4 ms·

Soon enough this data will end up in the hands of our insurers, and enough technology will be built to where if you buy a 6 pack on the weekend, your premium wi

Soon enough this data will end up in the hands of our insurers, and enough technology will be built to where if you buy a 6 pack on the weekend, your premium will be adjusted on-the-fly. It's all so tiring.

throwaway3699 5y ago
FWIW socialised healthcare (the better alternative) hasn't solved that particular problem. Punitive taxes on alcohol and smoking are very common because they're trying to reduce costs. Insurance is the same thing but on an individual basis, which means healthier people should _in theory_ get better premiums in your example.
- JohnWhigham 5y ago
  Right, but I'm talking about the novel ways companies try to optimize premiums. Car insurance is already doing it with some companies wanting you to install an application on your phone to track your driving habits in hopes of maybe lowering your premium. Disgusting shit.
  - pc86 5y ago
    I don't install these apps but what exactly is wrong with them and why is it "disgusting shit?" If I drive the speed limit or slower, stop for 3-4 seconds at every stop sign, don't accelerate quickly, etc., what's wrong with me having a lower auto insurance premium than someone with an identical profile who goes 10 over the limit everywhere and rolls through every 5th stop sign? I'm not implying insurance companies are doing this out of altruism. If it resulted in a net decrease in profit, the apps wouldn't exist. But it does seem like a beneficial form of price discrimination. It seems like it's only "disgusting shit" if it makes your insurance premiums go up because you're a less safe driver.
    - throwaway3699 5y ago
      I will admit I'm not a fan of surveillance based insurance, either. Just pointing out the alternative is individualising the cost via insurance or making all society pay for a few people.
    - kelnos 5y ago
      The problem is when it becomes required to submit to this sort of surveillance, or you don't get insurance at all. That doesn't seem like an unlikely endgame to me. Also the factors the app monitors are not necessarily correlated with risk of a crash in the way we'd expect. For example, if you drive the speed limit or slower on most highways in the US, you will be driving slower than the speed of most traffic, and it's more likely that someone will rear-end you.
Spooky23 5y ago
Already done - this type of data is already used to assess your risk for opioid addiction in several states, especially if you are in a high risk/high cost group.
unishark 5y ago
So medical science could figure out the health consequence of all your dietary and recreational decisions with amazing granularity, and your take is this is a negative thing because of the possibility of higher insurance rates?
- JohnWhigham 5y ago
  Yes? Are you not aware of how money-hungry these insurance companies are, and how you have to fight them tooth-and-nail to get some things covered?
- missedthecue 5y ago
  If you live an unhealthy lifestyle, it's easy to imagine how a fairer deal might cost you more money.
- kelnos 5y ago
  I'm fine with medical science having this data -- assuming there is a way to ensure they're using it ethically -- but insurers? Hell no.
  - unishark 5y ago
    No one here is proposing we give this data to insurers. The poster I responded to is proposing we deny medical science this data, and that we remain remain sicker and more ignorant about health, because otherwise the discoveries medical science makes might get used by insurers who somehow gain access to our purchasing data later (another thing no one here is proposing they be given).
DennisP 5y ago
Under current US law, health insurance companies can't even adjust your premiums for serious preexisting conditions, much less because you bought some beer. Auto insurance could maybe do it though.
- mbg721 5y ago
  Many plans are highly punitive towards smokers; it's not a huge leap to imagine something new becoming the Sin Of The Week.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    It's hard to compare smoking to the 'sin of the week'. It's the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. (or was a few years ago), and probably has been for generations. It is one of the most studied and prolonged public health issues. It's hard to blame smoking insurance costs on 'sin' - it kills people and increases costs for the insurance company, possibly more than any other choice people can make. If you drive in drag races and ask for car insurance, don't be surprised if it costs more.
    - mbg721 5y ago
      And this kind of argument will be made for booze, sugar, meat, etc., but only when piling on the users of each one is politically fashionable.
- JohnWhigham 5y ago
  Don't think that could not change in a heartbeat, given how powerful the healthcare lobby is in Congress.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - DennisP 5y ago
    And yet the ACA passed in the first place.
teacup21 5y ago
>> Soon enough this data will end up in the hands of our insurers, and enough technology will be built to where if you buy a 6 pack on the weekend, your premium will be adjusted on-the-fly. After watching the movie "I Care A Lot" (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9893250/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9893250/) and reading up the horror stories about forced Guardianship scams in the US (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/how-the-elderly-lose-their-rights https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/how-the-elderl...) -- i'd be worried that corporatized Guardianship companies scan medical data en-masse to find victims (with sufficient work and profit motive, it can be de-anon'd)

throwaway3699 5y ago

FWIW socialised healthcare (the better alternative) hasn't solved that particular problem. Punitive taxes on alcohol and smoking are very common because they're trying to reduce costs. Insurance is the same thing but on an individual basis, which means healthier people should _in theory_ get better premiums in your example.

