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.'"

Comments

Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[EmagGeek]

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...

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[JustinOpinion]

Pardon my ignorance, but why would a smartphone have to be classified as a "medical device" in order to be covered under a health insurance? Obviously policies can be arbitrarily detailed and include various restrictions... But it seems like any sensible policy (ha!) would include allowances for expenses relevant to your condition but not explicitly "medical". Like offsetting transportation costs for persons with limited mobility or a better bed for a person with a particular back condition. Does the taxi or bed have to get some special medical certification to be covered?

I would think the limiting factor should be getting a doctor's diagnosis. If a doctor signs-off, and says "person X has condition Y" and the policy covers condition Y, then anything that does the job of helping with condition Y should be fair game. Random people can't try to claim their smartphone as an health expense: only people with conditions that the smartphone helps alleviate.

(Of course, I'm being hopelessly naive about how health insurance works. You can tell I grew up in a country with universal healthcare.)

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[Lord Lode]

Indeed... And why would these devices have to be insured if they're cheap anyway?

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[suggsjc]

You can tell I grew up in a country with universal healthcare.

No, but I can tell that you threw in a useless addendum to an otherwise insightful post.

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[corbettw]

Because insurance companies tie their definition of "medical device" to what Medicare reimburses for (one of the reasons for this is that Medicare constitutes such a large part of the market for people using medical devices that insurance companies find it cheaper to use their list than generate one of their own). And since Medicare has certain legal requirements for what a "medical device" is (including going through FDA approval), it can be expensive and complicated to get on that list. Hence, any device that is on the list is going to cost much more than one that isn't. The alternative is to let Medicare bureaucrats, who are not doctors, decide whether a device is medically necessary or not.

So you're not naive about how health insurance works. You've naive about how government programs in the United States work. Now maybe you can understand why most of us don't want the Federal government to have anything to do with health care: they'll just make it worse.

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[corbettw]

Guess the Republican mods are out in force because this is utter rubbish.

Seriously? Have you never known someone who got a handicap placard from an agreeable doctor, even though they didn't need one? Or what about the ease of getting a prescription for marijuana in California? There are clinics in LA where you just have to tell the doc you have "occasional headaches" and they'll write a script for pot. Are you trying to claim there won't be ANY doctors who would write a script for an iPhone for some reason or other?

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You can tell I grew up in a country with universal healthcare.

No, but I can tell that you threw in a useless addendum to an otherwise insightful post.

It's not exactly useless. In truth the procurement of items for medical treatment in countries with socialized healthcare is often quite different. Not always, mind you, but often. Without a financial motivation for whether or not patient obtains a device to help them, most people tend to be both compassionate and pragmatic. That is to say, rarely would a person be denied a cane as a medical expense because it is cheap and someone needs help walking. Rarely would someone be granted a power exoskeleton because it is expensive and excessive.

With a profit motive in the US healthcare system insurance companies make more money erecting artificial barriers that prevent people from getting any assistive device. They're in a position to impose arbitrary rules to make providing such devices harder so their issuance is rarer. At the same time medical suppliers an make money by specializing in jumping through the hoops and getting certified products which make them artificially scarce allowing said companies to charge a lot of money. Even with the few expensive payouts, the insurance companies save money so they keep the policies.

Of course you see what is missing from the above scenario. That is the compassion and the pragmatism. A normal person working in healthcare would say, "an iPhone with apps for the blind, yeah that makes sense to help a blind person and is a lot cheaper than a specialty device". Then they approve it. It is the system standing in the way, a system motivated by rules designed to maximize profits. This type of rule is a great deal rarer in socialized medicine

This isn't to say that other healthcare systems are better in this way, just different. Profit is not the only motive that can result in arbitrary rules detrimental to individuals who need healthcare. Government bureaucrats can be just as bad implementing rules to punish groups at the expense of the masses or implement policies to mollify their special interest group in order to get re-elected. For example, rules to make abortion practically unavailable in order to appease a religious lobby or rules to refuse healthcare to overeating overweight people who are actually saving society money overall by their condition, but who much of society wants to punish for their sin.

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[Forge]

This isn't a new phenomenon and is not unique to high tech gadgets. Consider food.

The last time I had a serous cold, my Doctor prescribed Over the Counter cold symtom drugs and Chicken soup. My insurance did not cover either item. The OTC drugs because they can be obtained without a prescription (and were since they are cheaper that way) and the soup because it's just normal food and the biggest cost was the time my wife spent boiling it.

