3 ms·

> no one is monitoring diet, exercise, drug use, cigarette consumption, or other risky behaviors, and threatening to withhold treatment for non-compliance ...

by ggsp 5y ago

> no one is monitoring diet, exercise, drug use, cigarette consumption, or other risky behaviors, and threatening to withhold treatment for non-compliance ... yet.

bserge 5y ago
But try to withhold payment if you get no treatment - deary me, no no no, that sends you to jail (really, in some places).
protomyth 5y ago
yeah yet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNJl9EEcsoE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNJl9EEcsoE Still on track after a decade
dylan604 5y ago
That you know of. All of this data is collected and made available if you are paying for things with a card. Hypothetically, insurance carriers could be seeing exactly what you buy, from where, and how often. If you have a gym membership (as shady as gyms are, it would not surprise me to learn they not only provide membership but attendance records as well), they can glean if you are active. blah blah, metadata is innocent.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Most people will gladly hand over this information to insurance companies in exchange for lower premiums.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    Most people would ultimately be charged higher premiums if they did hand this data over. Ins: In the last week, you've purchased 3 packages of Oreos, 2 cans of Crisco, 3lbs of 73% ground beef, no vegetables, lots of stuff with high sugar content, high salt content, and very little actual nutritional value. Therefore, we rank you in a high risk category (since you are clearly over 21 years old) based on the fact you also bought 1 carton of cigarettes and 2 cases of beer. Please enjoy your new higher insurance premium.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      But the people for whom it would lower premiums would hand over the data, which results in the same thing. A health insurance company could offer me a $50 discount for a monthly blood test showing my sugar/cholesterol, and I would do it. Why should I pay for someone else’s cheese/alcohol/butter/sugar/bacon consumption. I assume the reason it is not currently implemented yet is because the cost of monthly blood tests is too high relative to the cost reduction. I do get $200 if I do it annually though, so it seems like it is at least worth it on a yearly basis.
      - piva00 5y ago
        > A health insurance company could offer me a $50 discount for a monthly blood test showing my sugar/cholesterol, and I would do it. Why should I pay for someone else’s cheese/alcohol/butter/sugar/bacon consumption. Because... You would be saving peanuts while someone else would have to pay much more (and sometimes drop their insurance completely) and that's a much worse result for society than you paying some 50 bucks extra, even more if you have a good salary and this practice would make someone poorer be forced to be uninsured. This ultra-individualistic thinking really doesn't help a society. Might help you as an individual but good luck living without a society.
        dahfizz 5y ago
        Insurance is just about the worst avenue to pursue your socialistic goals. Insurance is a numbers game, you will never be pursuasive with arguments about the greater good.
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        How do you know that I would save peanuts while someone else has to pay disproportionately more? I already get a decent chunk of change ($700) just for annual preventative physical, flu shot, dental exam, blood test, and eye exam, which are all free. There is a spectrum. ACA excluded tobacco users' risk from using tobacco, but left alcohol and sugar and saturated fats in? Why subsidize the latter 3 and not tobacco? Should others in society subsidize drunk driving? Reckless driving? Should we keep bailing out people who continue to build and buy homes built in flood plains? It makes sense to spread costs around on unknown risks, but once a risk factor is known, I can see merit in discussing whether or not it should be subsidized. Of course, there is a spectrum of "knowing" risk factors, and everyone is different, but some factors have a very high likelihood and some are not high enough to merit discriminating. However, that is for the actuaries to decide, because if they are wrong that will show up in the bottom line and then it will be corrected. But things like alcohol and added sugar are basically proven to only cause harm. 1 alcoholic drink and 1 cupcake a month is not going to cause an insurance company to say let's raise this person's premium, but I do not see why an alcoholic and a person that eats donuts, starbucks, and ice cream everyday should be subsidized. >This ultra-individualistic thinking really doesn't help a society. On the contrary, subsidizing behavior that is known to causes problems to people's health and hence increases healthcare costs and decreases productivity does not help society. If anything, I would characterize unhealthy habits (which I am also guilty of) to be ultra-individualistic thinking.

