Slashdot Mirror
Here Comes the Panopticon: Insurance Companies
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.
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!
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
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.
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".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You really think those without FitBits will be charged extra??
No, but those with FitBits will be charged less! Wait...
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 if they did they have limited liability, an army of lawyers, and my only recourse will be to get $1.28 in a class action lawsuit. And if the government wants to trump up charges against me, I cannot believe that would be aided much by knowing more about me. But the private sector wants to ring every penny they can from my wallet.
Bottom line, hell yes the
Your ad here. Ask me how!
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 a result. So, the plan backfires.
Combined with the negativity associated with charging a "tax" on eating tasty food, I doubt this really goes anywhere.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
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.
The funny kind?
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.
...ever put in that car insurance fob into your auto's computer port? (e.g. Progressive's Snapshot, 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!
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
"‘Smith!’ screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. ‘6079 Smith W.! Yes, YOU! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You’re not trying. Lower, please! THAT’S better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me.
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
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
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.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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!
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
insurance companies are taking a page from social media and hedging their bets that you will concede to them monitoring your every waking movement. In most cases you arent told what exact amount you stand to save on insurance until after the metric is collected, and its usually very little (between 5-15%) You arent even told what metrics that little box is collecting or how theyre used, or how long theyre maintained. Most of the information they keep with these snooping devices becomes proprietary once you sign up. So why are you so ill informed about this?
its largely because insurance companies are using the metrics to forecast profit and loss to their board and shareholders, not because they actually care about saving you money. In some cases signing up for a biometric program might quietly absolve the insurance company from having to treat you for a whole range of different ailments they attribute to a sedentary lifestyle, thus saving them in quarterly losses. The worst part is nobody is asking questions like 'does this fitbit factor into my HIPAA protection?' or 'can this vehicle data be used against me in a court of law?'
full disclosure: im signing up for a workplace fitbit program subsidized by my employer. The data, presumably, is going to be aggregated from the devices and submitted to the health insurance company as "harmless biometrics" but as I cant sign up for my employers healthcare for another 7 months, I have no intention of using the device outside of the data i scrape from it in linux using fitbitd.
Good people go to bed earlier.
We do that in the NHS too.
But the problem of having the NHS pay for treating useless fat chavs who eat too much, is far outweighed by relieving the entire population of the danger of medical bankruptcy at the hands of rapacious private health insurers and doctors.
And you know what? We in England **LOVE** it.
Medical bankruptcy is unheard-of in the UK, and we love it. Rich tossers who don't like having to wait for elective surgery can still get the gold-plated private crap if they really want it.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Free Million Dollar Idea: Sell an OBD-II simulator that shows what nice, pleasant driver you are. Plug their dongle into that.
Mandating insurance forces premiums _down_ because the pool of insured people becomes much bigger. By now most car insurances are near the lowest possible values - most car insurance companies are barely profitable. It's not yet true for health insurance, but it's already happening there.
Do you know what the government has an army of? An army.
Yes, and its an Army lead by politicians who are predominately lawyers.
"His name was James Damore."
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!!
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
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.
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 then misapplied it to this one. The reason you misapplied it is because you never understood it to begin with.
Whats worse is even if you understood the argument, you probably still wouldnt understand the injustice of it (which is that less risky people are forced to subsidize more risky people if you force them into the same risk pool.)
Yeah.. I know.. understanding the money is hard, which is why you don't.
"His name was James Damore."
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.
"His name was James Damore."
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.
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...
"His name was James Damore."
Actuaries are pretty clever, they can typically find a benign-sounding proxy for the forbidden criteria.
The insurance industry has owned Washington for some time now. Naturally they would be able to get away with this kind of invasion of privacy with zero backlash. In 2010 the insurance industry started cashing in on their investment by pushing through the ACA bill, but that is only the start of it.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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 is a long term plan to squeeze money out of us while bragging about some of the lowest taxes in N. America and any day now businesses will show up to take advantage of our low taxes.
Whoever makes smart meters sure must have made money over the last few years and if they break as often as mine did they have an endless revenue stream.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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 have everything I own right now if they decide to, and I could not stop them.
But wait, I have stuff!
On the other hand, a publicly held company, given similar power over me, would take everything I have, and then brag about how they were increasing shareholder value. Hell, they may even claim that it was their ethical obligation to leave me with nothing.
And the historical record reflects that.
Your ad here. Ask me how!