If I was in a none tropical climate he might have ordered me to keep the heat up and sleep under a blanket. Insurance won't cover those item either. Hell they don't even cover the giant office chair my brother's employer got for his bad back. They could have goten a fancy smancy orthopedic chair but the 20% copay on that is more than the total price of the giant chair (by giant I mean it makes my 6'3" 180 Lb. Brother look like a child).

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[mrisaacs]

Actually the ideal would be to cover the purchase of the device and the software, but not additional services - there would be no need to pay for internet or cell access- although you could probably make a case for services in the case of some conditions.

The issue is that the accounting rules require that the funds be used for a device for medical purposes only, so a multipurpose devices is deemed to include items that can't be paid for with those funds.

The "specialized" devices in many cases are consumer gear whose general purpose software (OS) has been crippled and a specific app loaded. A netbook, iPhone or PDA with the same app would do the job just as well (possibly better), but includes non-medical apps and features.

The insurance companies/medicare/medicaid think they're paying for additional functionality (even though the consumer product is usually much cheaper) and will force a client to buy the more expensive, more limited item.

It is one of the more stupid aspects of a law that was originally designed to limit waste, by making sure that only the features needed by a patient would be present on the device. There are numerous other laws and regulations on the books that work the same way and have the same effect. The rules have not kept up with technology and now work to the opposite of their intent.

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[maxume]

I wouldn't be terribly astonished to see an insurance company going through the hoops to get something like an iPhone approved as a medical device, if they actually thought it would save them money (that second part is the kicker though).

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[kimvette]

So, deny an inexpensive claim, instead favoring an inferior-and-single-task solution costing 10x to 20x more? Not only are they superior to teletype-like machines in every single way, they give the disabled the ability to communicate from ANYWHERE, not just tied to a bulky single-purpose computer and hard telephone line.

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[Anonymous Coward]

If a doctor signs-off, and says "person X has condition Y" and the policy covers condition Y, then anything that does the job of helping with condition Y should be fair game.

If someone has a limp, they'd have an easier time getting around with a car. Should the policy give out free cars to everyone with a limp?

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[jandersen]

If a doctor signs-off, and says "person X has condition Y" and the policy covers condition Y, then anything that does the job of helping with condition Y should be fair game.

Hey, what are you doing, man, talking sense on /.? Don't you know it is a treasonable offense? Go wash your mouth with soap. Or your keyboard, whatever. Just do it!

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[sjames]

Given the price difference between a $600 phone and a $20,000 specialist device, buying 100,000 phones rather than 10,000 special devices would be a BARGAIN for the insurance companies. They would break even with 97% of all such claims being fraud. If they can keep fraud below 97%, they win!

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[arb phd slp]

This is an important point.

The medical classification (from the government) for this type of device is "speech-generating device." This is a really old term from back when speech synthesis was computationally difficult (AT&T DECtalk was state-of-the-art) and portable computers were expensive. Professionals in this field refer to them instead as "augmentative and alternative communication" because we acknowledge that there is much more to communication than just speech.
The rules limit assistive tech to only the vocal mode, which isn't natural... people without disabilities communicate in a variety of ways. The mode that I am using to communicate with you right now is just as natural as oral speech, but I require an augmentative device to do so.

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[sjames]

You can tell I grew up in a country with universal healthcare.

No, but I can tell that you threw in a useless addendum to an otherwise insightful post.

Actually, no. When it comes to avoiding actually providing services, nothing is as Kafkaesque as a for-profit corporation. Not even silly government rules can rise to that level.

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[DragonWriter]

I would think the limiting factor should be getting a doctor's diagnosis. If a doctor signs-off, and says "person X has condition Y" and the policy covers condition Y, then anything that does the job of helping with condition Y should be fair game.

That might be what insurance should do, but its nothing like it does do. Heck, health insurance (in the US) doesn't even cover drugs that don't require a prescription, even when they are recommended by a doctor and the most effective means of dealing with a condition.

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[izm]

As somebody who spent a lot of time and energy helping acquire such a device for his father who suffered from ALS, I would like to highlight some important facts.

Many of the devices that the insurance companies cover are actually modified PC's. Before you say that people are better off buying a computer and having insurance foot the bill, look at the facts:

1. These PC's come modified with software and other interfaces which are specially designed based on years of research to meet the needs of the disabled for communication in the most intuitive way possible.

