Slashdot Mirror
Insurance Won't Cover Smartphones, When Pricey Alternatives Exist
consonant writes "The NY Times has an article on insurers refusing to cover cheaper devices such as iPhones and netbooks which may be used by the speech-impaired, and instead requires them to acquire devices that cost from 10 to 20 times as much. The reason? 'Insurance is supposed to cover medical devices, and smartphones or PCs can be used for nonmedical purposes, like playing video games or Web browsing.' From the article: 'For the millions of Americans with A.L.S., Down syndrome, autism, strokes and other speech-impairing conditions, the insurance industry's aversion to covering mainstream devices adds to the challenges they face. Advocates say using an everyday device to communicate can ease the stigma and fear of making the adjustment. At the same time, current policies mean that the government and private insurers may be spending unnecessary dollars on specialty machines.'"
It'll be amazing how many people suddenly come down with "disabilities" once insurance companies start paying for fancy PDAs and SmartPhones...
Also, once a PDA or SmartPhone is declared a "medical device," it will be subject to the same approvals and liabilities as medical devices, and will therefore cost 10 to 20 times as much as they do today...
This "insurance is supposed to cover medical devices" comes directly from government regulation. Even if an insurance company like Nationwide wanted to provide coverage to buy an Iphone for their hearing-disabled customer, they could not do it, else they'd be fined by the U.S. Congress.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
... is there anything stupid, evil or simply wrong that they will not do?
At the same time, current policies mean that the government and private insurers may be spending unnecessary dollars on specialty machines
That's the point, isn't it?
On the one hand, devices have to go through insane amounts of certification to pass as an official medical device. On the other hand, I'm sure medical device manufacturers really don't want cheap (or even reasonably priced) software on commodity devices eating their lunch.
I suspect the regulations are doing their work for them, but if they weren't, they'd be colluding with the insurers to make damn sure they didn't support commodity devices.
Is anyone really suprised by this move?
Insurance isn't about helping people. It's about making money. And such devices are cheaply made and prone to problems and breaking.
Just good business not to cover them.
What TFS leaves out is that the reason "medical devices" cost so much is FDA regulations and the higher standards to which they are held. There is no possible way an iPhone could be certified as a "medical device". If Apple were to apply for certification, they would need to make a lot of changes, such as...wait for it...eliminating the ability to run 3rd party code.
Yes, insurance companies can be stupid when applying rules against paying for certain devises or "experimental" procedures. But ask the women whose lives were cut short by Congress forcing them to cover bone marrow transplants for breast cancer.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
It reminds me of transit benefits, and how you're only allowed to use them for getting to and from work - God forbid that we take public transit for personal trips - it would be a tragedy... also, it reminds me how the Aptera is ineligible for auto-industry loans because it only has three wheels and the law says an auto has four wheels.... at least Congress is thinking about changing that one (well, at the "this is eligible for loans" level, not the "cars have four wheels" level. . .)
-- still wondering why my health insurance can't be more like my auto insurance, where I get to pick someone who has their act together...
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
can govt pay for my ATV? The alternative is a really expensive wheel chair...
sheesh, no wonder insurance rates are skyrocketing
as such why do people think health insurance is prohibitively expensive when bought outside an employer, granted its not cheap through an employer either.
Government regulations, read mandates.
Its not legal to buy health insurance across state lines, you can't even take individual health policies across most lines, all unless your covered by your employer. Your employer gets a tax deduction for your insurance that you cannot get if you buy your own. when you go to buy it you get soaked because each state piles on its mandated coverage to the already onerous federal mandates.
From mental health to smoking cessation. From pregnancy to implants. You will end up paying for coverage you will not use, in many cases cannot use, all because of some petty politicians whim. That is why we have 1000 page health bills, not because they are looking out for us, they are deciding what is and what isn't.
So yeah, I can totally see one device used in preference to another, the government says "this is what we will pay for and this list shows the extent of what qualifies"
How in the hell do you think the hovaround business stays in business. Because of the stroke of a pen makes anyone with a job buy them for people who may not even want them.
It will get vastly worse when the government takes total control. Every bit player will get their funding for their "medical" devices and the only thing not getting real money is patient care.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
No, really, it's everywhere.
A few years back, I had to have an operation on my foot. The doctor said he could do the operation in his office under local anesthetic and the whole thing would cost a couple thousand bucks (memory's fuzzy), or we could do it in a hospital where it'd be 5x more expensive. The catch? My insurance would cover the hospital outpatient surgery, but not his office (which was also a fully licensed and certified surgical center, just not attached to a hospital). So I did it in the hospital, of course; I was between contracts and couldn't afford to do otherwise even if I had felt noble enough to do it for the good of the health care system.
Misguided incentives like this are all over health insurance--just look at the varying coverage rates for preventive care vs. corrective care (like diabetes maintenance vs. amputations). If you can put off the treatment until later, there's a reasonable chance that some other insurance company will pick up the more expensive tab, and "patient outcomes? What's that?"
It's one of the strongest arguments for a single-payer healthcare system: the chance to remove loopholes that lead to these bad incentives.
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
If the devices cost so little to begin with, why bother with insurance or money claims?
If i had a disability, i'd say 400 dollars is money well spent... and it would probably last you for a couple of years.
Sigs are for the weak.
They're not talking about that sort of insurance (which you can already get). The article is from the USA, where "insurer" means medical insurance.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
I never thought I'd see an article that would refer to the iPhone as "cheap."
Customers: I've paid my insurance premiums all my life. Now that I've had this terrible accident I need you to cover some modest expenses required for me to maintain the semblence of the life I once had.
Insurers: We thank you for your custom. Your call is important to us. However, you fail to understand even the most basic aspects of our business model. We're here to fuck you, not help you. Coverage denied. Thank you for playing.
(Applicable to most forms of health-related insurance it seems)
In the context of things like this, it amazes me (as an American, no less) that the US still finds itself embroiled in the health-care debate the rest of the industrialized world successfully resolved more than 60 years ago (in some places, as long as 80-90 years ago). Even with neanderthals like the Republicans around, you'd have thought the moderate and progressive populations of the country would have dragged that country out of the stone age by now ... but I digress.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Insurance is about risk management. It's a financial product, not a health one. I pay someone x amount of dollars to provide me the right get y amount of money back based on a risk. By demanding that insurance companies provide all of these things that have absolutely nothing to do with risk, you've screwed this country up. You've basically, like all liberals, twisted something else an excuse to go steal some money.
If you want to have money for people with chronic conditions, make them a federal problem and pay for it with tax money. I recommend taxing intellectual property and imports to come up with the dough.
But for me, all I want is a financial product that says I get coverage for if I have a sudden expensive illness. I don't need or want the federal government, or my employer, to do that.
