Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon, Berkshire, JPMorgan to Create Healthcare Company

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 540 posts

Re: Amazon, Berkshire, JPMorgan to Create Healthcare Company

#431

Post by drawkbox »

This move is very needed competition and is a start to fix pricing and hopefully smarter grouping.

But, ultimately health insurance should be something people get on their own like other insurance, healthcare needs to be unbound from employers in our system.

Part of the problem with pricing is the health insurance companies are not consumer focused due to their main customers being employers not individuals. Other insurance industries (auto, home, life etc) have to be consumer friendly, you can see it in the marketing you see, they need consumers to buy on their own.

Health insurance companies like Aetna/BCBS/etc fix prices in backrooms with employers, medical services, hospitals, doctors and more. Current healthcare players actively price out individuals due to legacy grouping by companies not individuals across many ages/spectrums. Grouping by employer leaves self-proprietors, small companies and more with higher healthcare bills due to them being more risky because they are small. Smart grouping would be across all customers not just by employer/company, that is a game to get prices lower in certain companies that are larger unfairly.

Employers should have zero involvement with your health other than paying you enough to go get insurance on your own, whether that is single payer public option or private insurance. Healthcare tied to employment has problems as it makes it harder to change jobs, start a company, ageism, and if you ever do need it, if you lose your job you are out of luck.

ACA started the process to unbind health insurance from employers and hopefully this Amazon/Berkshire/JPM product/company will be consumer focused unlike current health insurance companies, and start to fix healthcare to be consumer focused like products should be.

At this point both the Amazon and CVS ventures are adding needed competition, as healthcare costs are starting to cut into consumer funds heavily. Healthcare is stealing other industries profits via this encroachment. Health insurance companies used every excuse and love the legislative turmoil because they can raise prices without checks in the chaos.

Hopefully the unbinding of healthcare from employment continues, whether through better consumer focused healthcare companies or a single payer public option like Medicare-for-all that the consumer can choose between, as that is the only thing that will start to fix pricing and grouping.

This is very smart for Amazon as healthcare is still completely undisrupted and ripe for competition, tons of technology and product opportunities and literally any effort is better than what we currently have for health insurance, the only product that gets worse every year and goes up by a minimum of 20-30% yearly in some cases 120% which is impossible to continue.

Re: Amazon, Berkshire, JPMorgan to Create Healthcare Company

#432

Post by jrcii »

Get rid of all health insurance except for major medical, and all forms of government-provided health insurance. Veterans get a voucher. Promote HSAs for everything else. Major medical insurance companies are not-for-profit only. These not-for-profits accept donations for the poor and elderly. All other payments go from the pocket of the patient to the doctor. Health care costs go down dramatically, liberty increases, doctors make more money, preventative health care increases. It's a win across the board. It will never happen.

Re: Amazon, Berkshire, JPMorgan to Create Healthcare Company

#433

Post by IncRnd »

ceejayoz wrote: post #147
IncRnd wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be irresponsible at best for Amazon to tackle the medical supply/device market before they can learn to ship 20 items from the same fulfillment center on the same day in the same box instead of in 20 oversized but mostly empty boxes.

Fulfillment centers are large enough that shipping them in individual boxes may actually be the cost-effective method at times. I've also heard they play a bit of a game of tetris to fill truck trailers in a way that completely stuffs them full enough that packages don't move around.

> Fulfillment centers are large enough that shipping them in individual boxes may actually be the cost-effective method at times.

You missed half of what I wrote, "instead of in 20 oversized but mostly empty boxes." The context was in a single order from a single supplier, whose product was already at the warehouse, shipping on the same date, to the same address, for the same delivery date, using the same delivery carrier, of almost identical items that almost assuredly are on the warehouse shelves right next to each other.

> I've also heard they play a bit of a game of tetris to fill truck trailers in a way that completely stuffs them full enough that packages don't move around.

That may be the case, but I am referring to the incorrect packing of boxes not trucks.

Re: Amazon, Berkshire, JPMorgan to Create Healthcare Company

#434

Post by ergothus »

kbenson wrote: post #428
ergothus wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't say if it's better or not, but we do know that human organizations function poorly at scale. The larger the group, the more difficult it is to communicate, the easier it is to feel powerless, the more the problems of a large chunk of the group are remote and abstract (and thus ignored/missed/downplayed/deprioritized) I suspect that you also have more corruption and/or abuse of power because (a) the previous e…

I'm not sure any of your claims are backed up by data. Is our larger society more corrupt? Is it more difficult to communicate? I could just as easily argue that smaller, more insular groups promote distrust of outsiders and lack of empathy, which might lead to more wars. I have no idea if that's true, but it sounds plausible to me. In the end, actually examining data is what's needed. Until there are facts to assess…

> I'm not sure any of your claims are backed up by data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number has a decent collection of the research I know of. There is a little hand-waving involved when it comes to "why", but it's notable that multiple researchers over decades disagree about the number, not the base concept. Likewise, studies related to the base concept of the non-technical Brooks Law support the non-linear impact on communication as a group grows (off hand I can't find a study on that, but I know I've read of multiple).

