Here Comes the Panopticon: Insurance Companies 353
New submitter jbmartin6 writes: The Panopticon may be coming, but perhaps not how we think. Instead of a massive government surveillance program, we might end up subjected to ubiquitous monitoring to save on our insurance premiums. The "internet of things (you can't get away from)" makes this more and more possible. Here a company saved money on its health insurance premiums by distributing Fitbits and an online service to enable reporting fitness gains back to the insurance company. We've already seen the stories on using black boxes to monitor drivers. There is even an insurance company named Panoptic! Heck, why not a premium hike for owners of this or that "aggressiveness gene"? What if in the future we got a quick "+50 cents" tweet for every scoop of ice cream? I suppose the natural stopping point might be the balance between an individual's willingness to be monitored and the desire to reduce insurance premiums.
Car Insurance Companies Too! (Score:5, Informative)
Bet they can also up your rates for "normal" driving too!
Re: (Score:3)
But really, it comes down to that they can raise your rates when they want to for any or no reason. The only thing stopping them is competition from others that want the same revenue source.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad that my cars are pre-OBD-II.
Don't be. If it is ever decided that thou shalt be tracked, they will simply install Accelerometer/GPS-based black boxes in all of the vehicles, and your engine will be irrelevant. They'll know how you were driving, and when you were doing it.
But really, it comes down to that they can raise your rates when they want to for any or no reason. The only thing stopping them is competition from others that want the same revenue source.
Yep. Anything which is mandatory and not fully transparent is guaranteed to be a scam.
Re:Car Insurance Companies Too! (Score:4, Informative)
Just have to switch it around - instead of "offering a discount" for people who do this, think of it more as "charging a penalty" for people who don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, ECU integration isn't that important. If the device has a set of accelerometers and a GPS receiver (which I'm pretty sure they all do), they can know all about how the car's being driven even if it has a carbed engine.
Re: (Score:2)
I always found the commercial for that ad very fitting. She's in a dark shady street corner and its parodying a black market dealer. I wonder if the advertiser had a sense of humor.
That said, you should read TFS. "We've already seen the stories on using black boxes to monitor drivers" isn't an exact reference, but its the kind of behaviour they're referring to.
Re: (Score:3)
Progressive's been offering Snapshot, an OBD-II dongle you plug in and allow to monitor your driving. They get the data periodically and can give you discounts for safe driving.
Bet they can also up your rates for "normal" driving too!
My understanding is that they mail it to you... you drive around a bit and mail it back. Not quite the same thing.
Weapons Race (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Weapons Race (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that then they'd get you for Insurance Fraud or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Do you?
Re: (Score:3)
Every government is owned by money. I think you've been swallowing too much of your own propaganda. Driving is a necessity at this point. there are politicians who think internet access is a right..and if that's a right, then driving definitely is. No car = no job if you live outside the city.
Of course you do.. because leftist ideology is all about retribution. It's end justifies means disguised as a principled stand. Having or not having insurance does not prevent a government from enforcing law. I ju
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like your insurance would have been adjusted to a level corresponding (correctly) to your risk of an accident.
Kind of like supermarket loyalty schemes (Score:2)
One can draw an analogy between this and supermarket club cards, where you *can* buy groceries without one, but, it is 25% more expensive.
In this future, you can buy insurance without pervasive monitoring, but, it'll cost you extra.
Re:Kind of like supermarket loyalty schemes (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the perfect libertarian excuse for corporate abuse. You don't have to go along with the abuse. You can just live like an Amish person and avoid the abuse if you really want to. It's all your "choice".
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is. If you have a better way of offering goods at a Supermarket, that doesn't collect information, and offer it up, I'm sure you'll make a small fortune.
Libertarians don't complain, they create a market where others only see problems.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the perfect libertarian excuse for corporate abuse. You don't have to go along with the abuse. You can just live like an Amish person and avoid the abuse if you really want to. It's all your "choice".
Says the guy that has no clue what Libertarians believe.
It's about liberty... including liberty from business and even other citizens. Anyone that understood and followed libertarian ideals would want this sort of practice stopped.