2. Often times the software is placed on an embedded windows system so that its harder to "break" with malware, and the like. Very few PC owners apart from the tech savy can say they've never gotten a computer virus or some form of malware. Even us techies slip up sometimes. Can you imagine if your lifeline were disabled by a virus? This is exactly what these devices are. Lifelines. People rely on them every day for the basic things we take for granted. Having the software embedded keeps the device functioning. Having functionality limited to...well....speaking...that makes the device far less daunting to those who might not be as computer savvy.

3. There are lots of different attachments available for these devices that let pretty much anyone with any level of disability use them. Each attachment is geared towards using the functionality a person has left. These are niche items that are pretty hard to come by at WalMart.

4. These computers are generally ruggedized (usually a toughbook, or something similar). The ruggedization is critical when the device goes everywhere with you.

The bottom line, really, is that these devices are designed to work any time anywhere for anyone. These are really custom solutions. Also, a whole lot of vendor support comes with the device, which is critical to making the most of it. This entire package, including the support, the level of customization in terms of input devices and software tools, and the level of quality and reliability seem to justify the high price in my eyes.

Your insurance company, believe it or not, has your best interest in mind as well as their own when they decide what is and isn't covered. These costly specialized devices are the best option for a whole lot of people. By only covering a solution like this, the insurance company knows you're getting what you need, which is tough to do if you're talking about building a system yourself.

I could have created a home-brew solution, but it would have been without the benefit of years of research into the progression of various diseases and the capabilities of somebody paralyzed from the neck down. Why should a patient have to deal with debugging a home-brew solution or trying to use a conventional mouse or keyboard when they can barely move their fingers? Being paralyzed is frustrating enough as it is...they don't need the extra stress.

On a side note, you can in fact work with the vendor and the insurance company to have an "add-on" placed in the computer-turned-medical device to allow you to use it as a computer as well. The expense is out of pocket, but is usually far less than the cost of a computer.

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[drinkypoo]

Their goal isn't serving the disabled, it's making maximum profits. They get a bigger piece of the claim that buys a two thousand dollar machine than a four hundred dollar machine. That is all.

I didn't say it was a laudable goal, I just said that's what their goal is. It's a natural consequence of allowing them to be publicly traded corporations, and requiring that corporations serve their stockholders first. I don't like it any more than you do, or think it makes any kind of sense for the long-term survival of the species. That, however, is quite irrelevant in the context of the current conversation. Again, you could have come to the same [correct] answer by simply following the money. You don't have to follow it far.

I do not mind recontextualizing, and discussing how we round up all the insurance company moguls and feed them to the lions. I suspect we could put it on pay-per-view, and pay for a lot of medical care.

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[jwhitener]

"The alternative is to let Medicare bureaucrats, who are not doctors, decide whether a device is medically necessary or not. "

Those 'bureaucrats' are advised by doctors/medical experts.

"Now maybe you can understand why most of us don't want the Federal government to have anything to do with health care: they'll just make it worse."

75% of doctors want a single payer plan. http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/8141
And it is still roughly 50% of the American people who want reform (depends on the poll/time, but hovers around 50%).

The other 50% have been watching fox news or something I guess... :)

We are the only developed first class country on earth without government run healthcare, and we pay more per person than any other country, and according to WHO statistics we are behind on many quality measures. The only thing we are better at is rare disease/cancer treatments, which doesn't benefit the masses.

So tell me again why Private Insurance is better?
Cost? Nope.
Quality? Nope.
Ability to offer coverage to a wider audience? Nope.

Whether you like it or not, you are indirectly paying for the uninsured by higher healthcare costs. Every time an uninsured person waits until they are very sick, walks into an emergency room, and has an extended costly hospital stay, you and I pay for it.

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[fahrbot-bot]

The alternative is to let Medicare bureaucrats, who are not doctors...

I'm sure many Insurance Company bureaucrats in places to decide your care are also not doctors. One difference, however, may be that Medicare bureaucrats have no profit motive.

I'm not trying to start an argument, it's something to consider.

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[Thaelon]

Now maybe you can understand why most of us don't want the Federal government to have anything to do with health care: they'll just make it worse.

