3 ms·

> Insurance companies will soon be buying data about your exercise routines so they can adjust your rates accordingly. if this results in lower insurance for t

by chii 2y ago

> Insurance companies will soon be buying data about your exercise routines so they can adjust your rates accordingly. if this results in lower insurance for those who are deemed to be healthier due to exercises, then it's a good outcome. Pricing insurance more accurately is almost always a good outcome.

pyrale 2y ago
…Except, of course, for those who can no longer get insured. And those deemed at risk are not only people skipping jogging.
sandworm101 2y ago
Unless you ride a bike, which dramatically increases your risk of physical injury in crashes. For a younger person, that makes you more risky.
- ghaff 2y ago
  I suspect there are many activities that correlate to higher risk and many people would not like their insurance to come with a page of fine print of exclusions/fee adders associated with those activities even if it theoretically is more equitable. As you say, while there's probably some correlation between cycling and healthy activity in general, it's probably also an activity--depending on local infrastructure and where you cycle--that by itself adds risk of injury.
speed_spread 2y ago
Insurance is about managing average risk for a population. The ones who end up not needing it necessarily paid more than they would have to, _in hindsight_. Varying the premiums across the insured population adds some fairness to the equation, but the moment it starts actually culling members of said population through outrageous pricing, it is just plain cheating.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  All insurance specialises in certain groups. Regular holiday insurance is cheaper than snowboarding holiday insurance (and regular holiday insurance doesn't cover snowboarding). Why would this be different?
  - speed_spread 2y ago
    Because at some point insurance becomes a societal necessity and you need it to include everybody.
    - avar 2y ago
      That's the same as saying someone who's poor and low risk can't snowboard, because their premiums have gone up due to a richer high-risk snowboarder you're forced to sell subsidized insurance to.
      - immibis 2y ago
        No, it's saying someone who's poor should be allowed to snowboard just as much as someone rich, and currently they can't and that's a problem. You are advocating for poor people to not be allowed to snowboard, and if they do snowboard, for them to no longer be allowed to drive.
  - phone8675309 2y ago
    Because if you don't get snowboarding holiday insurance then you shouldn't be snowboarding but you can do anything else while you're on holiday. Meanwhile in the US if you get kicked off your medical insurance with any kind of chronic illness then you either pay out the ass for basic treatment or die.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      "Insurance companies can price in risk" implies "people with chronic illnesses get kicked off their insurance" seems a massive non sequitur.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
> if this results in lower insurance for those who are deemed to be healthier due to exercises, then it's a good outcome. in reality, it'll result in higher insurance for those who are deemed unhealthy, or simply at risk. As someone said already, maybe joggers suddenly get lower premiums and bikers (especially in biker unfriendly cities) get higher ones. Maybe you end up paying even more if you bench more at a gym than the "recommended amount". Maybe they collaborate with certain fitness companies and will charge you less if you click an affiliate link to buy this health product. The possibilities here are endless, and this is just for one aspect of life. This can in theory work with a benevolent leadership, but that ship sailed decades ago.

by chii 2y ago

pyrale 2y ago

…Except, of course, for those who can no longer get insured. And those deemed at risk are not only people skipping jogging.

sandworm101 2y ago

Unless you ride a bike, which dramatically increases your risk of physical injury in crashes. For a younger person, that makes you more risky.

ghaff 2y ago
I suspect there are many activities that correlate to higher risk and many people would not like their insurance to come with a page of fine print of exclusions/fee adders associated with those activities even if it theoretically is more equitable. As you say, while there's probably some correlation between cycling and healthy activity in general, it's probably also an activity--depending on local infrastructure and where you cycle--that by itself adds risk of injury.

speed_spread 2y ago

Insurance is about managing average risk for a population. The ones who end up not needing it necessarily paid more than they would have to, _in hindsight_. Varying the premiums across the insured population adds some fairness to the equation, but the moment it starts actually culling members of said population through outrageous pricing, it is just plain cheating.

robertlagrant 2y ago
All insurance specialises in certain groups. Regular holiday insurance is cheaper than snowboarding holiday insurance (and regular holiday insurance doesn't cover snowboarding). Why would this be different?
- speed_spread 2y ago
  Because at some point insurance becomes a societal necessity and you need it to include everybody.
  - avar 2y ago
    That's the same as saying someone who's poor and low risk can't snowboard, because their premiums have gone up due to a richer high-risk snowboarder you're forced to sell subsidized insurance to.
    - immibis 2y ago
      No, it's saying someone who's poor should be allowed to snowboard just as much as someone rich, and currently they can't and that's a problem. You are advocating for poor people to not be allowed to snowboard, and if they do snowboard, for them to no longer be allowed to drive.
- phone8675309 2y ago
  Because if you don't get snowboarding holiday insurance then you shouldn't be snowboarding but you can do anything else while you're on holiday. Meanwhile in the US if you get kicked off your medical insurance with any kind of chronic illness then you either pay out the ass for basic treatment or die.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    "Insurance companies can price in risk" implies "people with chronic illnesses get kicked off their insurance" seems a massive non sequitur.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

> if this results in lower insurance for those who are deemed to be healthier due to exercises, then it's a good outcome. in reality, it'll result in higher insurance for those who are deemed unhealthy, or simply at risk. As someone said already, maybe joggers suddenly get lower premiums and bikers (especially in biker unfriendly cities) get higher ones. Maybe you end up paying even more if you bench more at a gym than the "recommended amount". Maybe they collaborate with certain fitness companies and will charge you less if you click an affiliate link to buy this health product. The possibilities here are endless, and this is just for one aspect of life. This can in theory work with a benevolent leadership, but that ship sailed decades ago.