What you're talking about are anarchists.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the perfect libertarian excuse for corporate abuse. You don't have to go along with the abuse. You can just live like an Amish person and avoid the abuse if you really want to. It's all your "choice".
Well, to be fair, Libertarians also often suggest the dissolution of borders. Everything which was not necessary for the function of the minimally-sized government would be private property, and you could sell it to anyone you liked. But they'd be motivated not to move to certain places because they'd be exposed to prejudice; under such a system, you cannot be forced to trade with someone. It's a sort of choose-your-own-feudalism-adventure.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Mandating insurance forces premiums _down_ because the pool of insured people becomes much bigger.
Thats not how it works.
Increasing the number of insured people is meaningless to the premiums needed unless the amount of risk associated with the "new" policies is as-a-matter-of-fact less than the amount of risk associated with the "old" policies. Now if thats true AND both "new" and "old" are in the same pool, only THEN would the cost of policies change.
What you have done is taken an argument from another situation (perhaps the liberal justification for getting everyone on health insurance), and the
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, an I'm sure that Oliver Clozoff of 1060 W Addison St, Chicago appreciates all of the junk mail from Kroger and Safeway.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny indeed - it's drop-easy to fake out a supermarket club card.
Driver's license details and SSN on the other hand? Well, not so easy to fake (unless you're an illegal alien, I guess).
(I know, I know - in most states you don't have to update your DL info when you move, but in Oregon you're required to update your DL address within 30 days of moving, or you face a rather huge fine in addition to any other citations, should the cop discover that you haven't done so.)
They don't care about the cards (Score:2)
They track you using your credit card. The cards are because people want them these days. Albertsons finally knuckled under and started offering them. Not because they needed them for tracking, like I said they already did that, but because customers whined they weren't getting a "good deal". So they raised their prices, and introduced a card.
Re: (Score:2)
They track you using your credit card.
Cash is king, baby.
like 'Big Brother' not a coupon card (Score:2)
"the internet of things" is a pretext for a panopticon
sure "one" could do that, but "one" wouldn't benefit with any new understanding, **because that's a stupid comparison**
i can "draw an analogy" to pissing in a jar, that doesn't mean anything
you're giving everyone a free pass, and assuming the best of intentions on their part....when if you were using your analytical brain, you'd see that the past has taught us to assume the opposite: companie
Can't live with/without them... (Score:2)
Can you say red-lining?
Re: (Score:3)
I can see it now.
One day, after you stop in at the local Ice cream shop or fast food place, you get an email:
You have consumed products that have been deemed harmful to your health. You premium has been temporarily increased by 1% for this month. Continuing these unhealthy practices can result in a permanent increase.
Sincerely,
Your local Obamacare Health Oversight and Accountability Administrator.
A Healthy Citizen makes for a Healthy Nation.
Have a Healthy Day!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
My premiums don't go up because I ate too many ice cream cones, because I don't pay premiums per se. I pay taxes and my taxes pay for medical treatment for anyone who lives in my jurisdiction.
Translation: Everyone pays more because you eat too many ice cream cones.
Please learn to communicate (Score:2)
without always using cliches like "panopticon". We'll take you more seriously, we'll assume you can think for yourself rather than just parroting something someone else said, and we might even read the article you linked to. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
How can "panopticon" possibly be a cliche, when it's a word that probably less than 5% of the general public has any idea what it even means? Just imagine a Letterman style 'Man in the Street' interview - Q: "Sir or mam, do you think America is becoming a Panopticon State?" A: "Um, WTF is that optical thingy you said?" If this has become a cliche, then your use of a phrase such as "think for yourself rather than just parroting something someone else said" has become so cliche that we should definitely ig
Can't say you didn't see this coming. (Score:2)
Want to pay for behavior riskier than yours? (Score:2)
Nobody wants to pay for claims arising from behavior riskier than their own.
Magical Pixie Horse (Score:5, Insightful)
But everyone wants to pay the rates of the healthiest, safest, best maintained because if you have to pay more than that you must be getting ripped off.