1. Get employers out of health
2. Put chronic illnesses onto the government
3. Cut everything out of insurance that is non-risk related.
Duh.
This is my sig.
People also need food, shelter, clothing and heat to stay healthy. Should we expect health insurance to pay for that?
There should be a principle like the legal de minimus rex that puts a floor on health-related expenses that we expect health insurance to cover.
Indeed, if we had stuck with the catastrophic major medical only policies that used to be the only kind of health insurance, our medical care would be much more affordable today. People would pay for routine doctor bills, and if doctors charged more than the common man can afford, they would lose business.
Vast numbers of 20-something males have come down with severe pain: 1/3rd of the MM patients are in this demographic according state statistics. Each patient is allowed to grow six plants at one time. However this task can be delegated to a "caregiver". There are now hundred ads filling five pages in our alternative weekly advertising caregivers.
Hey look! I take "subject of TFA" plus "current events" plus "car analogy" (well, auto industry subsidy analogy) to comment on the likely future outcome of related matters, and what thanks do I get? I'm moderated down to Flamebait oblivion! How dare I imply that the government takeover of health care which our current administration seeks will be anything less than a perfect utopia? It will be so good that everyone will get an iPhone for free, not just the people with speech impediments!
There's some insight to be drawn here about the everyday partisans who are supporting the public health-care cause. I'll leave it to you to figure out exactly what it is, though. In the meantime, go back and read the moderator guidelines... jerks.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
I have 2 cousins who are deaf. They have been using smart phones for a long time rather than TTY devices. In addition, they are all over the net as a means of communication.
They have always paid for this out of pocket. Amazingly, they never had insurance companies to pay for their TTY devices in the first place (those devices cost around 400 bucks about twenty years ago) so I think they are happy just paying for a cheaper service.
I think getting closed captioning added to all televisions was the biggest savings for them. I know my aunt and uncle paid about 20 bucks a month or so and a couple hundred bucks up front for closed captioning devices about 20 years ago.
I'm not sure what insurance you would have that would have paid for these things in the past. I'm sure there are some plans, but honestly, for most 'normal' folks without great insurance plans, these things were just expenses that everyone paid for and just looked at as part of the expense of raising a child, no different than medicine, food, and clothing.
If a doctor writes a prescription for a non-prescription, that should count for something.
Basically, this is no different than a doctor telling a patient "keep weight off that foot: use a walker, crutches, or cane" but insurance will only cover the walker or crutches not a cane, which may be less expensive.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The ONLY way that an insurance company should be able to insure a phone is if the phone has everything stripped of it except for the ability to dial 911 and use the medical software. Why the hell is anyone assuming that slapping an iBandaid program on something means that if your dumb ass drops the iPhone in the toilet someone else should pay to replace it?
And how many of us here bother to spend insurance on electronic items (I know some do, but I don't think it's universal)? Or is the article on about something else altogether?
Indecently, my standard renters insurance policy covers my home computer gear, and has an add-on "floater" policy to cover my laptops when not at home.
The floater costs a little bit extra each month (~$40, but changes on your level of coverage), but covers theft as well as damages like fire, etc.
My iPhone is relatively new, so not insured at all, but I imagine they would let me add it to the floater policy similar to how my laptops are covered.
I would never have dreamed of attempting to claim it was for medical purposes and get medical insurance over the thing, when normal insurance is so cheap and plentiful!
Check with your renters or home owners insurance company and see what they offer. You might be surprised how inexpensive it can be.
Why was that modded offtopic? Clearly it was going to be about how "how many people suddenly come down with "disabilities" once insurance companies start paying for fancy PDAs and SmartPhones", although I'm not sure that attention deficit disorder is much helped by fancy PDAs and -- oh, look! A butterfly!
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
That was, in fact, informative. Not sure exactly why the question was marked flamebait, but I guess it wasn't you who went and did it, so... Thanks.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
As the Obama healthcare reform is also international news, I read an analysis of the US medical system here in the local newspaper in The Netherlands. The US as a country spends twice as much for it's healthcare as Germany and France, while only 83% of the US Americans have an insurance.
This is because US healthcare is not about health; it is about the caring industry. There's no room for prevention (as there's no profit from prevention), there's only room for Care.
TFA seems just like another example of it.
my other sig is a 500 page novel
Well, I guess technically if there was something stupid, evil or simply wrong that requires them to pay money for, they'd probably try to weasel out of it :P
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
If there ever was a good excuse for crippled software then this might be it. Allow the application to lock out all the other functions of the iphone the insurance companies fear. That way you get the cost savings of a commondity device as the platform, but avoid the temptation of people to try to get phony perscriptions. I sort of doubt this temptation logic but the insurance companies probably know better than I do about how that goes. There are tonnes of shady companies pushing home health devices that can be justified under medicare but don't really work or soon break (e.g. scooters whose batteries quickly die). They can just imagine how an easy to sell iphone would become.
Moreover you can imagine that while this test to speech is a compelling use case, there are tonnes of other marginal justifications. for example, a timer application might be sold as a reminder for diabetics to check their glucose. A web based local pollen count application for asthmatics. all of these justifying that the insurance companies buy someone an iphone.
(by the way getting diagnosed as an asthmatic is apparently easy since all the pro bike riders have prescriptions for inhalers for brochial passage enlargers)
making the app cripple the device would sort of fix the dillema but still allow genuine need cases to get what they need.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
You're not understanding the article. As the parent already stated, they're talking about medical insurance, not property insurance.
And why does she need the insurance to pay for it? Because that's they're job. That's why she's paying for a medical plan. If the devices were free, then you wouldn't need your insurance company to pay for it.
The article is about Medical Insurance (HMO's, etc) paying for consumer devices such as iPhones and software to run medical uses, such as a speech generator for those that cannot speak for themselves. Currently they will pay for expensive, more customized devices. THIS ARTICLE IS NOT SPEAKING AT ALL ABOUT REPLACEMENT OR LOSS INSURENCE!
This is Slashdot. Everything government does is treasonous and everything business does is beautiful!
That's not been the case in the countries that do in fact have total government control of health care spending.
(Fingers in ears) La-la-la I can't hear you!
Normally I wouldn't bother taking insurance out on a mobile, but the iPhone is pretty easy to lose and expensive to replace. Now one could easily say,"Well, just take good care of your mobile so you don't need insurance." With the best will in the world though, accidents happen - even to otherwise very careful people. That's life.
Earlier this year I did indeed lose my iPhone. No problem though - I quickly obtained a police reference number, visited the store I bought my iPhone from, and walked out ten minutes later with a brand new one! And iTunes had already backed up my data. Within twelve hours of losing my phone I was back in business as if nothing had happened. The cost of insurance was nothing compared to the full cost of replacing the iPhone.