Edit: Also https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-risky-is-it-really/... points out some research about the distance/abstractness I mentioned.

Anecdotally, plenty of governing and/or economic systems (e.g. communism) have historical success in small groups and no examples of success in large groups, but that's a completely different kind of evidence.

The corruption/abuse item is not part of the research, which is why I separated that as "I suspect" Given the above, and what we know about leaders (executives, politicians) and how sociopathic tendencies are an asset to personal success I find it very plausible but I have no actual evidence, thus "I suspect".

> I could just as easily argue that smaller, more insular groups promote distrust of outsiders and lack of empathy

You could, and I'd actually be interested to see any research on the topic because I've not thought about that one but it does match our general experiences about exposure and tolerance to social differences. That's orthogonal to my point though, as I was only addressing internal workings, not interactions between groups.

Re: Amazon, Berkshire, JPMorgan to Create Healthcare Company

#435

Post by [deleted] »

colmvp wrote: post #287
everdev wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ditched my BlueShield PPO for Kaiser and costs went down dramatically. There's tons of costs to be saved in healthcare and glad to see the private sector making an effort.

I tried applying to Kaiser and they rejected me for having a pre-existing condition which couldn't be helped given that I was born with it. Good for everyone else, I guess. :/ I ended up moving back home where the government covers my treatments.

[deleted]

Re: Amazon, Berkshire, JPMorgan to Create Healthcare Company

#436

Post by noobermin »

jawns wrote: post #7

> The three companies said they plan to set up a new independent company "that is free from profit-making incentives and constraints." I wonder if they will be setting it up as a health insurance cooperative, an organizational structure in which the primary goal is to serve its members, rather than to generate value for external shareholders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_cooperative It's not at all…

A large problem with this system I can see is it doesn't help those who either 1) don't work there or 2) want to switch jobs. This merely pushes back on health insurance companies which is great but it doesn't fix the general issues that occur when access to healthcare is tied to employment.

Re: Amazon, Berkshire, JPMorgan to Create Healthcare Company

#437

Post by randyrand »

colmvp wrote: post #287
everdev wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ditched my BlueShield PPO for Kaiser and costs went down dramatically. There's tons of costs to be saved in healthcare and glad to see the private sector making an effort.

I tried applying to Kaiser and they rejected me for having a pre-existing condition which couldn't be helped given that I was born with it. Good for everyone else, I guess. :/ I ended up moving back home where the government covers my treatments.

Side note, but I really think pre-existing conditions should be covered by welfare, not private corporations who have the requirement of turning a profit.

Re: Amazon, Berkshire, JPMorgan to Create Healthcare Company

#438

Post by [deleted] »

hathawsh wrote: post #421
scribu wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that a small community can’t develop or even maintain advanced technology, including that required for sanitation and healthcare. So, you either choose total independence and low technology or interdependence with other groups and advanced tech.

Certainly. There will always be interdependence and rural communities understand that; that's why they drive modern pickup trucks rather than horse-drawn carriages. Still, they are always looking for ways to reduce their dependence on cities.

[deleted]

Re: Amazon, Berkshire, JPMorgan to Create Healthcare Company

#440

Post by kbenson »

ergothus wrote: post #434
kbenson wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure any of your claims are backed up by data. Is our larger society more corrupt? Is it more difficult to communicate? I could just as easily argue that smaller, more insular groups promote distrust of outsiders and lack of empathy, which might lead to more wars. I have no idea if that's true, but it sounds plausible to me. In the end, actually examining data is what's needed. Until there are facts to assess…

> I'm not sure any of your claims are backed up by data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number has a decent collection of the research I know of. There is a little hand-waving involved when it comes to "why", but it's notable that multiple researchers over decades disagree about the number, not the base concept. Likewise, studies related to the base concept of the non-technical Brooks Law support the non-li…

> The corruption/abuse item is not part of the research, which is why I separated that as "I suspect"

My main point was that the theory was labeled as something you suspect, but the evidence you listed to back up that theory sounded like it was being presented as fact. You've provided resources to back up the claim, at least to some degree (as you note), which is what I was looking for, so thanks. :)

> You could, and I'd actually be interested to see any research on the topic because I've not thought about that one but it does match our general experiences about exposure and tolerance to social differences.

I don't have any, but I also would be interested to see it. I was using it as an example of something that sounded true and that I suspected was true that I had no real evidence of, and thus should be hesitant to assert as true. Unfortunately, by its nature that makes it interesting to a certain type of person, so it ends up teasing us. :/

Post reply on HN