Most people can't understand statistics or probabilities that extend past a single coin flip. Hedges, short and long positions, defensive financial tactics are way beyond your typical American who can barely balance a checkbook. Understanding that insurance is a combination of both - not gonna happen. The only dichotomy that people "understand" about insurance is that it is an evil expense due every month that gives them nothing in return, and a magical pixie horse that pays you money if something bad happens to you.
Re:Magical Pixie Horse (Score:4, Funny)
"a magical pixie horse that pays you money if something bad happens to you."
Surely you meant "a loud annoying duck that pays you money if something bad happens to you, even though everyone ignores him."
Re:Magical Pixie Horse (Score:4, Informative)
There is no issue with risk pools being fine-grained. The issue is that low-risk (and even no-risk) things are included.
Are you at "risk" of a yearly physical?
The point of insurance is supposed to be that if something unlikely and expensive happens to you, that you arent out the cost of that unlikely and expensive thing. There is value in knowing that you will not have to sell or lose your house if something unlikely and expensive happens to you, enough value in it that a middle man can also profit. Its win-win in these cases.
Its not win-win when you have to pay that middle mans cut for non-risky things like that yearly physical. This is true when the middle man is an insurance company, but it is also true when that middle man is a government or some powerful government-corporate hybrid entity that can force you into giving them a cut.
In the case of auto-insurance, if you own your vehicle then you are only forced to get insurance for unlikely and expensive things, and only when those things can happen to other people while you are driving. Routine maintenance simply is not mandated because it used to be that people were smart enough to know what insurance was for and wouldn't let the government pull that sort of shit.
Re: (Score:3)
On a related note, I wonder how many more accidents happen because of "safe" behavior done mindlessly than "risky" behavior done safely...
How many tailgaters would continue to tailgate if it was as simple as slamming on the breaks to ruin them financially...
Slow down; take a deep breath... (Score:2)
Heck, why not a premium hike for owners of this or that "aggressiveness gene"? What if in the future we got a quick "+50 cents" tweet for every scoop of ice cream?
A company saved on its health insurance plan (Score:2)
by distributing FitBits to employees.
Did they also provide FitBit winders?
The real problem here... (Score:2)
...is that instead of "saving" you on premiums, it will only be used as an excuse to tack on more to your premiums.
We already see this with credit ratings. Having trouble paying your bills, even though you pay your car insurance on time? Here's a nice 20% price hike to punish you.
This is the way this always works, particularly with an industry that you are legally mandated to do business with.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that credit score is actually quite a good predictor of car insurance risk. Not saying that it's causal, but, overall, people who pay their bills on time also tend to drive more cautiously and get into fewer accidents.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that credit score is actually quite a good predictor of car insurance risk. Not saying that it's causal, but, overall, people who pay their bills on time also tend to drive more cautiously and get into fewer accidents.
Yup - the beauty of actuarial tables is that they contain all those non-politically-correct correlations we're not supposed to talk about. We can hate what is in the tables, but they are cold hard statistics. Certainly they are open to over-interpretation, but the correlations are what they are.
Yup - there are some criteria that we've explicitly decided NOT to let people use (i.e. even if you could show that race and auto insurance costs were correlated, and that the relationship was statistically significant, you still couldn't charge people more for being black/white/Asian/whatever), but credit score isn't one of those.
Re: (Score:3)
Actuaries are pretty clever, they can typically find a benign-sounding proxy for the forbidden criteria.
I doubt the dna stuff will come true (Score:2)
But the fitbit stuff, I could see occurring - 10% reduction if you wear one 24/day and qualify. Not that different from what we do with cars today. Most importantly, unlike the DNA stuff, a fitbit monitor would theoretically encourage better behavior, which makes political sense, while dna mapping has tons of political issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Will be the new credit score (Score:2)
Why wouldn't an apartment or condo community want to check your safety score? A lot of them do background checks and credit checks now, I can definitely imagine people wanting to live in communities where everyone has a safety score above some number. And I can imagine communities for the rejects. The more data companies compile on you the m
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This should surprise nobody (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You really think those without FitBits will be charged extra??
No, but those with FitBits will be charged less! Wait...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In the long run "subsidizing the people who don't take care of themselves" will save money for everyone. Even you. A rising tide lifts all ships and all that stuff.