- Andrew
Here's the funny thing. The central issue is that the American solution to health care means that doctors are incentivized to keep us sick, to over medicate us, and to avoid inexpensive solutions to our problems. Insurance companies are incentivized to not provide coverage, most especially to those who are sick. There is no market solution to this problem, because every other method provides less profit, which is an unacceptable model to all corporations.
From what I gather, in Canada and England and France, there are speech therapists that provide free services to anyone who has a disability. So your point is moot - there is probably no reason they would provide an iPhone. They provide you with professional care that has a long history of success, instead of some application that hit the market a few months ago.
This is central to why single payer is so effective. They don't go looking for expensive new solutions when they know how to solve problems already, because there's no incentive. The only criteria for single payer systems is the effectiveness of care. The only criteria for private health care is the profit that can be realized. I'll leave it to your imagination on what incentive structure provides the best care for the least amount of money to the greatest amount of people.
Even with neanderthals like the Republicans around
This is Slashdot, land of self-righteous, angry conservatives. You must not value your karma very much.
You'd have to meet a certain level of proof for said disability for them to provide the expensive stuff- so why would it be any different for the "fancy PDA's and Smartphones".
I've been involved with discussions on designing one of those special purpose devices on the cheap with the design and the software being open-sourced in the past. Touch-boards are heinously limited in their vocabulary and grotesquely overpriced. Take a touch-screen netbook type device and put a customized Linux distribution on it and now you have the same thing, but unlimited in vocabulary and roughly 1/3rd the price.
These "special purpose" devices are waaay overpriced in many cases.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Don't like Medicare's inannity? Talk to your Congresscritter at the next election.
Don't worry, they'll respond when a fuss is made. Remember, they're not out to do good. They're out to get and keep power. one hell of a lot more explanatory and predictive power than does the "oh he cares about me" theory. No, seriously. Don't downmod me. Read my .sig and file this away as a theory in the back of your mind and pay attention to life as it goes by. I'm not afraid of predictive theories, so why should you be?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Not sure why this was modded flamebait, other than it probably touched a nerve.
Sometimes something inflammatory makes a good point, and one worthy of consideration. A lot of the rest of the "civilized" world DOES think the American health care system is abominable, due to the way that it accumulates cash at the top while failing to treat the poor.
But I know that opinions that offend blind patriotism are often disregarded, so I'm not really surprised by the moderation. I just wish people could react a little less instinctively when their beliefs are challenged...
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Dude, slow down and chew your propaganda longer. You're choking on it.
An iPhone will be replaced in ~5 years when the iPhone 7 comes out.
I'm not so sure the speak-o-matic 10,000 will be.
So should the insurer payout for a new iPhone every 5 years or the speak-o-matic once?
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
Make the commercial devices available through the states' vocational rehabilitation offices. Sell them for more than on the street because of the administrative hassles. The states will cover the costs and give them or sell them at reduced prices to the clients. They'll also replace them as needed. If and when the replacement costs get too high, the states will tell the insurance companies to cover them. The insurance companies require each state's permission to operate there, and renewal or rejection can be based on this.
On the other hand, the devices can be covered under renter's or homeowners insurance.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
And why does she need the insurance to pay for it? Because that's they're job.
Since when is it medical insurance's job to pay for someone's iPhone? Sorry, they are not medically necessary. Health insurance is supposed to pay for health problems that come up unexpectedly... but it quickly doesn't work if everyone is expected to get back more than they pay in.
For those who may be confused, note that medical insurance doesn't actually work like insurance just as medical doctors don't actually work like doctors.
Why not get them covered by your home contents insurance? Most people don't realise they usually cover goods outside of the home and it's not that expensive.
Other countries have made the choice that they want to make health care available to all people, regardless of the ability to pay, and regardless of social status. This is simply unamerican. Why should I use my hard-earned money to take care of someone else's Health Care?
When that guy shouted "You Lie" at our President, it was because the President said that nothing in the new Health Care bill would offer coverage to illegal aliens, and the gentleman in the audience disagreed with that assessment. Forget the outburst for a minute. What the guy really said was "I don't want any Federal tax dollars paying for any health care for illegal aliens". Think about that for a moment. Pretty much every other country has decided that health care is a basic human right. Why haven't we reached that same conclusion in the US?
People gripe about the NHS, and like every medical system in the world, it does have its problems, but I've seen worse reports about far worse hospitals and systematic medical abuse in the US. Indeed, google "malpractice", "medical abuse", and "nursing home abuse" and you'll find the horrors in the American system dwarf those of most of the rest of the industrialized world, not just in number, but in severity.
As someone who has used both the American and British systems (as well as the French and German system by the way), I can unequivocably say that the NHS is as good as and often better than the American system by every metric, including timliness of treatment, quality of treatment, professionalism, cost, you name it. Unlike most of the right-wing ignoramouses here I've actually travelled beyond the borders of my country and indeed lived many years abroad, and have seen different systems first hand. Wait times in the US for privately insured patients are, contrary to myth and right-wing propoganda, at least as long as they are in the UK (where I currently reside), and longer than in France and Germany (both of which also have what Americans call "socialized" medicine).
And before my fellow countrymen start chanting "Best in the World" to themselves, they really ought to stop and ask themselves why the richest Russians, Chinese, Arabs, and Europeans all tend to go to France, Germany and the UK for their treatment rather than the US (not always, but more often than not). Hell, even Farah Faucette ended up travelling to Germany to treat her cancer because she couldn't get the proper treatment in the US (and lived for years longer than expected as a result). Why do so many travel to France, Germany, and the UK rather than the United States? I'll give you a hint: it isn't about money (these people are richer than God), nor about getting a Visa (these people belong to the moneyed elite and can buy their way into anyplace, be it the European Union, the United States, hell, even Switzerland). These people go where they believe they'll get the best medical treatment bar none, at any price, and more often than not, it isn't the United States. And that will probably continue, no matter how often we lie to ourselves about being "the best in the world." We're not, in many things, most especially medicine, and it's high time we recognized this and remediated it.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Best healthcare in the WORLD!!!
Yeah right.
It's not medically necessary, except when it is.
There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
But does it make sense to pay for a device 10-20 times more expensive that is also more cumbersome and has less capabilities? Look at the big picture. Is it so terrible that a device might have a potential non-medical use?
If the iphone costs 1/10th the cost they are already winning. Don't bitch for things you don't need.
Because in the US, we have a list of rights that while not intended to exclude any possible other rights, is seen as the only rights it's possible to have.
Because in the US, the only thing more important than your rights is my money.
Because in America, as soon as we have money, we move to the burbs to escape the poor -- out of sight, out of mind.
Because in America, we have the FREEDOM to let the poor suffer without medical treatment.
Because in America, the poor have the FREEDOM to bootstrap themselves into the middle class with no help whatsoever, and if they don't have health insurance, it is entirely their fault for not taking advantage of the LAND of OPPORTUNITY.