1. You don't speak for the majority, unless you're omniscient and I don't know it.
2. You certainly don't speak for me, as I consider it a total failure for healthcare reform and a total victory for the insurance companies if the reform bill lacks a public or single payer option.
3. I've personally spoken with citizens of other countries. Denmark has a single payer system, and the person I spoke with had nothing bad to say about it. In fact, the more we spoke the more interested I became in learning Danish and moving. The Canadian fellow pays a total of 92 USD a month for coverage that makes our government employee benefits package look like a complete joke. And their income tax bracketing system is simpler and results in less paid in taxes than hours.
4. I heard on NPR just this afternoon that most doctors would prefer a public payer option and 10% of which would even prefer a single payer option. And I think they would know better than I, or even you.

So perhaps the US government would royally screw it up, but if the Canadian or Danish examples are any measure, it's a lot better than letting private companies run the show when there is money to be made.

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[jwhitener]

me: "We are the only developed first class country on earth without government run healthcare"

him "That's not entirely accurate. Canada does not have a central-government run health care system, either. Each province has their own system. "

Ya, I didn't mean federal/central government only. State/Provincial governments are included.

Ah, American insurers ...

[aeschenkarnos]

... is there anything stupid, evil or simply wrong that they will not do?

Re:Ah, American insurers ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't heard of them eating puppies yet, but that's only because they haven't found a way to monetize it.

Perfect storm of regulation and corruption

[Dr_Barnowl]

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.

Missing the other half...

[R2.0]

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.

Now wait for it to be a government agency.

[FooAtWFU]

Now wait for it to be a government agency denying you instead of an insurance agency. We can replace one insensitive bureaucracy with another, equally insensitive one! Hope and... change?

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...

Re:Now wait for it to be a government agency.

[maxume]

A big contributor to the lack of choice in health insurance is that employers treat it as a benefit, rather than compensation (if all those people were shopping with the dollars their employer is currently spending to cover them, there is some chance that there would be better options available, and probably even pools that were slightly easier to get into).

Of course, another issue with employer provided insurance is that there is small scale socialism going on (employers are willing to employ people with chronic conditions that are essentially not insurable (the condition), and the organization simply pays the cost of their medical care (even if it happens to be embedded in the premiums they pay)).

Health Insurance: Broken Incentives Abound

[amplt1337]

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.

Re:Health Insurance: Broken Incentives Abound

[mcgrew]

Here's another misguided incentive -- drug coverage. I had a vitrectomy last year (I've been asked to warn people that the link supplied can be upsetting) and was prescribed some antibiotic eyedrops afterward. Wanting to hold costs down, I called around for the best price. The tiny bottle of drops retail price varied from sixty dollars to eighty dollars. The sixty dollar option was 20 miles away, the eighty dollar option was less than a mile.

But the co-pay was $26 regardless of where I bought the drug (which retails for $24 in Canada). Ultimately I went to the close pharmacy, which happened to have the most expensive retail price. With gasoline at almost $4.50 per gallon it was an easy choice.

Re:Fraud or stupidity

[bcmm]

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.

Wow

[Sterrance]

I never thought I'd see an article that would refer to the iPhone as "cheap."

To be expected

[FreeUser]

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.

Re:To be expected

[FooAtWFU]

Have you tried getting the Canadian | British | French | $EUROPEAN_NATION's government to cover an iPhone for a speech impediment or other similar communications-related disability? Please, try it and let us know exactly how much better socialized medicine is in this regard.

Re:To be expected

[Wizard Drongo]

Yeah, they would. I mean, sure, they'll go for the medical device if it's better, but if a simple iPhone would work nicely, they'll get you an iPhone. Mainly 'cause in Scotland at least, that sort of decision is made by the local manager in the place you actually go to see the doctor/physio etc. The great thing about the NHS is that it divorces cost from medicine. Since it's all "free" to the patient and the doctor anyway, the doctor will go for the best medical option, regardless of if it costs less or more; admittedly there is some shilling still of GP's by big Pharma trying to get them to prescribe brand X drug, but it's mostly gone, and we see a lot more brand-x-generic now, and all gratuities from Big Pharma to the GP have to be declared. In the States, even if you get coverage, your insurance co. still get shafted by doctors that will order unnecessary tests etc. just to bump up the bill, because it's not his company the money's coming from. Here, it's all the same "company", so if you need a test, you get it. If not, you don't. On the bad side, whilst they'll never turn you down for treatment, depending on where you live, and what it is, you may be waiting a while for that hip-replacement/eye-operation etc.

