I have serious reservations about our changing cultural attitudes towards privacy too. But let's be honest here--this would make insurance cheaper for a lot of

I have serious reservations about our changing cultural attitudes towards privacy too. But let's be honest here--this would make insurance cheaper for a lot of people, and more expensive for the subset of people who are currently getting subsidized by their peers. I mean, say that playing a couple hours of video games per week really does increase mortality significantly--why should people who don't play video games be forced to subsidize your habits (this is unlikely, anyway--I don't think one's choices of which leisure products to consume are significantly correlated with either positive or negative health outcomes)? So why not use examples like these? "Oh, you bike to work? Great--your bill is going down! Oh, you have a good credit score? Okay, your premiums just went down again. Oh, you eat salad once in a while? Great, it doesn't take much to eat more healthily than the average American, so--you guessed it--your bill just went down again!" Less information asymmetry between customers and insurance companies would lead to better prices for safer people, and fairer prices for riskier people (by "fairer" I mean "closer to their average lifetime insurance payout). Whether it's worth it in terms of the loss of privacy is another question, but we shouldn't stack the deck by pretending everyone's premiums will go up unfairly.