OK, sarcasm aside...
They guy has a point, even if he was wrong. When people here legally aren't provided government services, why should people here illegally get them? My opinion is that we should offer public healthcare to every person, regardless of income or immigration status. If the government is fulfilling its obligations to those here legally, then it can provide them to others. But if it's not fulfilling its obligations to its citizens and legal immigrants, then illegal immigrants should not get service. But that's a little too complex for 30-second TV spots, which is the limit for complexity of political issues in the US.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Why the H*LL should you expect medical insurance to pay for something
like this. There is no free lunch. Someone somewhere has to pay for
it eventually. It doesn't just magically pop out of the either. That
"free" device you get that costs 10x or 20x as much is paid for by
SOMEONE. It can be a tax payer or some other customer of the insurance
company.
Quit being a helpless twit. Quit perpetuating nanny state nonsense.
Take responsibility for yourself. Take charge of your life and just
BUY THE DANG THING.
If it's 1/10th to 1/20th the price of a "proper" device it's probably
even affordable too.
"free stuff" is why insurance is so expensive.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
So, you are proposing they spend $5,000 on a specialty "medical" device, instead of the $450 iphone + software combo, because $450 is too much? Huh? This isn't a "I also want an iphone, so my insurance company should pay for it" situation. This is a "I would rather have an iphone (that costs 1/10th the price, by the way) because it works better." It's not the people want both. It's that people want the cheaper iphone as a replacement because it works better.
And by the way... unless you develop cancer, aids, or some other very bad disease, you will NEVER use more money than you give your insurance company. In fact, the only sane reason to have medical insurance is to be protected "just in case." If you are young and healthy (and especially if you are self-employed or don't get employment benefits for whatever reason), insurance is a scam. Just set aside what your insurance premium is, and when you have to go to the emergency room for falling off a ladder, you'll have more than enough to cover it (and you'll realize how much money your insurance company was making off of you) .
How did you insure your iPhone against loss? I am curious as I ended up with a SquareTrade third party warranty that covers damage including water damage. I would still be SOL if I lost my iPhone.
So what's up with the modding for this thread. Someone makes an assertion about US law and when people post asking for a citation they are modded down as offtopic or flamebait? Are there astroturfers from political lobbies or healthcare companies active here or is it just a bunch of opinionated people who are trying to abuse the mod system to shout down people who disagree with their party? I find the modding here as interesting as the article.
I'm a little surprised to hear the iPhone referred to as a "low end" device.
The rest of the summary makes me think what it would be like if the Auto Industry did the same. Isn't that ludicrous? It seems like the cell phone insurance industry should be sued. Insurance is insurance, if I pay to have my device insured -- that exactly what I expect. That's what I pay for.
Yeah, in our system, we may pay a lot more money and get worse results than, you know, everyone else in the developed world... but hey, at least we don't have government bureaucrats* getting between us and our doctors! USA! USA!
* Instead, we have bureaucrats from the for-profit insurance companies, who make money by denying us care, and answer to no one but their stockholders.
We don't have sensible health care coverage here. Maybe soon, but not now.
That's not the context of the article. It's not that she can't get the device insured in case of loss. It's that she can't get her medical insurance to pay for such a device in the first place even though it works better than the more expensive alternative that the insurance will pay for. In some cases, Medicare is paying so we as taxpayers are paying.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Amazingly, insurance companies rarely cover hearing aids. Actual medical devices for enabling those of us with hearing disabilities to partake in conversations. Why a smartphone is a medical device is a mystery to me. So, until the article poster can get insurance companies to cover real medical devices, he should just stop whining about his ipod not being covered! I pay out of pocket for my hearing aids, $1200-$5000 per. Don't come whining to me about your $300 PDA! You want to use a PDA and you have a communicative disease, shell out the bucks. he fact you can get actual medical devices and have them covered by insurance says to me you have no room to complain. Most companies won't pay for my REAL medical devices.
Not that they are any better than sticking a megaphone to my ear, which is mainstream and I could use, and would be cheaper. Be thankful you are covered for actual devices that are designed to work for your medical condition and come back and complain when you have a real issue! Hell, hearing aids are little amplifiers they made to stick in your ear, which only speeds the further degradation of your hearing, and thus you need to keep buying more and more powerful devices. There is surgery for some conditions and I could get an implant to actually help fix my problem, but insurance companies don't cover that $10,000 surgery. SO STOP YOUR WHINING! You don't hear me writing articles whining about my sad state.
Yet, you hear all these people complaining about the public option, and the healthcare reform, but offer no alternative. If you're not willing to be a part of the solution and come out of your little private self-interest corner and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT FOR EVERYONE, then you have no right or reason to complain!
[citation needed]
"Medical insurance" in the United States isn't really insurance so much as it is a third-party payer for the vast majority of your medical bills.
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
It's "flamebait" to ask someone for a citation for a fairly strong claim? Give me a break.
Just set aside what your insurance premium is, and when you have to go to the emergency room for falling off a ladder, you'll have more than enough to cover it (and you'll realize how much money your insurance company was making off of you) .
Insurance isn't a scam, it's, well, insurance. You are paying some money up front to protect against the low probability of a catastrophic loss. Think about a house fire. Not very common these days. But house fires happen every day. If you are not insured, then you are out 100 - 500K USD depending on the house, your down payment, etc. Think you can recoop that?
Same thing with medical insurance. If you are an apparently healthy twenty or thirty something, spending a couple of hundred bucks a month to some vast, faceless bureaucracy seems stupid. Until you come down with something like Hodgkin's lymphoma. Somewhat rare, but has a propensity for young, apparently healthy people. Even a [relatively] inexpensive major medical policy that cuts in after $10K or so can keep you out of bankruptcy court. Maybe.
Sure, in the US without health insurance, you can beg, borrow or steal care - you can get billed for the treatments and go into bankruptcy later, but that's not exactly easy nor fun (on top of a disease that is neither easy nor fun). For the purposes of this discussion, we won't go into exactly how fucked up the US medical insurance system is, but it's a big mistake for young people to avoid having medical insurance.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Being a hearing-disabled person, I can tell you with no uncertainty, that an IPhone is exactly what you don't want if you are:
partially deaf/hard-of-hearing/hearing challenged/whatever.
What a hearing-disabled person needs is a hearing aid that works with a phone, but the hearing aid is likely not covered. You're talking BS, or just don't know what you're talking about, or just have no clue what it is like to be really hard-of-hearing. IPhones are flat, if you're going to use a phone you want one that is T4/T5, or/and is TTY compatible, and you want one that molds to your face, so you can have the speaker pointing directly into your ear and have the microphone somewhere in the neighborhood of your speaking apparatus (aka mouth, for most of us).. Every single PDA/Smartphone I've seens is incredibly non-user friendly for hard-of-hearing people. You also, want one that has a decent ringer, and I'm not talking musical scores, unless it's like "Highway To Hell", or something, at 110db. Britney Spears "My head is Shaved, Do you Love Me" ain't gonna cut it.