Really, the best thing we can do now is to make sure everyone is healthy and educated and happy. You just never know where the next Einstein will come from.
Re:What's the point (Score:5, Insightful)
A sudden hot sweat had broken out all over Winston’s body. His face remained completely inscrutable. Never show dismay! Never show resentment! A single flicker of the eyes could give you away. He stood watching while the instructress raised her arms above her head and — one could not say gracefully, but with remarkable neatness and efficiency — bent over and tucked the first joint of her fingers under her toes.
‘THERE, comrades! THAT’S how I want to see you doing it. Watch me again. I’m thirty-nine and I’ve had four children. Now look.’ She bent over again. ‘You see MY knees aren’t bent. You can all do it if you want to,’ she added as she straightened herself up. ‘Anyone under forty-five is perfectly capable of touching his toes. We don’t all have the privilege of fighting in the front line, but at least we can all keep fit. Remember our boys on the Malabar front! And the sailors in the Floating Fortresses! Just think what THEY have to put up with. Now try again. That’s better, comrade, that’s MUCH better,’ she added encouragingly as Winston, with a violent lunge, succeeded in touching his toes with knees unbent, for the first time in several years.’"
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."
1984 - George Orwell
Re: (Score:2)
In the long run "subsidizing the people who don't take care of themselves" will save money for everyone. Even you. A rising tide lifts all ships and all that stuff.
Really, the best thing we can do now is to make sure everyone is healthy and educated and happy. You just never know where the next Einstein will come from.
Or Hawking. I wonder what his FitBit readings would look like.
Re: (Score:2)
If the idea is to make people healthy so premiums go down, Obamneycare is a complete failure in that aspect since the smokers, obese, alcoholics and drug users don't have to change. They can continue doing what they're doing, secure in the knowledge that someone perfectly healthy, such as myself, is forced to cough up their money to pay for the bad choices these people make with their lives.
So, what oth
Re:What's the point (Score:4, Funny)
I feel the exact same way about all those reckless, careless, risk-taking, jock-want-to-be’s who risk their lives and wellbeing playing senseless games on the field, riding bikes and skateboards without thought or concern, and adventuring up mountain sides without care.
I find it absolutely appalling that I am forced to cough up my money to pay for their reckless behavior, broken bones, torn ligaments, hamstring injuries, and more!!
Re: (Score:2)
Uh no it won't. It will encourage everyone to not give a shit. We'll be equal alright, equally poor, unhealthy, and enslaved.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's the point (Score:4, Insightful)
You've posted twice about the supposed wonders of the NHS, but the reality doesn't seem to corroborate your claims. There are numerous reports about the massive financial crisis the NHS is facing. Evidently the problems are the worst they've been in a decade, resulting in significant layoffs and that 44% of hospitals will end the year in deficit. The fact that the things were bad only a decade ago seems to imply that the system has always had a problem with sustainability.
Sustainability seems to be a significant problem with socialized healthcare systems the world over. That's where the problems arise. Americans are hit with the cost of healthcare up front, Europeans pay for it indirectly via high taxes and other compromises. You'll likely be hit with a huge bill in the US, but at least if a doctor spots something of concern you'll be scheduled for tests the very next day. If they find a problem you can be in surgery the following week. In Europe you end up on waiting lists and hope things don't get worse before you get treatment. Unless you're wealthy, then you can pay for prompt care, which ironically causes the same economic divide people complain about in the US.
There are other more subtle problems I've personally observed in Europe in Asia. Doctors are overburdened and relatively underpaid. So I've found that they tend to gloss over issues and don't really spend enough time evaluating a patient's condition. These and many other problems are the sorts of things you only really start noticing when you've lived in a country for any length of time. I've noticed that immigrants to the US always complain about the cost of healthcare. Until they start noticing those subtle differences, the extra effort American doctors put into patient care, prompt treatment and a general sense that everything is handled more thoroughly.
At the end of the day, healthcare is a massively complex and expensive beast. I've yet to see an implementation that comes close to solving most critical issues.
Re: (Score:3)
I tend to agree with your statement, absent the sarcasm.
