3 ms·

Anyone with a desire for privacy who possesses critical reasoning.

by jnsie 3y ago

genocidicbunny 3y ago
Seriously, this question seems to indicate a critical lack of common sense in the poster. You don't even need to have a desire for privacy, just a modicum of risk aversion. Here's a simple example of what can happen with your medical data: Medical data ends up somewhere like LexisNexis -> Company looks you up before hiring -> Company sees that you have a health condition that will cost them more in health insurance costs -> Company doesn't hire you because "it's not a culture fit". Oh, you don't have a health condition right now? Well, pray you never develop one either -- your boss will probably be able to sign up for push notifications for when there's a new diagnosis for you.
- cesarvarela 3y ago
  It is a bit of a chicken egg problem, because with more data available the cure for that health condition could be found earlier.
  - dmbche 3y ago
    Not necessarily - it could very well not help that much. These are just claims.
- mdale 3y ago
  There are already real bias actualized on the name and gender of the applicant at the very first stage of company hiring. Late stage investigations credit reports, public court records, online social profiles can happen but rarely do. Companies focus on referrals and confirmed job history. I can't imagine more invasive investigations into health history. Secondly why are companies paying more for healthcare given a employee sickness. The point of insurance is that it normalize cost across the entire pool of people and must be regulated to not be prejudice of pre existing conditions.
  - genocidicbunny 3y ago
    > I can't imagine more invasive investigations into health history. The point is they wouldn't be 'invasive'. Plug a name into a website, get a cost breakdown of how much health insurance would cost for that employee. Indeed will probably have that feature ready to go the day after it becomes legal/available. A few minutes of work for a relatively low-paid employee processing applications, or these days probably some sort of automated system doing the same. > Secondly why are companies paying more for healthcare given a employee sickness. They might not pay more for that single employee, but they will pay more overall. The insurance company, as much as it can, will look at how how much it's bringing in, and try to maximize that. So a company could find itself paying higher rates when they renew their health insurance contract.
    - cloverich 3y ago
      > Indeed will probably have that feature ready to go the day after it becomes legal/available. Conversely, it would be easy to make that kind of thing illegal, while concomitantly more open records access would reduce healthcare costs.

Anyone with a desire for privacy who possesses critical reasoning.

by jnsie 3y ago

Anyone with a desire for privacy who possesses critical reasoning.

Seriously, this question seems to indicate a critical lack of common sense in the poster. You don't even need to have a desire for privacy, just a modicum of risk aversion. Here's a simple example of what can happen with your medical data: Medical data ends up somewhere like LexisNexis -> Company looks you up before hiring -> Company sees that you have a health condition that will cost them more in health insurance costs -> Company doesn't hire you because "it's not a culture fit". Oh, you don't have a health condition right now? Well, pray you never develop one either -- your boss will probably be able to sign up for push notifications for when there's a new diagnosis for you.

cesarvarela 3y ago
It is a bit of a chicken egg problem, because with more data available the cure for that health condition could be found earlier.
- dmbche 3y ago
  Not necessarily - it could very well not help that much. These are just claims.
mdale 3y ago
There are already real bias actualized on the name and gender of the applicant at the very first stage of company hiring. Late stage investigations credit reports, public court records, online social profiles can happen but rarely do. Companies focus on referrals and confirmed job history. I can't imagine more invasive investigations into health history. Secondly why are companies paying more for healthcare given a employee sickness. The point of insurance is that it normalize cost across the entire pool of people and must be regulated to not be prejudice of pre existing conditions.
- genocidicbunny 3y ago
  > I can't imagine more invasive investigations into health history. The point is they wouldn't be 'invasive'. Plug a name into a website, get a cost breakdown of how much health insurance would cost for that employee. Indeed will probably have that feature ready to go the day after it becomes legal/available. A few minutes of work for a relatively low-paid employee processing applications, or these days probably some sort of automated system doing the same. > Secondly why are companies paying more for healthcare given a employee sickness. They might not pay more for that single employee, but they will pay more overall. The insurance company, as much as it can, will look at how how much it's bringing in, and try to maximize that. So a company could find itself paying higher rates when they renew their health insurance contract.
  - cloverich 3y ago
    > Indeed will probably have that feature ready to go the day after it becomes legal/available. Conversely, it would be easy to make that kind of thing illegal, while concomitantly more open records access would reduce healthcare costs.