Wow. You have anger issues, my friend. But regardless, perhaps it would be wise if you took a Valium and then went back and read the article in question. Nowhere is it suggested that insurers pick up the tab for things that their customers currently pay for. The issue is that they are currently paying $8,000 for equipment that could be replaced with $500 worth of off-the-shelf kit, and that kit would be more effective and useful, to boot.
Your argument seems to be that insurance companies shouldn't actually pay out on claims, because that would make their customers "irresponsible" and "helpless twits", and you're absolutely correct that if all insurance companies refused to pay claims, then the price of insurance would surely plummet. But there's some sort of logical flaw in your argument that I can't quite put my finger on...
I believe the high cost of insurance is largely due to insurers wasting money, rather than insurers not telling their customers that they should just buy it themselves. But that's just me.
But in all seriousness, if you're ever in the market for insurance look me up. You would be a dream customer.
PS. Being deaf or partially so is the most discriminated group you will likely find. If you are, you are labelled:
... der ... stan ... d be..tt..er.
1) Slow,
2) a whiner,
3) a faker.
You get people who think if they shout, you'll hear better. Which for some hearing loss conditions will work, but not for all.
If they talk slower, you'll un
If they repeat the same thing over and over again in the same voice and lack of enunciated slur and same volume you'll eventually get it.
Talking louder does help, for my condition, if you have activate any nerves I have left to process voice, but frequencies matter. There are some people I simply cannot hear, because I don't hear in those frequency ranges, or in the ranges of the significant harmonics. Sound is easy to hear, speech is an entirely different ballpark, and a PDA/Iphone which indiscriminately amplifies all ranges and all frequencies is going to be far worse for a person in the long run, rather than an actual device designed specifically for the individual. There are some really fantastic hearing aids out there now, unfortunately, they run $4000-$6000 per (and most people need two) and are a bit out of my current range for out of pocket medical devices. Real medical devices are expensive for a reason. they are not mass produced to one specification and are one off pieces designed for maximizing assistance to a specific condition of a specific person. Simple economics, it's cheaper to build ten thousand identical pieces than ten thousand custom pieces. Should be a no brainer.
Who said the USA has the best health insurance in the world? Believe it or not, the rest of the world actually makes fun of it. Now CANADA on the other hand...
And why does she need the insurance to pay for it? Because that's they're job.
Since when is it medical insurance's job to pay for someone's iPhone? Sorry, they are not medically necessary. Health insurance is supposed to pay for health problems that come up unexpectedly... but it quickly doesn't work if everyone is expected to get back more than they pay in.
The whole point of the article is to state that insurance currently pays for items that cost up to ten times as much as an iPhone. By replacing the more expensive item with an iPhone multiple goals are achieved. The cost is lower. The person with the disability can now communicate in a less conspicuous way. Everybody is happy, except for the people who don't understand how having a debilitating disease could be made worse by having an awkward and somewhat off putting speech device.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
The article is about Medical Insurance (HMO's, etc) paying for consumer devices such as iPhones and software to run medical uses,
Exactly. iPhones are not medical devices. "Medical Device" has special meaning, and an iPhone with some medical apps on it does not a medical device make.
Either these people are choosing the wrong type of insurance (The correct type, or at least the only type you are going to find in existence) is that which I pointed out, or they are choosing the wrong type of device for their health. This claim however is ludicrous.
Medical insurance is to cover actual medical devices. There is a very good reason these things cost more than a smartphone ever would. They need to be safety tested with live humans, and that is not cheap.
If Apple does not wish to pay all of that money to have the iPhone certified as a medical device (and there is no reason they should), then you can't claim it a medical device, and medical insurance doesn't come into the picture.
If Apple DID want to pay for that testing, the cost of said testing will be added to the price for the end-user, and the iPhone wouldn't be $400 but $8000 instead, and these people would be having the exact same complaint.
Insurance is a scam. To anyone who disagrees, I would love to sell you some anti-rolling-snake-eyes insurance. Just come visit me in Vegas.
It reminds me of a lawsuit that the BBC got into once back in the 1980's. One of their consumer programs performed a comparison between "officially recommended" telephone units for the disabled and off-the-shelf novelty telephones over the cost/usability ratio. The officially recommended handsets were large, clunky, came in only one color and hand to be wall mounted or bolted to a table.
The best comparison that could be made today would be between this type of phone and a novelty phone with high contrast black/white and a loudspeaker for hand-free calling.
The company that actually made the clunky type threatened to sue because they had to go through all sorts of usability studies for each of the different categories of disability, then get approval to market their product as a disability aid. Because they were intended for use in hospitals, they also had to withstand the wear and tear of being in a public place.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
So accept the more expensive machine, sell it, and buy an iphone or whatever it is you want. Profit?!?! (Something like that, right?)
"I believe the high cost of insurance is largely due to insurers wasting money, rather than insurers not telling their customers that they should just buy it themselves. But that's just me."
Define "wasting"... their job is to take your money, then use it for all of the following purposes:
1) Pay shareholders (by the way, this is, by law, their first priority)
2) Reimburse your medical expenses (this is what you pay them for, so presumably they'll do it... right?)
3) Pay themselves, those salaries do come from somewhere, and they aren't cheap
4) Pay themselves again, a lot of these guys are also big into pharmaceutical and medical supply companies, and a lot of them also sell malpractice insurance (one of the largest expenses for a doctor or hospital in this country is purchasing such insurance)
Now, just for a moment, put yourself into the shoes of a ruthless businessman running a large health insurer having to prioritize these jobs. Paying the shareholders will probably go near the top for a couple of reasons, one being that if it doesn't you could be in a world of shit, and the other being that you almost certainly own a huge amount of stock and/or options in the company (sweet! paying yourself comes up 3 times!). But now you're in a dilemma... your company exists to pay out for medical expenses, and if you pay out nothing you will also be in a world of shit, but every penny you pay out is one less penny you can pay yourself. Aha! a solution, charge EVEN MORE money for insurance, which most people won't even see because it's usually an employer cost and employees don't pay taxes on it as they would with any other benefit, and at the same time use your position and influence to jack up the cost of actually providing medical care so that you can pay yourself a huge chunk of that AND pay yourself a larger salary that is still proportional to the revenues.
They aren't "wasting" anything, they're just not spending it on useful medical care because, simply put, that doesn't make them any money. Isn't objectivism fun?
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Wow, a string of, like, 7 or 8 comments in a row that have no idea how medicare or our tax system works, yet hold strong opinions on the subject.