Re:To be expected

[Rich0]

From what I've heard cost-cutting has a big impact. I know a guy who had some breathing problems in the UK, and the problem was handled with tiny little escalations until it became untreated Pneumonia and he was out of work for a month. It took a week before they gave him an x-ray, and it took a week to get the x-ray interpreted. Then it took about a week before they prescribed him an antibiotic.

I had a friend with similar symptoms in the US. They went to the ER at 10PM with difficulty breathing. They were x-rayed within about 15 minutes, and despite it being late at night the test was interpreted within an hour. Antibiotics and steroid nebulizer were immediately administered, and by about 1-2AM they were headed home with a prescription in hand. They still had a few symptoms the next day, but within 48 hours all symptoms were gone and they finished their prescription over the next week. No work/etc was missed aside from sleeping in a little the next morning.

In this case the UK actually shot itself in the foot since the patient in question missed a month of work - which was a huge net cost - just so they could try to save a few dollars on treatments that have been around for 50+ years. However, sick pay/etc doesn't come out of the NHS budget...

Somewhere there is a balance. The US is a mess, but so are most health care systems - they're just messy in different ways, and by different metrics.

Re:To be expected

[mikael]

But did the antibiotics cure the problem or did the steriod nebulizer. Did the doctors attempt to diagnose what the illness was or just take the shotgun approach? Shooting off antibiotics all over the place is just leading to more antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.

Totally Wrong

[tjstork]

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.

Re:GREED

[jonbryce]

How many $300 iphones would need to break before it became more expensive than an $8000 text to speech device? And I'm pretty sure a $200 ipod touch would do the job just as well.

like my states new medical marijuana program

[peter303]

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.

Re:like my states new medical marijuana program

[sjames]

If, like the iPhone, marijuana was legal without a medical claim, the number of frauds would fall off.

Re:like my states new medical marijuana program

[Lost Engineer]

Given that California, at least, allows MM treatment for virtually any condition, including depression, I find it hard to accuse basically healthy people who use it of fraud. There is no provision that says that other treatments must be tried before marijuana, nor a provision that you need be deathly ill to take it. Nor should there be if you ask me. And if there's some hippie doctor out there who'll recommend it to anyone then so be it. It's basically harmless. For every one of him there's a hundred "normal" doctors who will not prescribe it under any circumstances because they're too afraid of the Federal bogeymen coming to cart them off for doing their job.

The risk is basically that people will effectively self medicate with MM, since you only need to get recommended once, where they might be better off with another medication. Guess what? Not everybody has the time/money/gumption/whatever to see a shrink twice a month. In any case, MM is safer and cheaper than all of the meds they're prescribing. The alternative to this "fraud" is needless suffering.

Of course if the Feds were to wake up and say "we respect the right of the states to self determination wrt drug policy," we could better control pseudo-illicit use of MM. But that'll be a cold day in hell.

Re:nope, they follow government guidelines

[MartinSchou]

Considering what you're describing, I'd have to think that the US is by far the most corrupt industrialised country in the western world.

When private companies (looking to make a profit) can provide cheaper health care than the government (who isn't looking to make a profit), something is very wrong, and the answer to that is usually corruption.

While we tend to complain about our hospitals (usually because of staffing issues), at least we don't face interesting questions such as "would I rather lose the house or the leg. The leg costs 100 grand, isn't covered by insurance, and I'd have to sell the house. And if I sell the house, where will we live? Maybe the wife'll leave me, or maybe child services will take the kids away."

And we don't have to worry about our doctor finding out that we have some kind of underlying but undiscovered illness. Or if we get one that takes forever to fight, to the extent that we lose our job over it and have to go on welfare for a while, at least we won't be fucked when we finally get back on our feet, just because we have a pre-existing condition that requires expensive medicine to cure.

Sure, if you can afford the insurance and weather a few years of really bad luck, I don't doubt that the US can provide some of the very best health service in the world. But I'm yet to hear of anyone in Denmark or Sweden who had to declare bankruptcy because they couldn't pay hospital costs.

As an example, I spent four days in a mental institution (checked myself in). That did cost me. A staggering 320 Swedish Kronar or 46 US$. Sure, that's more than it'd cost to feed myself for four days, but not by much. And considering I have a suicide attempt in my medical history, I think I'd be excluded over a pre-existing mental condition by most US HMOs if not all of them.

