4 ms·
I think on a principled level, many are becoming concerned about the ever increasing volume of data being collected on all of us. It isn't necessarily about any
by Cadsby 14y ago
I think on a principled level, many are becoming concerned about the ever increasing volume of data being collected on all of us. It isn't necessarily about any particular subset of data, or all the plausible abuses of it, it's just the idea that some would rather not have every move they make being recorded and logged into a system they have no information on or ability to influence.
More specific to insurance companies, the potential/plausible abuses to increase profit don't take much effort to ferret out. And to make matters worse the data they use will invariable flag a lot of false positives that you'll have little to no way of fixing. For example, my girlfriend regularly picks me up a pack of cigarettes on her way home from work. She usually uses her credit card instead of cash. Ok, now she's flagged in the system as being a chronic smoker and her rates get jacked up to holy hell. Except, of course, she's not actually a smoker and I'd be super skeptical about her ability to reasonably explain this to some random customer service rep over the telephone.
Data mining usage habits rarely result in lower prices for people making positive, less risky choices. Non-smokers will probably be giving a trivial token discount, but unlikely anything more.
- yummyfajitas 14y agoData mining usage habits rarely result in lower prices for people making positive, less risky choices. This is because we live in an inflationary economy. Most prices go up. As a healthy guy, I'd like the price increases to be inflicted on the fattie smokers rather than me. Not that it really matters in the context of health insurance - the laws surrounding it are structured in such a way as to subsidize the fattie smokers at the expense of healthy gym guy, regardless of what info the insurance company has (and they will become worse in a couple of years, unless the supreme court stops it - good luck with that).
- nitrogen 14y agoAs a healthy guy, I'd like the price increases to be inflicted on the fattie smokers rather than me. I have a friend who agrees with you, and I am constantly dismayed at the willingness of people to throw their fellow human beings under the bus. There are better ways of improving total health than letting insurance companies screw more cash out of the more vulnerable members of society.
- 3143 14y agoYou're dismayed that some people believe the unhealthiest of the population ought to pay the largest share of healthcare costs? Maybe you disagree, but "dismayed" seems very harsh.
- chris_wot 14y agoDepends on whether you are talking about preventable disease or not.
- yummyfajitas 14y agoWhy are you characterizing people who choose to overeat and engage in dangerous habits as the "more vulnerable members of society"?
- nitrogen 14y agoBecause those habits are associated with lower income and education levels. An increase in expenses is the last thing someone on the brink of financial ruin needs, and advocating for such seems to show a lack of empathy.
- lcargill99 14y agoMainly healthcare prices, education and some classes of real estate go up. Those are extremely rent-sought markets, not subject to competitive forces. And inflation is now running less than the 2% Fed target ( including the things mentioned above ). The "fatty smokers" are a rhetorical lightning rod, and hardly a threat to your way of life. Meanwhile healthy gym guy runs up a sports medicine bill.... the emphasis on "fitness" began with John Kennedy, designed to increase the fitness of draftees, and has gone mad-cow viral since ( especially when they figured out you'd pay $100 for a $5 pair of shoes in the 1980s... )