Listen guys, you have to know that everything FOX says to you is a lie. We can't go on like this, with one corporation destroying our country. It's time we did something about Murdoch.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
"For the millions of Americans with A.L.S., Down syndrome, autism, strokes and other speech-impairing conditions"
down syndrome...wait...what?
the kids retarded, not mute. im pretty sure i heard him say "i can count to potato!" the last forty or fifty times. no iphone required.
Autistic people granted are broad, but are either completely incapable of conversation, or theyre found annoying when they attempt it through mirroring an entire episode of sesame street in a bank or church. nothing requiring an iphone there.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Is she on a ringtone now? Does she have seven birthdays a year. Woof woof, lets go Galapoochie.
--
We do not repeat gossip, so listen carefully.
Insurance isn't a scam, it's risk mitigation. It's a convenient way for a society to pool their resources to help cover the expenses of a large group. Because the cost of medical care is as high as it is it's not reasonable to expect every person to be able to pay for their own care in the case of a catastrophic event (which by the way is as simple as a few day stay at a hospital for most people). When the cost of Care is higher than the average pay you have to have some way for those that need to be able to pay for the care they need. Since we don't know ahead of time if we will or will not need the coverage we chose to pay into an insurance fund.
Now I will admit that the US insurance system is certainly not the most efficient way to do this with the unbelievably high over head, but it is over all more effective than having no system at all (unless you prefer people to just be cast aside if they, or their caretakers, can't afford medical care).
Not everything where the odds are not in your favor is a scam.
I'm normally the first in line to defend executives who work for their shareholders, because if they don't they'll just be replaced with someone who does. But in this case "wasting" means paying too much money to people in category #2.
It's reasonable to assume that if insurance company X saved $1,000,000 by buying cheap solutions instead of gold-plated ones, the $1,000,000 wouldn't be used to buy more medical care for their policyholders; it would be (properly) spent on executive bonuses and dividends. So from the standpoint of the only people who matter (the shareholders), the money was wasted.
Now in real life the insurers will simply raise their policy rates and/or reduce other payments to people in category #2 to maintain their margins. But in the first case they'll end up with fewer customers and presumably lower profits or increased risk. And in the second case they risk alienating customers or doctors or -- even worse -- attracting the attention of regulators.
Putting aside the legitimate concern that if they covered iPhones they would suffer from more fraud, this isn't all that different than if the insurance company CEO set that rule because his brother-in-law is the CEO of Myers-Briggs. It's a transfer of money from the people who've earned it (the shareholders) to those who haven't (assistive device manufacturers). Unless the extra $7,500 per device is cheaper than the additional (hidden) costs of paying for iPhones (or iPhone software), then it's waste.
Hell, maybe Myers-Briggs would become more efficient if all of their products weren't paid for by insurance and taxes. I've used their software, and it's not much better than pretty good in-house software. They could use the competition.
So then, as a taxpayer or some other customer of the insurance firm, wouldn't you rather pay for the cheaper alternative? As you said, there is no free lunch, so you and I will either be subsidizing the iPhone or the heavily marked up substitute. And we will, either through the "nanny state" or the insurance company. Given such a choice, I would rather pay for the iPhone.
Are you really quite sure you are getting angry at the right people? I don't think it's the stroke victims you should be yelling about.
Yes, because one device was vetted by the FDA and proven to be reliable, the other is a fucking cell phone. And its not just that it has a non-medical use... its MAIN use is non-medical.
Yes, thank you for stating the obvious. That's what insurance premiums are for. Premiums go in, payments go out. I think everyone here understands that.
Medical insurance is to cover actual medical devices. There is a very good reason these things cost more than a smartphone ever would. They need to be safety tested with live humans, and that is not cheap.
True for things that can kill you if they fail. Imagine an implanted pacemaker blowing up like an iPhone ;-)
But if you use a smartphone (with special software) in a way similar to how able-bodied people use it, special safety testing may be unnecessary.
Hence I propose a new category "medical assistance device (non-hazardous)" that can be used without expensive special certification. It could cover things like general purpose computers that are loaded with special software, limited to applications where errors pose no significant health hazard.
C - the footgun of programming languages
"Medical insurance" in the United States isn't really insurance so much as it is a third-party payer for the vast majority of your medical bills.
Exactly. I want health insurance, so that, if I get cancer tomorrow, my wife and son will still have a place to live in five years. Unfortunately, we can't get that. We can get companies that promise to pay those expenses, but, if something really goes wrong, they will find a way to weasel out of it. So, the only product available in the states is the "frequent sicko discount club", and you have to get that from your employer.
I'm so glad that we have congress to protect us from an alternative that does not skim off the top, and ditch us at the first opportunity.
I think the punch of this story is supposed to be related an apparent fact that the makers of these expensive devices that do only one thing have had their hands in the cookie jar for so long and are now exerting their vast influence to decide the outcome over whether insurance will be allowed to pay for their superior competitor at 5-10% the price instead. All of the other points I've read by comment posters so far seem to be pale in comparison.
Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
Yup.
Food is an even more basic necessity than health care.
Imagine if we only paid a minimal co-payment and the supermarket filed a claim for reimbursement with an "insurance" company every time we bought food.
Our current employer-provided health care benefits system is no less ridiculous.
Do you really think that insurance companies would have much power or money if healthcare became really cheap and successful? For companies passing money along, their own profits usually end up being a percentage of what flows through them. That's why insurance companies actually don't mind the cost explosion in the health care system; they don't pay for it, you do, they just take a cut.
"...And then I had this dream that my whole family was just cartoon characters, and that our success had led to some crazy propaganda network called 'Fox News'."
Best. Simpsons. Quote. Ever. (Though IMHO Fox is a symptom of the problem, not the cause.)
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
not anonymous coward just to lazy to create an account - I think most all of you missed the point. Medical Insurance will not cover devices (not certified as "Medical Devices") that CAN be used for good. Generally the quality of a lot of these devices for a specific purpose is better than the cert. Med-device because of the research money available. The point is that insurance needs to bring its polices into the current world. This is costly for them and not supported by the companies that make crt-med. devices. Commercial companies don't care b/c they don't need the lost income. Health care is expensive and will stay expensive as long as the current polices are not revamped. That was the point of the article.
Check out "ObamaCare Yay Or Nay? The Truth About Canada!" by Steven Crowder on YouTube. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw)
Crowder grew up in Canada. In the video, he goes "undercover" with a video camera along with Canadian citizens to visit some waiting rooms in Canadian medical clinics to discover what typical Canucks experience.
If you are looking at the aforementioned YouTube video, you may want to skip ahead to 10 minutes, 19 seconds, where Crowder converses (in French) with a woman whose mother had both legs amputated.