So again, if the private for profit companies can do a better job than your non-profit government, you have a massive problem with corruption. Not just in government, but also in the companies that provides these bribes and get away with it. But I don't think I've ever seen any mention of this in the mainstream US media, but considering none of them seem to be providing any kind of critical thinking and instead settle for either being cheerleaders or hecklers, I can't say I'm surprised.

why can't folks pay for their own devices?

[Satanboy]

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.

Um, what?

[ZekoMal]

Okay, so if I coded some software that had some sort of medical use on my computer, would everyone also get all up in arms if insurance companies wouldn't cover my PC that I use almost entirely for entertainment purposes?

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?

Re:nope, they follow government guidelines

[mcgrew]

why do people think health insurance is prohibitively expensive when bought outside an employer

Because it is.

It will get vastly worse when the government takes total control.

That's not been the case in the countries that do in fact have total government control of health care spending.

Re:IT'S MADONNA'S BIRTHDAY TODAY!

[digitig]

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!

US medical system

[valentyn]

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.

Re:nope, they follow government guidelines

[radtea]

But I don't think I've ever seen any mention of this in the mainstream US media

You have, you just don't understand the code-words. When the American media talks about "the free market" and "free market capitalism" they mean "our utterly corrupt system where corporate and Party interests have completely captured the organs of the State and use them to futher their own interests."

Americans call this system of plutocratic oligarchy a "free" market for historical reasons, although arguably "free" could also mean, "free of economic rationality, ethics and democratic oversight."

Cripple Ware

[goombah99]

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.

Re:Cripple Ware

[RKThoadan]

The problem is that crippling it will cost more than just using it as-is. Why in the world should it matter if the device has non-medical uses if a medical-use only device costs more?

Re:Cripple Ware

[level_headed_midwest]

Insurance payment is determined by a bunch of bean counters sitting in a basement somewhere. They don't care about spite, they only care about their actuarial tables and the balance sheet. The insurance companies are willing to pay more for a device without any non-medical functions because it will end up costing them less in the long run. If they start to cover stuff like iPhones, then people who want an iPhone will lie to and badger a doctor into diagnosing them with an illness they don't really have just so they can get a "free" iPhone from their insurer.

Or, if you want me make a scenario:

1. There are 1000 patients that actually need the device. The insurance company decides to only approve the $20k medical device, so they spend $20M.

2. There are 1000 patients that actually need the device. The insurance company decides to approve $500 iPhones. They spend $500K on iPhones for the legitimate patients. Word gets out that the insurance company pays for iPhones, so 100,000 people now "need" this device. The insurance company is now out $50.5M to treat the 1000 people who actually needed the device instead of the previous $20M.

Spite has nothing to do with it; it's all about minimizing risk.

Re:Cripple Ware

[sjames]

It's not as if they are somehow helpless to prevent fraud. Based on a $600 cost for the phone, I figure if they can keep fraud below 97%, they save money. Considering that insurance fraud is a serious crime, it takes a great deal of contempt and/or spite to believe that after their best efforts to prevent fraud and given the severe penalties if fraud is discovered that over 97% of all claims of serious disability requiring an assistive device will be frauds.

Re:Fraud or stupidity

[poolecl]

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!

Re:nope, they follow government guidelines

[Red Flayer]

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.

That is because each state has different laws covering health insurance. There is no government regulation preventing you from purchasing insurance from a carrier in a different state, nor is there regulation preventing an insurance company from selling in multiple states.

Your employer gets a tax deduction for your insurance that you cannot get if you buy your own.

100% false. You can deduct medical insurance premiums.

when you go to buy it you get soaked because each state piles on its mandated coverage to the already onerous federal mandates

This is a separate issue, and one worthy of debate. The alternative to mandated coverages (which are much less onerous than you assume, I think) is insurers selling insurance, collecting premiums, then denying claims for seemingly random conditions. This was a HUGE problem before states stepped in to regulate the medical insurance industry. While it needs to be balanced against efficiency, there is no doubt in my mind that mandated coverages have been a big benefit to insurance buyers.

As for the first two items I addrsssed, you are either being disingenuous or are grossly misinformed. I hope it's the latter, but I'm not sure.