The government scares me less because they don't want to maximize the money they get from me. In theory, I have far more control over my government than my insurers. Certainly I have more oversight, and there are laws governing what the government can do with my information. Private companies don't have the same restrictions, and even
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The government scares me less because they don't want to maximize the money they get from me
You're kidding, right?
Re: (Score:2)
The government scares me less because they don't want to maximize the money they get from me.
Tell that to the IRS
In theory, I have far more control over my government than my insurers.
You can change Insurers, but not really your Government.
Certainly I have more oversight, and there are laws governing what the government can do with my information.
ROFLMAO!!!
Private companies don't have the same restrictions, and even if they did they have limited liability, an army of lawyers, and my only recourse will be
Re: (Score:2)
You can change Insurers, but not really your Government.
True for now, but there's always the hope that one day the US will become a democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
"The government scares me less because they don't want to maximize the money they get from me."
What country do you live in, I want to move where you live because here in the USA the government thinks all money is theirs unless deemed otherwise.
Re: (Score:3)
In the US.
There's a fairly trivial proof that I am correct. See, the government has an army, a police force, the ability to have banks reassign/lock my accounts, and the ability to just print quintiillion dollar bills* and inflate my cash to nothing. They can
Re: (Score:2)
The government scares me less because they don't want to maximize the money they get from me.
I take it you have never been audited by the IRS. Worst thing I have ever had to endure, and that was as a college student filing a 1040 EZ and only having one job and a checking account. It was similar to one of those somewhat creepy police interrogation scenes in movies meets the stereotypical DMV waiting room.
Re: (Score:2)
What class action lawsuit? Did you not read about the binding arbitration agreement?
Re: (Score:3)
Do you know what the government has an army of? An army.
Yes, and its an Army lead by politicians who are predominately lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
CVS is getting sued over that (Score:2)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
maybe the good thing out of that is the end of employer based health-care
Buffet vs. A La Carte (Score:3, Insightful)
This reminds me of buffet vs. a la carte expenses, just applied to insurance. If eating ice cream were to cost $0.50 extra each time (or I were to "save" 50 cents when I didn't eat ice cream), I might be more conscious about that cost and decide to not eat any than if that cost were figured in and distributed among all users buffet-style.
This may result in a healthier population, I would imagine. But given percentage profit caps due to the ACA (at least in the US), I suspect that profits would go down as
Re:Buffet vs. A La Carte (Score:5, Insightful)
It would result in a miserable micromanaged society. Fuck that.
Re:Buffet vs. A La Carte (Score:4, Interesting)
I might be more conscious about that cost and decide to not eat any than if that cost were figured in and distributed among all users buffet-style.
You assume that these companies would operate on objective and reasonable standards - that's so cute...
No, really, it is. Remember when everyone said that butter was bad for you and you had to eat margarine instead? Now it's the other way 'round (or looking to go that way). So - how would you feel about having to pay for all those times you bought real butter all those years?
Oh, even better - let's talk diets! Not like recommendations for those don't ever change from, say, the old four food groups to pyramid to tetrahedron, to... - oh, wait.
No thanks - I prefer to not put my eating habits and health in the hands of some corporate asshats.
Mind you, I'm 6' tall and weigh 170 lbs, and I play outdoors for fun. I also eat good food in moderation, but occasionally I love a big steak or a big ol' bowl of ice cream. This brings up another thing - no two people are alike. Some can wolf down a metric ton of crap food (I used to) with no ill effects, but you want them to be lumped in with a bunch of folks who gain 15 lbs just from the mere scent of caramel candy? Screw that.
Re: (Score:3)
Very true. Ideally corporations would figure out that there are no demonstrated outcomes for diet composition, and thus it isn't in their interests to force their customers to adhere to one. In practice they may not do so, or there might be government pressure to pick whatever is the fad of the day.
I'd LOVE for there to be some decent clinical trials that study diet in a scientific manner. Just about all the data which exists is basically uncontrolled - no blinding, often no randomization, no actual outc
Re: (Score:3)
Why stop at ice cream? There's a lot of activities that have some kind of risk associated with them, it wouldn't be fair to single some out. Riding your bike? 5 bucks to your accident insurance because you could have an accident. Climbing a ladder to change a light bulb? 2 bucks because you could fall down. Fucking ... depends, is it your wife or someone random? The latter is of course more expensive due to STDs.