Essentially the conclusion is that Canada's socialized medicine is not good. Crowder points out that Canadians -- including the architect of Canada's socialized medicine -- want to move to the U.S. system (Go to 16 minutes 0 seconds in the video)
I am not sure where you are based, but here in the UK I took out Lifeline insurance from The Carphone warehouse.
It does show a bit of a stupidity hole, though, where a cheaper and possibly better device to serve the purpose needed is being overlooked or denied simply because of a classification or certification. In a business that is profitable by way of its own thrift, it seems illogical that the insurer is requiring a higher-priced alternative when the client has requested a cost-saver.
Furthermore, the required pigeonholing and bureaucracy could stifle innovation. For example, if an inventor creates a helpful addition to a common device, will it be denied coverage (and wider adoption) if it's not solely marketed as a medical device?
Of course, other issues do come into play: Will others attempt to scam desirable multi-purpose devices that marginally assist with medical problems, or what happens if the device isn't up to the task, and the client comes back later wanting the real thing?
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
What I don't understand is why the disabled person doesn't just buy the damn iphone and use it. Quit bitching, buy it, use it.
Oh, you don't want to PAY for it! Well, once you get one for free, every other person in a 1st world country will want one for free. Why? Because the 'medical device' aspect of it is a miniscule, tiny ADDITION to the device, not even the physical device itself, or it's intended purpose in the slightest.
Suck it up. If it's better but not covered... tough. Buy it anyway.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Part of the reason medical insurance is so expensive is people seem to think it should cover EVERYTHING. Normal care, emergency care, preventative care, etc, etc. Any and every medical expensive they want paid for by insurance.
Well that's not insurance anymore. Insurance is supposed to be indemnity against unexpected costs. Your costs rise to a given level, or occur in an unexpected fashion, insurance pays for it.
For example my homeowners insurance is very cheap. It is a yearly payment, and that payment is maybe 60% of the monthly payment my employer makes for health insurance. However, all it covers is emergencies basically. If my place burns down, they pay out the value of it and its contents. However if I let my place fall apart due to lack of maintenance, they don't cover it. Also, anything under $500 isn't covered. So if someone attempted to rob me, which is covered, but all they did was break a window, I'd have to pay for it as it isn't above the deductible. As such it is very cheap, their liability is limited to a specific dollar amount, and they are only liable in certain cases.
My health insurance? Covers everything basically. They pay for doctors visits, specialist visits, ambulance rides, ER visits, surgery, medical items, etc, etc, etc all with no set liability limit. They can be on the hook for a LOT of money if something goes really wrong, and they can even have to pay out a good bit if nothing goes wrong. Every time I go to see the doctor I pay $10, they pick up the rest of the tab. If I were to go 20 times a year, that'd be over a grand, just for the visits they'd have to pay.
Thus it isn't surprising they want a bunch more money.
Well this stuff is just taking that same sort of idea to another silly extreme. Why the hell should your insurance cover basic, cheap, devices that make your life better? Buy that yourself. I understand wanting insurance to pay for something expensive, that's what it is for. If you need special custom hearing aids that cost $10,000, ya ok that's why you have insurance. If you need a cellphone, well go buy that shit.
Insurance really should only be to cover things that are very expensive, or unexpected expenses. Every day expenses you should cover yourself. Otherwise, you'll get a system where it costs a hell of a lot and/or you get shitty service.
So, you are proposing they spend $5,000 on a specialty "medical" device, instead of the $450 iphone + software combo, because $450 is too much?
No, its "I don't want some wanker getting an iPhone because they THINK its the same as a tested medical device." I suppose we should also say for the phone's plan too, right? And then pay for the persons care when they stroke or have some other complication, because, suprise, an iPhone ISN'T AS RELIABLE AS THE $5000 DEVICE.
And by the way... unless you develop cancer, aids, or some other very bad disease, you will NEVER use more money than you give your insurance company. In fact, the only sane reason to have medical insurance is to be protected "just in case." If you are young and healthy (and especially if you are self-employed or don't get employment benefits for whatever reason), insurance is a scam. Just set aside what your insurance premium is, and when you have to go to the emergency room for falling off a ladder, you'll have more than enough to cover it (and you'll realize how much money your insurance company was making off of you) .
Ya, good luck with that. One broken leg and an infection would wipe out all that you "saved" by not having insurance.
FTA:
"A couple of years ago, she spent more than $8,000 to buy a computer, approved by Medicare".
The article suggests she's had to pay out for the devices. If her health insurance is providing for the device, I don't see the problem. Yes, it might be stupid that they pay out for $8,000 when she'd be satisfied with $300, but that's the company's own loss, not hers.
Now yes, I agree it's still a shame for her if the smaller devices are better for her disability. But the article is very confusing as to who's paying what, which is why I was asking for clarification.
(And what fucker is modding so many posts in this thread off-topic?)
FTA:
A couple of years ago, she spent more than $8,000 to buy a computer, approved by Medicare
NO IT'S NOT.
Or if it is, then if her health insurance covers neither, why mention the more expensive item at all?
Currently they will pay for expensive, more customized devices
Such as? If the company pays for the $8,000 device, then the article is very confusing and misleading - it didn't cost her $8,000, it cost her nothing. She is not forced to pay $8,000 as the article nonsensically claims.
I was merely asking for clarification - it's just a shame that the moderation system is so broken on Slashdot these days. What trolls are getting all the mod points? I haven't had any in years.
It was the earlier poster who started shouting - he's the one with anger issues.
RTFA:
"A couple of years ago, she spent more than $8,000 to buy a computer, approved by Medicare"
So yes, it is suggested that they pick up the tab. If they're doing it already, yes that's their stupidity if she'd be happier with a cheaper device. But the article is rather misleading as to who's paying what. The article tries to spin it as "she's forced to spend 20 times as much" - if it turns out it's really "I want an Iphone instead of what they're offering me", then that issue has already been covered by earlier posters (e.g., the fact that the extra cost is due to it being approved for medical use).
When I said:
---
I'm still a bit confused by the article - if she's paying for it herself, why does she need the insurance to pay for it? I presumed this must be about insurance that covers products being stolen?
Yes, the whole thing seems mad that insurers would prefer expensive products, but in some sense, she's still gained by moving technology: she can now spend $300 on a Samsung N110 or phone, instead of $8,000. Even if she can't get it insured, on average she'd still be better off - unless her device gets stolen over 26 times during its lifetime.
And how many of us here bother to spend insurance on electronic items (I know some do, but I don't think it's universal)? Or is the article on about something else altogether?
---
By "paying for it herself" I do not mean the Iphone, I mean the $8,000 device too, which as the article states, she paid for it. So either the article is wrong, or her insurance isn't funding either device, in which case the comparison of the two devices is meaningless.
Yes, because one device was vetted by the FDA and proven to be reliable, the other is a fucking cell phone. And its not just that it has a non-medical use... its MAIN use is non-medical.
