pull down to refresh

Pros and cons compiled from reading the member guide:
Pros:
Access to information. If you have the ability to shop around, CrowdHealth will provide a centralized location and recommend best priced solutions
CrowdHealth has an incentive to make sure you get the best price. CrowdHealth earns 20% off the saved cost when they negotiate for a lower medical bill
If a medical practitioner bills an unfair amount and is unwilling to negotiate with CrowdHealth, the platform will sue the medical practitioner, whereas a self-pay individual would not otherwise be able to afford a lawsuit like this.
Cons:
Long term bad idea.
Your membership ends when you turn 65
No guarentee of medical bills being paid. Members are ultimately responsible for their own bills. Biggest problem with this, is any medical emergency especially one which requires an ambulance.
Monthly contributions are used to crowd fund member billing expenses.
Does not satisfy Mandatory Essential Coverage mandates in the states which have them California, District of Columbia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont
Contributions are not eligible for tax breaks like health insurance premiums or health care sharing ministries.
Counter-Party risk. Funds are custodied by a fourth party (if CrowdHealth is a 3rd party, their funds custodian would be a fourth party). One could assume this is a bank, but information on who this party may be, is not disclosed anywhere I could find.
Analysis:
It would seem to me that if you were inspired by the CrowdHealth system, which is that you save 30%-60% by paying yourself rather than billing an insurer, it might be a better idea to simply have a "Health fund" seperate from your savings account which contains a store of value (so not the US dollar) like gold or Bitcoin. This way, you can pay for medical bills that you will see when you turn 65.
Because health care in the short term, impacts health expenses in the future, maybe a hybrid model could be considered. You use CrowdHealth for the pros, but knowing its limitations, you also have a "Health fund"
Hold your peace about a government solution being even better. Some people aren't looking to wait around for government solutions that haven't been made into law, promised, nor are probable in the foreseeable future.
reply
Clearly targeted to US. Prices are steep AF.
Not saying it might not be worth it, but the website needs to sell the service a bit better before asking those prices IMO.
Good initiative nonetheless.
reply
Agreed, not sold terribly well (which speaks to how kind of unique and complicated the product is) but its an early stage company so I suspect it'll get refined a lot.
reply
Yeah in the US those prices are cheap. If you get insurance from your employer it can be cheaper but you have to work for a large company.
Its only asking for $175 a month for ages 6-54. Normally its $300 a month for that age range.
reply
Based on the rates I've been quoted, without going through an employeer, I'd say great insurance in the US for ~30 year olds is $500+/mo.
reply
Yeah for good insurance. I was looking at minimum payments at the time without really thinking through what it covered lol
reply
I saw this advertised on TFTC and it's interesting to say the least.
It's like a Bitcoin-using "insurance alternative" that's sort of an HSA/Bitcoin Bank/GoFundMe in one.
My intuition says it's doing too many new things all at the same time, but maybe the amalgamation produces an alloy of superior strength. It certainly feels like an idea that was well thought through.
It's nice to see alternatives to health insurance which most definitely needs fixing.
reply
No, this is bad. The United States needs to move to a single payer system like every other civilized country in the world. This doesn't help that cause.
reply