But I really do NOT want to know where the detector for that would have to be located...
Re: (Score:2)
working over 40 hours pay more as stress and long hours is bad for your health and people driveing home after the 10+ hour day are more likely to end in an crash.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that stress is a factor in bad health.
"We've detected your internal stress levels rose so we're charging you $5 more... Wait, they just rose more. $10. There they go again. $15. Boy you really have a problem with stress, $20. $25. $40!"
Re: (Score:2)
That and it'll only be offered as long as everyone isn't doing it.
Reminds me of all the water conservation efforts. We used less water, the utilities brought in less money, so they had to raise the rates to offset the loss. In the end we all use less water, but pay more for the service.
I bet this will only work for insurance up the point where hospitals have to charge more to make up for empty rooms.
The difference between a utility and a hospital is that the former is a natural monopoly. The latter may or may not be one.
If the utility needs to charge more money to survive, you don't really have a choice about paying it if the charges are unavoidable. You can change WHO pays them (taxes vs bills, public vs private, etc), but unless you want to ditch running water you're stuck.
Hospitals aren't quite as locked in. If a community has 3 hospitals (I realize that not all do), and as a result of cost conta
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The funny kind?
Re: (Score:3)
You cannot choose whether the IOT comes to your work, and already now you are obliged to have a smart meter in the EU. And the companies will enable IOT features whether you want it or not, like the gsm modem in intel chipsets. It will be like planned obsolescence: you don't want it, but have no choice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Often you can't even defend against it in your private environment. Want power? Gotta accept having a smart meter. Of course you can opt out to live like it's 1799, it's all opt-in, you see?
Don't want to be totally controlled while driving? No problem, you may of course walk. Public transport, you say? Sure, you just have to accept pretty much the same deal as you'd have to in your car.
Even opt-in isn't always really opt-in.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's the same in N. America. My government, who is always claiming no money, spent $2 billion to install them claiming they're only so they can tell when the power goes out quicker. My meter just spent 6 months flashing error 7, they then showed up to reset it and the next week replaced it. Considering they're supposed to use the cell network and there is no cell coverage here, it seems like a big waste but as they're replacing taxes with fees and things like higher electricity prices I'm sure there
It's already going on... (Score:5, Insightful)
...ever put in that car insurance fob into your auto's computer port? (e.g. Progressive's Snapshot [progressive.com], where they treat it as a cute little device that aggressively records everything your car is doing when you drive.) People (not corporations, *individuals*) go out of their way to use these stupid things, not fully realizing (or caring) that they're willingly allowing an insurance company to monitor everything they do.
But you know, it's okay because they get a discount and it's not the government doing it (*eyeroll*).
In all seriousness, if you want to whore yourself out for "discounts", I'd normally say that's your problem, not mine - but then I realize that the rest of us will get dinged for NOT opting-in, so damnit, stop that you idiots!
Re:It's already going on... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, as someone who is a pretty conservative driver, I welcomed the option to let worse drivers subsidize my premiums in exchange for them tracking my driving for a while. I could care less that they know (for example) that I always signal turns and lane changes and don't aggressively accelerate or stop. I could also care less that people who can't demonstrate the same behavior are seen as a higher risk and charged a higher premium.
...except you, of course, since you're on my \. frinds list and all...
Re:It's already going on... (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree...IF the insurance company publicly discloses what it deems is a "good" driver versus a "bad" driver (e.g., stays within xkm/h of the speed limit, makes % mistakes per month like failing to signal), and IF they provide me with every piece of data they collect so I can do my own verification. Otherwise, no way! If I can't audit it, I won't agree to it.
Re: (Score:3)
Therefore eventually these devices will not be used to help good drivers, simply to penalize bad ones, not quite the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that would drive away the good drivers and leave the insurance company covering only the bad drivers.
Re: (Score:3)
He goes exactly the speed limit.....he doesn't heed the law that says "Slower traffic move right"
..and he is preventing you from getting a speeding fine. What's the problem?
