ChatGPT Health is a marketplace, guess who is the product?

Post by DANmode » Sat, Jan 10, 2026, 9:20 PM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #194

DANmode wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These comments (on UHC, Aetna) always strike me the same way as complaining about the lack of inflight meal, baggage fees, or lack of WiFi, on, say, Spirit Airlines. You looked at the list of insurers/jobs offering health insurance carriers, selected the cheapest, or second-cheapest option, and you’re surprised they’re harder to work with? How?

Oh yes, because the vast majority of employers in the US say "pick whatever healthcare plan you want from whatever carrier you want, we'll make it work" and not "You'll get what you're given and be glad for it". Even in tech spaces with money to throw around, that just means that maybe your partner and dependent's premiums will be covered/negligible, or that your deductible will be low. You're still going to be fucke…

Post by ares623 » Sat, Jan 10, 2026, 10:02 PM UTC

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #157

two_tasty wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly understand this perspective. But is it really so hard to imagine a world where your individual choice to "opt-out" or work for companies that don't use that info is a massive detriment to your individual life? It doesn't have to be every single company doing it for you to have no _practical_ choice about it (if you want to make market rate for your services.)

I live my life by the “Ben Kenobi” principal. I’m 51, when things go completely to shit, I’ll just go out and live as a hermit somewhere.

Post by IanCal » Sat, Jan 10, 2026, 10:10 PM UTC

alpinisme wrote: post #48

lotsofpulp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an insurer is able to reduce (or recoup) costs from likelier risks, then the remaining insureds benefit from lower premiums. If the goal is providing subsidies (i.e. wealth transfers), then insurance is not the way to do it. That is the government’s role.

Insurance that is maximally responsive to patient health changes in terms of cost (ie making healthier people pay less) ends up being an inefficient way of just having people pay for their healthcare directly. And it naturally means the people with highest premiums are the least likely to be able to afford it (the elderly, the disabled, those with chronic conditions that make them less likely to maintain high earning…

Post by levocardia » Sat, Jan 10, 2026, 10:14 PM UTC

seydor wrote: post #4

ChatGPT mostly refuses to talk health issues , while i have found Gemini is reasonably cooperative when asking for things like symptoms and treatments . This makes me not wanting to try out their new offering.

Post by lurking_swe » Sat, Jan 10, 2026, 10:17 PM UTC

stevekemp wrote: post #188

gordian-mind wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doctors in Europe already use LLMs to treat you.

That sounds like the kind of hallucinated statement you might expect from ChatGPT. Which doctors, in which countries, are using LLMs to treat patients?