4 ms·

> ... most of the drive to implement these programs were not nefarious. Nice choice of words there; that would imply some of the drive was nefarious. In my ca

> ... most of the drive to implement these programs were not nefarious. Nice choice of words there; that would imply some of the drive was nefarious. In my case they wanted all the usual vitals (height, weight, blood pressure), along with a couple of blood draws... and if you started reading the little thing you signed along with it, it was unreal what you were signing away. I had co-workers getting calls from the insurance companies nurse practitioners wanting to discuss their vitals. You're basically talking a turnkey Gattaca scenario. If the intention is truly just to make people aware of potential health risks, partner with GPs and have them do the conversation. I'd be much more comfortable with a "firewalled" abstraction layer between me and the insurance company that doesn't allow for any data sharing.

superuser2 11y ago
Insurance companies are strongly incentivized to make the catastrophes they insure against less likely to happen. Car insurance companies are the force for safety engineering in the automotive industry. Property insurance companies audit safes and alarm systems and require that policyholders use good ones. The FDIC is pretty strict about the behavior of its covered banks. Hell, go look at your household appliances and light fixtures - UL is Underwriter's Laboratories. It makes perfect sense that health insurance companies become the force for healthy lifestyles. This topic came up for debate recently and the American people chose to stay the course of addressing healthcare through for-profit insurance companies. Why should those companies not act in their self-interest to reduce risk?
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > It makes perfect sense that health insurance companies become the force for healthy lifestyles. Insurance companies are incentivized to promote lifestyles that have less healthcare expenses. This often maps to "healthy lifestyles", but that is not universally true. > Why should those companies not act in their self-interest to reduce risk? Because we probably want people to quit smoking and eat better, but those activities cause people to die faster[1], which is cheaper for insurance companies. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.97488...

superuser2 11y ago

Insurance companies are strongly incentivized to make the catastrophes they insure against less likely to happen. Car insurance companies are the force for safety engineering in the automotive industry. Property insurance companies audit safes and alarm systems and require that policyholders use good ones. The FDIC is pretty strict about the behavior of its covered banks. Hell, go look at your household appliances and light fixtures - UL is Underwriter's Laboratories. It makes perfect sense that health insurance companies become the force for healthy lifestyles. This topic came up for debate recently and the American people chose to stay the course of addressing healthcare through for-profit insurance companies. Why should those companies not act in their self-interest to reduce risk?

pdkl95 11y ago
> It makes perfect sense that health insurance companies become the force for healthy lifestyles. Insurance companies are incentivized to promote lifestyles that have less healthcare expenses. This often maps to "healthy lifestyles", but that is not universally true. > Why should those companies not act in their self-interest to reduce risk? Because we probably want people to quit smoking and eat better, but those activities cause people to die faster[1], which is cheaper for insurance companies. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.97488...