by ggsp 5y ago

> no one is monitoring diet, exercise, drug use, cigarette consumption, or other risky behaviors, and threatening to withhold treatment for non-compliance ... yet.

bserge 5y ago

But try to withhold payment if you get no treatment - deary me, no no no, that sends you to jail (really, in some places).

protomyth 5y ago

yeah yet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNJl9EEcsoE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNJl9EEcsoE Still on track after a decade

dylan604 5y ago

That you know of. All of this data is collected and made available if you are paying for things with a card. Hypothetically, insurance carriers could be seeing exactly what you buy, from where, and how often. If you have a gym membership (as shady as gyms are, it would not surprise me to learn they not only provide membership but attendance records as well), they can glean if you are active. blah blah, metadata is innocent.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
Most people will gladly hand over this information to insurance companies in exchange for lower premiums.
- dylan604 5y ago
  Most people would ultimately be charged higher premiums if they did hand this data over. Ins: In the last week, you've purchased 3 packages of Oreos, 2 cans of Crisco, 3lbs of 73% ground beef, no vegetables, lots of stuff with high sugar content, high salt content, and very little actual nutritional value. Therefore, we rank you in a high risk category (since you are clearly over 21 years old) based on the fact you also bought 1 carton of cigarettes and 2 cases of beer. Please enjoy your new higher insurance premium.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    But the people for whom it would lower premiums would hand over the data, which results in the same thing. A health insurance company could offer me a $50 discount for a monthly blood test showing my sugar/cholesterol, and I would do it. Why should I pay for someone else’s cheese/alcohol/butter/sugar/bacon consumption. I assume the reason it is not currently implemented yet is because the cost of monthly blood tests is too high relative to the cost reduction. I do get $200 if I do it annually though, so it seems like it is at least worth it on a yearly basis.
    - piva00 5y ago
      > A health insurance company could offer me a $50 discount for a monthly blood test showing my sugar/cholesterol, and I would do it. Why should I pay for someone else’s cheese/alcohol/butter/sugar/bacon consumption. Because... You would be saving peanuts while someone else would have to pay much more (and sometimes drop their insurance completely) and that's a much worse result for society than you paying some 50 bucks extra, even more if you have a good salary and this practice would make someone poorer be forced to be uninsured. This ultra-individualistic thinking really doesn't help a society. Might help you as an individual but good luck living without a society.
      - dahfizz 5y ago
        Insurance is just about the worst avenue to pursue your socialistic goals. Insurance is a numbers game, you will never be pursuasive with arguments about the greater good.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        How do you know that I would save peanuts while someone else has to pay disproportionately more? I already get a decent chunk of change ($700) just for annual preventative physical, flu shot, dental exam, blood test, and eye exam, which are all free. There is a spectrum. ACA excluded tobacco users' risk from using tobacco, but left alcohol and sugar and saturated fats in? Why subsidize the latter 3 and not tobacco? Should others in society subsidize drunk driving? Reckless driving? Should we keep bailing out people who continue to build and buy homes built in flood plains? It makes sense to spread costs around on unknown risks, but once a risk factor is known, I can see merit in discussing whether or not it should be subsidized. Of course, there is a spectrum of "knowing" risk factors, and everyone is different, but some factors have a very high likelihood and some are not high enough to merit discriminating. However, that is for the actuaries to decide, because if they are wrong that will show up in the bottom line and then it will be corrected. But things like alcohol and added sugar are basically proven to only cause harm. 1 alcoholic drink and 1 cupcake a month is not going to cause an insurance company to say let's raise this person's premium, but I do not see why an alcoholic and a person that eats donuts, starbucks, and ice cream everyday should be subsidized. >This ultra-individualistic thinking really doesn't help a society. On the contrary, subsidizing behavior that is known to causes problems to people's health and hence increases healthcare costs and decreases productivity does not help society. If anything, I would characterize unhealthy habits (which I am also guilty of) to be ultra-individualistic thinking.