Not in Germany, they don't. Barmer is a "gesetzliche Krankenkasse"/public insurance, which means most of their members' premiums are legally limited to a certain percentage of their members' income, and while they can and do raise their premiums occasionally, that's always a topic of political debate and needs a better justification than "a very small percentage of our members need expensive exo-skeletons now."
They have no ability to raise premiums on specific members with high healthcare costs.
I think the main argument is that the insurance companies, in particular in the US, wants a certain percentage discount with the health care providers. The easiest way to provide substantial discount to an insurance company is by increasing the general price.
This is not the case in most European countries that they use a mostly publicly funded system.
I think all insurance companies care about is being able to price out the risk of fat tail events.
It’s not clear that higher overall costs are always beneficial to insurance companies, because rising premiums might reduce demand for their products. This would depend a lot on the regulatory framework (ie.: which country or laws apply).
If they are private, yes. But in countries like France, they don't try to make money on health, and the goal is to get less people sick, not to milk them.
Most health insurance really should not exist. It's a fundamentally messed up idea.
Insurance is a bet. You look at the odds and price things accordingly so you can cover the occasional big payout with the premiums from people who don't "win" so to speak. Playing with the lives and health of people to try to skew the bottom line one way or the other is fundamentally a stupid human practice.
Government should provide some basic health services to protect the health of the nation as a whole, just like government tends to provide fire fighting services because letting one fool burn his own home down can burn down a lot more than just his home.
It's a complicated topic and a pet peeve of mine. This approach to trying to keep people healthy is deeply flawed.
Edit: Though I'm really not sure what your comment has to do with this article, to be honest.
Insurance is a bet for the person taking the insurance, not the one offering it. Just as casinos are not gambling. Law of large numbers and all that.
I agree that it's a weird business to be in (and certainly the US has not figured out the best approach), but this article is about Germany, and generally I think we strike the right balance here. Not in every detail, there is still a lot of room for improvement (too many insurances, too little competition between them, some questionable decisions about reimbursement) - but I wouldn't dare to claim that I could consistently make better decisions.
That is most likely a general tactic. If you are an early adopter, you also carry the initial extra cost. Take exoskeleton, gene therapy, ... whatever. When they fight it for ... let us say ... 10 years, the cost has gone significantly down to a probably reasonable level.
Health Insurance companies (especially non-totally-private ones) have an ugly battle of balancing the costs with the good of the many and not the individual.
Because of the importance of muscle action to the process of returning lymphatic fluid to the circulatory system, I would assume that exoskeletons are likely to be much better for one's health than a wheelchair.
Here’s a thought - at what price point is it cheaper to buy everyone that needs one an exoskeleton than to rebuild every building to be ADA accessible?
Most wheelchair users are either elderly or suffering from some other deteriorating condition associated with pain, overall weakness, or instability, and will therefore likely not be able to use these. (Note that even in the promotional images, people are using crutches to balance in addition to the exo-skeletons.)
The classic "strong above the waist, paralyzed from the waist down" image of a wheelchair user that people might have from eg the paralympics is the minority.
Maybe new parents could get an exoskeleton that lets them carry the stroller upstairs as easy as lifting a feather. Heaven knows new parents need all the help they can get!
I propose that each building be equipped with a R2-D2/The Matrix brain jack terminal, so that the disabled can jack in to simulated experience of the building, thus freeing architecture from ADA constraints. I also vehemently oppose letting people connect from the comfort of their own homes, because it doesn't fit the aesthetic of my cyberpunk flavor.
I think you are seriously overestimating the utility of these right now. It is not just about cost, they are more limited than wheelchairs in many ways.
I think there are far more benefits than more easy access to public accommodations.. From the article, the patients that used the exoskeletons had an improved quality of life, reduction in pain from being wheel chair bound and were able to taper dosage on pain medication.
Interesting question. I suspect that would be intrinsically tied to rate of manufacture. The cost of manufacturing exoskeletons will decrease over time while the cost of labor and building modifications will likely decrease.
Around the same time that we cross that threshold, I expect we'll cross another where robots of various types might exist as infrastructure and so demand the same ramps as ADA but for different reasons.
Would there be some resistance from some subset of disabled people to be forced to use exoskeletons in place of wheelchairs if we decided to go this route?
Readit News
They have no ability to raise premiums on specific members with high healthcare costs.
This is not the case in most European countries that they use a mostly publicly funded system.
It’s not clear that higher overall costs are always beneficial to insurance companies, because rising premiums might reduce demand for their products. This would depend a lot on the regulatory framework (ie.: which country or laws apply).
Insurance is a bet. You look at the odds and price things accordingly so you can cover the occasional big payout with the premiums from people who don't "win" so to speak. Playing with the lives and health of people to try to skew the bottom line one way or the other is fundamentally a stupid human practice.
Government should provide some basic health services to protect the health of the nation as a whole, just like government tends to provide fire fighting services because letting one fool burn his own home down can burn down a lot more than just his home.
It's a complicated topic and a pet peeve of mine. This approach to trying to keep people healthy is deeply flawed.
Edit: Though I'm really not sure what your comment has to do with this article, to be honest.
I agree that it's a weird business to be in (and certainly the US has not figured out the best approach), but this article is about Germany, and generally I think we strike the right balance here. Not in every detail, there is still a lot of room for improvement (too many insurances, too little competition between them, some questionable decisions about reimbursement) - but I wouldn't dare to claim that I could consistently make better decisions.
Health Insurance companies (especially non-totally-private ones) have an ugly battle of balancing the costs with the good of the many and not the individual.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25427090
The classic "strong above the waist, paralyzed from the waist down" image of a wheelchair user that people might have from eg the paralympics is the minority.
Would there be some resistance from some subset of disabled people to be forced to use exoskeletons in place of wheelchairs if we decided to go this route?
https://www.expatica.com/de/healthcare/healthcare-basics/ger...
I worked in it for about 30 years is different rules and jobs, so please don't ask.
Now onto some interesting aspects of the USA health care system widely unknown in Germany:
https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/unknown-health-care-pr...https://www.kff.org/uninsured/issue-brief/key-facts-about-th...