That's dumb. The iPhone can do the job of the medical device, for cheaper. "There's an app for that." You install the app, you have a medical device. And it can do more, bonus! Why is that a problem?
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
So Anonymous Lazy Bastard instead of Anonymous Coward?
US president for once can do something right: Fuck the american private healthcare.
What I don't understand is how you don't understand the fundamental concept of medical insurance.
There's no "free" involved here. If they need an iPhone they have to pay insurance premiums plus 11x the cost for the iPhone, and they get 10x the cost of an iPhone back plus some other device that's less useful than an iPhone and accounts for 10/11 of what you just paid for.
Look, allow me to present you with a shitty analogy:
I buy sandwich insurance, and now I have a legitimate claim of 1 sandwich. They want to spend $100 to buy me a shit sandwich. I suggest that they INSTEAD pay $10 so I can have a ham sandwich. I'd much prefer a ham sandwich anyway, it's better for me, and it decreases the chances that I'll vomit and therefore need another sandwich claim, and the insurance company saves $90. This is a huge win for the insurance company and win for the sandwich-eater, and a lose for nobody except you.
Except I CAN'T because of a chain of bureaucratic rules. And your argument is essentially that you should pay sandwich insurance for no reason whatsoever and then buy a ham sandwich, because the intended purpose of ham is life support for pigs and anyway it can also be used for pork chops, whereas a shit sandwich provides only sandwich-ness without any other ham-related activities being possible.
We aren't talking about a life-saving device here. We are talking about a device that makes communication easier. What happens if it malfunctions? Nothing. If this were a pace-maker, it's a no-brainer. More expensive and more reliable is the way to go. However, it's not.
You are proposing using a $5000 needle and thread, because you are sure that it won't break. I am proposing using a $450 sewing machine and spending $100 to fix it if it breaks.
I suppose we should also say for the phone's plan too, right?
Yep and buy them a car too, because that's just as relevant.
You didn't read the article, did you?
All we are talking about here is using it as a speech synthesizer, not diagnosing diseases. You say "They need to be safety tested with live humans, and that is not cheap." I'm really baffled as to how one performs expensive testing of a speech synthesizer on humans? Perhaps the Stephen Hawking voice causes spontaneous combustion in humans? Enlighten me!
Look, allow me to present you with a shitty analogy:
Fantastic, simply fantastic.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
Wow, someone that writes things such as "a string of, like, 7 or 8", etc., complaining about others.
Dude, that's like, wrong.
Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot? An Anonymous Coward on Slashdot is someone that 1) Doesn't have an account and posts as AC or 2) Has an account and chooses either to not login to it or to post AC while logged in. Since you've admitted that you don't have an account, 1) applies, and you so you are an Anonymous Coward, by definition.
Oh, and it should be "just too lazy", not "just to lazy". So, you're not only lazy, you're ignorant and apparently don't reason very well. And this:
is just wonderful, as it conjures visions of parallel universe hopping (or perhaps time traveling) insurance companies foisting their policies off on the hapless citizenry.
If they can get a doctor to certify they have a disability, then why not pay for a much cheaper PDA? If it performs the function as the more expensive hardware and brings a little joy to someone's life at the same time, then why not?
I can only assume that there is some sort of collusion between the insurance companies, and the medical equipment vendors. We see this sort of thing all across the medical/health care industry, why not here as well? Why offer up cheap hardware when you can get the same for 10 times the price?
In Germany that would be what you get a disability insurance (the translation service also suggests "occupational disablement insurance") for. It often comes as an addon to life insurance - if you die or are unable to to work anymore the payout triggers. Granted, it's a one-time payment but you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who will pay you money for the rest of your life (except the government, that is). Plus, often disability only lasts for a certain while (eg. being in hospital/stationary physiotherapy for a year after a bad accident) and a money injection can really help there.
But yeah, insuring your health per se is not quite possible unless you make a custom deal with an insurer (if people can insure their hands you should also be able to insure your health).
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
They make the money off people who don't fall off ladders.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Did you miss the part of my sentence regarding the FDA testing medical devices must go through?
And it can do more, bonus! Why is that a problem?
Its a problem because people just wnat their insurance to pay for a cell phone they otherwise couldn't buy on their own. If the idea is to save insurance money, won't don't these jackasses pay for the phone themselves? That would cost the insurance company nothing.
We aren't talking about a life-saving device here. We are talking about a device that makes communication easier. What happens if it malfunctions? Nothing. If this were a pace-maker, it's a no-brainer. More expensive and more reliable is the way to go. However, it's not.
So shall we also cover the cost of the plan? Why should money let someone play games? If the device is so affordable, why involve insurance at all? Oh, the last line of the article points out why: "Technology has become as important to me as air, food, water," she wrote.
That kinda applies to everyone, doesn't it?
I also like this: "The iPhone has been a runaway success with these kids," she said. "It takes them about 10 minutes to learn how to use the iPhone, and there is this cool factor for them."
So they like it not because it helps them, they think its cool?
Seriously.. if you want to drive down prices, build your own text 2 speech computer and don't charge the huge markup. You'll make a killing.
When an iPod Touch can perform the same tasks as the $10000, single-purpose, briefcase sized, *covered* medical device and costs only $400, why *shouldn't* the medical plan cover it?
If (for example) I need a device which converts text I type to speech, and I can get a $400 device that does the job better, is more portable, less fragile, and also capable of providing additional functionality at a marginal additional cost, why should the plan force me to end up with the $10000 device which is difficult to carry, easily damaged during transit, and completely restricted to one single function?
The insurance company is willing to spend $10000, but not $400 for devices which serve the same purpose to the insured individual in question. That's what doesn't make sense.
(Of course, most plans cover Viagra, but not *BIRTH CONTROL*, so I bloody well shouldn't be surprised.)
By "most of us" you mean the few people who run and work for insurance companies; thus making big profits from the current system, right? The rest of us want health care without some company making a profit by denying us health care.
Currently, health insurance profit-seeking executives make decisions on whether a device is medically necessary or not, and their bias is worse than you are aware. Far worse than any decisions I've seen made by Medicare. In my personal anecdotal sampling, Medicare has provided excellent care for friends and family. Private insurance? When available, it was always a battle, from waivers, to initial denials, to actually getting doctors and hospitals their checks; and friends going bankrupt when they couldn't afford insurance or were denied for pre-existing conditions (diabetes).
Want to talk about naive? Watch this interview with an (ex) health insurance executive.
No, I am not referring to missed work. I am referring to the way US insurance companies try to weasel out of paying the bill if you have an expensive illness.
1) Pay shareholders (by the way, this is, by law, their first priority)
And, ironically, it's also the #1 reason why health care shouldn't be a "business".
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com