ability - although the rich do pay more, but it is to each according to their needs. Provided they have the correct plan.
The sick are subsidised by the healthy. The old by the young. If you wanted a full free market system the old would end up not getting insurance, nor the chronically ill, nor the at risk, nor lots of people. At least not without huge premiums which most could not afford.
Any full free market system would work for the healthy and rich.
I knew it, I knew it, I knew it! I’ve been saying for years, ‘get rid of this horrendous ACA, deregulate healthcare and businesses will provide answers’. I assumed Walmart, Amazon, Google/Alphabet and Apple would be among those jumping in and Bezos just made the first move. Expect Amazon stock to be richly rewarded and Apple stock to be kicked in the teeth for their timidity.
Personally, I’d be more comfortable trusting Apple with my healthcare, but Amazon gets the first mover advantage... again.
Hmm yah I don’t think you’ll be so hoorah when your employer decides the treatments you want cut too close to the bottom line.
I see less reason to trust my employer with making the best decisions for my health when it can be against their interests to do so.
You’re making the classic mistake of thinking this particular announcement is the end of it. This is just the beginning. Expect a lot of assumptions about what is or isn’t “healthcare” to be challenged.
Ok but what addressing what I said? To me there is a financial conflict of interest between what employers want and what patients want.
There's a conflict of interest between what I want and my what my insurer wants. What's the difference? The insurer takes yet another cut off the top to guarantee a profit. Bezo's and company wants to remove the additional profit on top of the the cost to provide the service. How would that be a bad thing?
Your insurer won't demote you for being pregnant or fire you because your likelihood of becoming sick is high. Yes, these are "illegal" but they do happen even today (see complaints against ESPN and female anchors).
There is a huge conflict of interest for corporations that self insure and you're a lot more likely to become unemployed and uninsured in one step.
I don't think I'd want my employer to be my healthcare provider. Especially one known for its mastery of mining data. I'd certainly want the strongest of firewalls between the healthcare side and the HR side.
I don't think I'd want my employer to be my healthcare provider. Especially one known for its mastery of mining data. I'd certainly want the strongest of firewalls between the healthcare side and the HR side.
Comments
If you don't like laws and regulations, you are free to full Unibomber and live in a cabin in the woods and dig a well.
https://tomwoods.com/ep-558-medicare-and-medicaid-50-years-later-the-awful-truth/
"Her attorneys said the physicians’ refusal to authorize the MRI was an example of Kaiser trying to keep costs low."
https://www.dailynews.com/2015/03/26/san-fernando-valley-woman-wins-28-million-against-kaiser-permanente/
No fucking thank you. I like my health insurance to come from another company. I don't mind all the corporate initiatives to improve health of employees but there's a huge conflict of interest between employees needing health care and corporations who are always trying to minimize costs.
I can argue, challenge, and conduct legal proceedings with my insurance company without fear of losing my job. There is no logical reason my healthcare should be part of my employer's domain. The idea is alien.
Most of the US healthcare spending -- which is hospitals, physician/clinical groups, nursing homes, and the federal/state/local government (collectively, about 75% of the $3.2 trillion in US health spending) -- is in the not-for-profit or government sectors.
http://www.lni.wa.gov/ClaimsIns/Insurance/SelfInsure/EmpList/FindEmps/Default.asp
But I don't think what Bezos has in mind is as simple as that anyway since it's nothing new.
Healthcare isn’t a good purchased directly. It’s purchased by your insurance company and when you or they are often in a position not to be able to argue the costs. There’s not much shopping around to be done in a life or death situation. You are brought to whatever emergency capable hospital is closest and the health care provider is in fact a monopoly. It’s not like taking a few weeks to buy a phone.
Thats not the only problem with a free market health policy which inevitably depends on insurance - which it must. Health Insurance is a form of distribution akin to socialism. It’s privatised socialism. It’s not quite that everybody pays according to their ability - although the rich do pay more, but it is to each according to their needs. Provided they have the correct plan.
The sick are subsidised by the healthy. The old by the young. If you wanted a full free market system the old would end up not getting insurance, nor the chronically ill, nor the at risk, nor lots of people. At least not without huge premiums which most could not afford.
Any full free market system would work for the healthy and rich.
There is a huge conflict of interest for corporations that self insure and you're a lot more likely to become unemployed and uninsured in one step.