He claims to be a safe driver by violating the law that says he must yield to faster traffic. He's making the road dangerous by trying to enforce speed limits on others rather than moving out of traffic for others to exercise their free will. People will speed whether he gets in the way or not. If he wants to enforce speed limits, he should go into law enforcement. Its hypocritical to criticize people for speeding and then violate the law yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
...ever put in that car insurance fob into your auto's computer port? (e.g. Progressive's Snapshot [progressive.com], where they treat it as a cute little device that aggressively records everything your car is doing when you drive.
Very interesting... thanks for the link, I just signed up. I did find it interesting that my 2004 Durango is compatible with their device, but my 2013 LEAF is not.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as it is not compulsory (which it would be, if government did it), it really may be Ok — for some people.
Then the rates will be slightly higher for all — with people willing to trade privacy for a discount subsidizing those like you (and me), who are not. Why do you think, such an outcome
Re:It's already going on... (Score:4, Informative)
Do you have examples from history to back up this prediction?
Pump yourself gas stations are an example. Perhaps you don't remember when all warranties were assumed to be through the store you bought the thing at. If it broke and it was small, you take it to the store, they give you a new one. If large, they come out and fix on site or bring you a new one. Then that was extra, then it got replaced with the 'extended warranty' where you take it back and they mail it off to be fixed (or not).
Before my time, the doctor came to you. Then that cost extra, then it was gone and still nobody can afford the doctor without insurance. Speaking of which, the horrible HMOs with their in-network this and out-of-network that and crazy medical coding used to be a cheaper option to conventional you go to the doctor, send us the bill insurers.(the latter were proportionally cheaper than the HMO plans of today).
Remember the milkman?
Remember when you could go to the department store and have a sales person who knew all about everything in the department and would stay with you as long as it took? Or you could go to the discount store and figure it out yourself but pay less. Now even the high end stores are more like the discount stores and the discount stores can't even manage to show you the same model you saw on the web.
There are already insurance penalties for certain kinds of cars
Yes, some rather expensive cars include rather expensive insurance. Most are not buying those because they can't afford them or the insurance. There is a big difference between that situation and be spied on by little brother or ride a bicycle.
Auto insurance compete a lot on branding and somewhat on extras, but a lot less on price/service than they would have you believe.
Re: (Score:3)
The law made them compulsory. Not the insurance companies.
Guess who lobbied for the seat belt laws!
Maybe, they did not rise as fast as inflation during those few years?
They should have fallen as soon as the law was being enforced. Otherwise, they were just pocketing the difference.
Sorry about the double reply.
Re:It's already going on... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They're not whoring themselves out, they're making a choice to expose their genitals for money.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, kind of.
With more accurate information insurance premiums can be set more accurately and this will result in savings. We can debate what portion of the savings will wind up with the insurance company, the corporate employer, or the individual insured.
Even if none of the profits wind up with the insurance company they may not mind. While the profits would be lower there would be lower risks with those profits. Boring stable profits are preferred to violate uncertain profits all things being equal.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, why be so hard? You can safe on premiums, up to 20% lower premiums for you if you bend over and ... oh wait, you could catch something from that. OK, up to 20% savings on premiums if you, well, sit around at home and not do anything that could remotely be considered fun. No, wait, that would be unhealthy. So, 20% off if you stay at home when you're not at work and spend at least 20 hours a week on our monitored home gym (of course you have to buy that first).
Oh, and while we're at it, your premium just
Re: (Score:2)
Sophistry.
When "cutting the growth" of a program equates to "throwing grandma over the cliff, Draconian Measures and evil", the result is the same. You are paying attention, aren't you?
Re: (Score:2)
#2 - Get rid of the supposed bureaucrats, doctors and pharmacists that try to second-guess real doctors and pharmacists that actually know the patients and their conditions.
#6 - The government should stop forcing people to buy coverage they don't want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the same people who ruled they couldn't outlaw Big Gulps will also be running health care too, or are the courts somehow not part of the government? Your agument seems to be different people in government have different opinions, but in this case, the right people had the ultimate say - that proves everyone in government thinks alike and will doubtless do the wrong thing. Like Dumbledore said to Pippin in Star Wars, "Illogical".