JohnWhigham 5y ago
Right, but I'm talking about the novel ways companies try to optimize premiums. Car insurance is already doing it with some companies wanting you to install an application on your phone to track your driving habits in hopes of maybe lowering your premium. Disgusting shit.
- pc86 5y ago
  I don't install these apps but what exactly is wrong with them and why is it "disgusting shit?" If I drive the speed limit or slower, stop for 3-4 seconds at every stop sign, don't accelerate quickly, etc., what's wrong with me having a lower auto insurance premium than someone with an identical profile who goes 10 over the limit everywhere and rolls through every 5th stop sign? I'm not implying insurance companies are doing this out of altruism. If it resulted in a net decrease in profit, the apps wouldn't exist. But it does seem like a beneficial form of price discrimination. It seems like it's only "disgusting shit" if it makes your insurance premiums go up because you're a less safe driver.
  - throwaway3699 5y ago
    I will admit I'm not a fan of surveillance based insurance, either. Just pointing out the alternative is individualising the cost via insurance or making all society pay for a few people.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    The problem is when it becomes required to submit to this sort of surveillance, or you don't get insurance at all. That doesn't seem like an unlikely endgame to me. Also the factors the app monitors are not necessarily correlated with risk of a crash in the way we'd expect. For example, if you drive the speed limit or slower on most highways in the US, you will be driving slower than the speed of most traffic, and it's more likely that someone will rear-end you.

Spooky23 5y ago

Already done - this type of data is already used to assess your risk for opioid addiction in several states, especially if you are in a high risk/high cost group.

unishark 5y ago

So medical science could figure out the health consequence of all your dietary and recreational decisions with amazing granularity, and your take is this is a negative thing because of the possibility of higher insurance rates?

JohnWhigham 5y ago
Yes? Are you not aware of how money-hungry these insurance companies are, and how you have to fight them tooth-and-nail to get some things covered?
missedthecue 5y ago
If you live an unhealthy lifestyle, it's easy to imagine how a fairer deal might cost you more money.
kelnos 5y ago
I'm fine with medical science having this data -- assuming there is a way to ensure they're using it ethically -- but insurers? Hell no.
- unishark 5y ago
  No one here is proposing we give this data to insurers. The poster I responded to is proposing we deny medical science this data, and that we remain remain sicker and more ignorant about health, because otherwise the discoveries medical science makes might get used by insurers who somehow gain access to our purchasing data later (another thing no one here is proposing they be given).

DennisP 5y ago

Under current US law, health insurance companies can't even adjust your premiums for serious preexisting conditions, much less because you bought some beer. Auto insurance could maybe do it though.

mbg721 5y ago
Many plans are highly punitive towards smokers; it's not a huge leap to imagine something new becoming the Sin Of The Week.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  It's hard to compare smoking to the 'sin of the week'. It's the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. (or was a few years ago), and probably has been for generations. It is one of the most studied and prolonged public health issues. It's hard to blame smoking insurance costs on 'sin' - it kills people and increases costs for the insurance company, possibly more than any other choice people can make. If you drive in drag races and ask for car insurance, don't be surprised if it costs more.
  - mbg721 5y ago
    And this kind of argument will be made for booze, sugar, meat, etc., but only when piling on the users of each one is politically fashionable.
JohnWhigham 5y ago
Don't think that could not change in a heartbeat, given how powerful the healthcare lobby is in Congress.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- DennisP 5y ago
  And yet the ACA passed in the first place.

teacup21 5y ago

>> Soon enough this data will end up in the hands of our insurers, and enough technology will be built to where if you buy a 6 pack on the weekend, your premium will be adjusted on-the-fly. After watching the movie "I Care A Lot" (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9893250/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9893250/) and reading up the horror stories about forced Guardianship scams in the US (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/how-the-elderly-lose-their-rights https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/how-the-elderl...) -- i'd be worried that corporatized Guardianship companies scan medical data en-masse to find victims (with sufficient work and profit motive, it can be de-anon'd)