While I agree that over-regulation can be a problem, under-regulation can also be a problem. Letting the insurance companies do what they want will not result in a better outcome for the people who buy insurance. We've been there, and it doesn't work. My big complaint with over-regulation is that it creates barriers to entry due to compliance costs; however, there are already significant barriers to entry in the medical insurance business because of the cost of catastrophic cases (capital reserves need to be very large, which keeps new entrants out; also, bad luck could easily mean insolvency for a small insurer).

Re:IT'S MADONNA'S BIRTHDAY TODAY!

[Svartalf]

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.

Re:American Healthcare...

[Red Flayer]

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...

Re:It's government's fault

[Qzukk]

It's easy to hold bullshit opinions and remain ignorant when you hold the belief that if others don't do all the research for you then your opinion can't possibly be wrong, isn't it?

It's easy to claim that the government imposes some maximum limit of care by law and if anyone dares to provide more value then the FBI will come and arrest everyone.

Next up, OP will be claiming the EPA demands that companies pour a liter of benzene into the water supply every year.

Re:Fraud or stupidity

[plague3106]

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.

Re:It's government's fault

[Svartalf]

It's also easy to provide bullshit remarks to try to avoid answering a legitimate question.

It's a legit request- either answer the poster or spare us.

American Medical Horrors Dwarf the NHS' Issues

[FreeUser]

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.

Re:Fraud or stupidity

[RKThoadan]

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?

Re:Fraud or stupidity

[jedidiah]

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.

Re:It's government's fault

[commodore64_love]

>>>It's easy to claim that the government imposes some maximum limit of care by law

Strawman argument - that's not what I said. What government imposes is a minimum amount of care, which seems like a good idea but has unintended consequences, like not letting a hearing-impaired person get a cheap Iphone but instead have to spend $4000 on a government-approved gadget. Or forcing asthma suffers to buy "environmentally friendly" inhalers that cost $40 a piece, instead of the cheaper $2 versions that they've been using for the last fifty years. (See my signature).

Government doesn't set-out to be evil. On the contrary most politicians are trying to do good. But government, being a monopoly, often creates bad results due to the unintended side effects. And citizens suffer because of it.

Re:Soo.....

[rickb928]

Every claim adds to your history as a cost to the insurance company.

File a claim for your iPhone, and if you don't have replacement cost coverage, you will get a pittance, relatively speaking.

And then your premiums will go up. Look around for cheaper coverage, and there will be none - the other companies see your CLUE report and realize you file claims.

You will pay more in premiums than you ever did for the iPhone.

Now, this seems counterintuitive. Why would using your insurance actually cost you more? Ah, there is an answer. You see, insurance should be there for losses that you CAN'T afford. You can spring for the iPhone, it's having yoru house burn down or the back room be crushed by a falling tree that you want and need insurance for. And for the burglar that slips on the pool deck and sues you for their sprained back. Actually, you get insurance to pay the lawyers to defend you against that, but another topic...

So, perhaps you buy the carrier's insurance for the iPhone - a little pricey, but cheaper than having your homeowner's insurance 'skyrocket' for the next 5 years.

True story - I got a Palm Pilot 5000 when it was first out. Sweet. Dropped it the third day I had it, cracked the screen magnificently. Sent it in with $100 and fixed good as new. Dropped it again two days later. I learned to treat it gently, and never cracked another one, from the IIIc to V to Vx. The next item I cracked was my Toshiba Gigabeat, in my gym bag, whacked a door frame. $30, some time to tear it apart, and I have a white S60. I learned to care for my devices, a lesson re-learned occasionally... If you're hard on stuff, you learn not to be, get protection, or pay. Life isn't fair, just real.

Weird Mod Abuse

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Say what?

[forrie]

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.

Which is why we need reform...

[sean.peters]

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.

Re:nope, they follow government guidelines

[Red Flayer]

There's no doubt in my mind - insurance is a scam. But there's also no doubt in mind that government is a *bigger* scam.

Then we'll never agree. I think you sell short the ability of private concerns to scam their customers, especially when they have the resources to buy the laws they want. What we have now is a system where the insurance companies are a scam, and the government supports them because insurance company money gets people elected. So we have an even more effective scam. Removing the profit incentive from the insurance business will reduce this.

If I don't like the proposed Government Healthcare Bill I can opt out and --- get fined $2000 a year for that decision. Hmmm.

