Reminds me of the situation with hearing aids. They're not particularly complicated devices compared to, say, $130 apple airpods. But because they were regulated as medical devices they often cost $3000 or more.
This has changed somewhat since 2022 now that they allow OTC hearing aids, although I believe they're still more expensive than airpods.
As a resident of an independent living facility, I live among a lot of people who use various makes and models of powered chairs. And a great many who have the joystick dislike it immensely, and would prefer to have the handlebars-style navigation. But it's kind of the only way to have the "chair" style, nothing in front of you design. Some of the more scooter-style have rotating chairs, so you can park parallel to a table and turn, but that depends on lower limb mobility, so no easy solutions here.
The "climb a 13° slope, clear a 2-inch curb and cross a 4.7-inch gap" is quite impressive.
> Let's say you've assembled a team and designed an awesome powered wheelchair. One that works better than incumbent designs and is easy on the eyes.
Well, have they? The article lists some very cool features, but those are also points of failure. They review process for medical products is onerous and could definitely be improved, but it does serve an important purpose.
The chair seems to put the user in a higher and more upright position than most, for example, which could make it easier to fall out.
The scenario seems like the system working perfectly as designed: enthusiasts have the opportunity to buy it on the open market, and once it's proven and makes it through the review process, it'll be more widely available through insurance as well.
I can't stand the word "incumbent" anymore. I have only ever seen it in election contexts.
Now that Claude is using it as a fancy shortcut to "current", it's everywhere. I even hear people who would never think to use this word say it in face to face conversations.
The obligations of organizations (insurance, federal, local and state governments, etc.) is the major reason wheelchairs are classified as medical devices.
As always you can get whatever you want if you are willing to pay out of pocket. But when someone else pays, you can't.
That's needlessly complex and a hindrance to economic growth.
Let's say I decide to build a wheelchair that crushes the occupant like a bug. I sell that on the free market. Inevitably there will be negativity from the anti-innovation doomer crowd. I advertise "snug fit," and ixnay on the ushingcray.
So I go to market. Some users are careless and get crushed. (Obviously only terminally careless people would use this product at all.) Of course people must not be allowed to sue me for their own negligence. That's just bizarre.
So how does the system correct? For now, socialists can get the word out on the internet pretty easily. "My wife was crushed. Would not recommend to a friend." You know the kind of tired BS these people spew out. Of course I'll do my best to scrub "troll" reviews, but let's be honest. We're not going to get a lot of stars with this one.
Over time, my sales will tank and (without deep pockets) I may even be forced to shut down. With deep pockets, of course I could keep this up for decades, until people just accept it as a necessary evil.
The economic system takes care of these problems very well. (Although obviously negative reviews from anti-technology weirdos are a problem to be dealt with in the future.)
This has changed somewhat since 2022 now that they allow OTC hearing aids, although I believe they're still more expensive than airpods.
The "climb a 13° slope, clear a 2-inch curb and cross a 4.7-inch gap" is quite impressive.
Well, have they? The article lists some very cool features, but those are also points of failure. They review process for medical products is onerous and could definitely be improved, but it does serve an important purpose.
The chair seems to put the user in a higher and more upright position than most, for example, which could make it easier to fall out.
The scenario seems like the system working perfectly as designed: enthusiasts have the opportunity to buy it on the open market, and once it's proven and makes it through the review process, it'll be more widely available through insurance as well.
Now that Claude is using it as a fancy shortcut to "current", it's everywhere. I even hear people who would never think to use this word say it in face to face conversations.
As always you can get whatever you want if you are willing to pay out of pocket. But when someone else pays, you can't.
Let's say I decide to build a wheelchair that crushes the occupant like a bug. I sell that on the free market. Inevitably there will be negativity from the anti-innovation doomer crowd. I advertise "snug fit," and ixnay on the ushingcray.
So I go to market. Some users are careless and get crushed. (Obviously only terminally careless people would use this product at all.) Of course people must not be allowed to sue me for their own negligence. That's just bizarre.
So how does the system correct? For now, socialists can get the word out on the internet pretty easily. "My wife was crushed. Would not recommend to a friend." You know the kind of tired BS these people spew out. Of course I'll do my best to scrub "troll" reviews, but let's be honest. We're not going to get a lot of stars with this one.
Over time, my sales will tank and (without deep pockets) I may even be forced to shut down. With deep pockets, of course I could keep this up for decades, until people just accept it as a necessary evil.
The economic system takes care of these problems very well. (Although obviously negative reviews from anti-technology weirdos are a problem to be dealt with in the future.)