Slashdot Mirror
Heart Monitors In Middle School Gym Class?
An anonymous reader writes "My son brought home an order form from his middle school. Apparently the 7th (his grade) and 8th graders are being asked (required?) to purchase their own straps for the heart monitors they're to wear during gym class. I know nothing yet of the device in question, but have left a voice-mail with the assistant principal asking him to call me so I may ask some questions about the program and the device. My tinfoil-hat concern is that the heart rate data will be tied to each child, then archived and eventually used for/against them down the road when applying for insurance, high-stress jobs, etc. 'I see you had arrhythmia during 7th grade pickle ball? No insurance for you' Has anyone heard of such a program, or had their child(ren) take part in it? Does the device transmit to the laptop the overweight gym teacher will be watching instead of running laps with the kids? Perhaps data is downloaded from the device after the class? Or am I just being paranoid? Thanks for any insight."
Why shouldn't it be legal? Otherwise, what is to stop someone who has chosen not to have insurance (spending his money on other things like cars and boats and fast women) from realizing he's just developed a medical problem and then buying the least amount of insurance he needs to get it taken care of?
You do realize that "insurance" isn't supposed to be some kind of discount medical service provider, don't you? It's supposed to be a gamble -- if you don't need it, that's great and your premiums helped pay for someone who did, but if you do, it covers you based on other people who didn't need it.
Allowing people to wait until they are sick to buy insurance is like ... something to do with a car. How about, like letting someone sitting at the blackjack table wait to see that he's got 21 and the dealer busts before he has to put up a bet on that hand. What casino could survive that kind of operation? What kind of insurance company could survive if every new client showed up with a known condition that was going to cost more to deal with than the one-year premium they could charge?
The answer: only a federally funded free health care "insurance" program, and that's only because EVERYONE will be REQUIRED to pay for everyone else's "insurance".
And yes, it is DISHONEST to claim that such a system won't cause private insurance companies to go out of business and cause people to lose the coverage they already have. It is a LIE to claim that people will be able to keep the same coverage they have, because they can't keep coverage with a company that doesn't exist anymore.
So unless employers start asking for employees' complete medical history, the submitter's fears would be baseless
Employers will have nothing to do with it. Once the feds start handing out "free" health care, they will have no reason to offer health insurance as a benefit of employment, so nobody will have employer-provided insurance. Everyone who has a private plan paid for by his employer will lose it, and every private insurance company that handles those plans will go bankrupt or into some other line of business.
Even if "Obama's plan" never passes, the employer still has nothing to do with it. As soon as Jimmy with the pre-existing condition walks into the doctor's office expecting treatment now that he's got health insurance, the insurance company will get the history.
Now what SHOULD be illegal is for an insurance company to drop a client who has a condition. That's stacking the deck the wrong way. That's saying the casino can kick someone who is winning out just for winning. Oh, wait, they CAN kick you out for winning. Oh well, analogies are analogies because they aren't identical, just similar.
Re-read the summary:
Also, health care should be entirely funded by the state. It's unbelievable that people can't get medical treatment because they can't afford it. Charge for premium treatments (braces, liposuction, breast enhancement) at a full rate.
Originally we had no insurance and people who needed care were hit with massive bills. So people started buying insurance so that other people will pay part of their medical expenses in an emergency. So is it really that much of a leap to charge everyone and extend coverage to everyone, instead of charging a some people and only extending coverage to some people?
Yes obviously we can't even come close to affording it, but that's because we're wasting money elsewhere. Heathcare is a priority up there with keeping the roads open and keeping cops on patrol: it's (IMO) non-negotiable. We pay for healthcare and then we ask if we can afford things like everyone owning a car instead of mass transit, paying for 50% of the world's military spending, and saving America's pathetic auto industry.