That's disingenuous. You can opt out of the government system and go with a private carrier, and not pay any fine. The reason the uninsured will have to pay a penalty is because the general public (or hospitals private or public, currently) will end up paying for their care anyway. The penalty keeps people from freeloading on the system, which is a big problem when you have a mixed public-private system.

If I don't like Nationwide I can cancel my coverage and refuse to pay.

Are you talking about car insurance? Because in most states, you are either required to pay for insurance, or required to pay a fine if you are uninsured. Not sure how this one supports your argument...

Re:nope, they follow government guidelines

[brkello]

Wow. You must get all your new from biased sources since you have everything backwards.

Buying insurance as an individual is incredibly expensive. The reason employers get a better deal is because they have a larger pool of people and can negotiate down prices. As an individual, you do not have that leverage so you get screwed. You are also screwed no matter how much you are willing to pay if you have a pre-existing condition (like pregnancy).

A public option would allow you to take it across state lines...so I don't know what you are complaining about there.

You are already paying for coverage you never use. And on top of that, you are paying for all the profits that go to the shareholders and the large CEO salaries. There is no way that it will be more expensive than the current system.

Again, one device being preferred over the other is already in the current system.

It has gotten vastly better for every industrialized country that has a single payer system. The mantra that government is bad is stupid and childish. Too much government is bad. Too little government is bad. It is time to realize for our businesses to compete and for us as individuals to be actually getting raises instead of paying more for health care, we need to do away with the for profit business of health insurance.

Re:nope, they follow government guidelines

[expatriot]

About two-third of the staff inside UK Health Services are bureaucrats, not medical personnel

More excuses for inhumanity.

I don't have the latest survey to hand, but http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=7780 lists to 2002 percentages for England:

7.7% Medical and dental (doctors)
31.7& Nurses, midwifes, and health visitors
11.2% Scientific, theraputic, and technical
31.5% Support to clinical and other staff care
17.3% NHS infrastructure staff

Some of the nurses and clinical support staff will have administrative duties, but at least half of the total are involved with direct delivery of care.

The table at http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/nhsstaff/NHSStaffNHSLeaflet240406_PDF.pdf lists 2005 statistics and gives breakdowns on non-admin staff. The short summary:
10% Doctors
30% Nurses and therapists
10% Scientific and technical
1.3% Ambulance drivers
28% Support to doctors and therapists

This is the United States...

[sean.peters]

We don't have sensible health care coverage here. Maybe soon, but not now.

As the kids on Wikipedia say...

[sean.peters]

[citation needed]

Re:Fraud or stupidity

[level_headed_midwest]

"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.

Re:Fraud or stupidity

[JPLemme]

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.

Re:Fraud or stupidity

[WCguru42]

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.

Re:Fraud or stupidity

[dissy]

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.

Re:IT'S MADONNA'S BIRTHDAY TODAY!

[mikael]

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.

Idea

[slyguy135]

So accept the more expensive machine, sell it, and buy an iphone or whatever it is you want. Profit?!?! (Something like that, right?)

did this need to be included??

[nimbius]

"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.

Re:nope, they follow government guidelines

[St.Creed]

In agreement with your post: a few months ago I listened to an analysis by a sector banker of the ABN Amro (a large Dutch bank) about freelancers. He said the biggest reason for the lack of freelancers in the country where you'd expect the most, the USA, was lack of affordable health, professional and disability insurance.

So in The Netherlands (you know, Fox's posterboy for all that's bad with socialized healthcare) more and more people are self-employed because it's doable (and much more so since the government changed the healthcare insurance). Here I insure my entire families' health for 330 euro's a month - and that's with one of the more expensive full-coverage, choose-your-own doctor/hospital/whatever insurers.

New category needed

[Lonewolf666]

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.

Re:Fraud or stupidity

[sorak]

"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.

typical

[speedtux]

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.

Re:Fraud or stupidity

[Chelloveck]

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.

"...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.)

Re:nope, they follow government guidelines

[schnablebg]

Your employer gets a tax deduction for your insurance that you cannot get if you buy your own.

100% false. You can deduct medical insurance premiums.

Not quite. Medical expenses are only deductible if they exceed 7.5% of your AGi, and you need to itemize, meaning that this deduction competes with the standard deduction. Contrast this with employer provided healthcare: you get to deduct all of it, and you can still take your standard deduction.

In both cases, this favors the rich.