Baby steps.
1 Like
Your cynicism is duly noted.
But if I keep myself in an active and healthy lifestyle, I doubt my employer is going to choose to let me go because of it.
And if you don’t…you sort of have bigger issues to worry about (like the massive MI or stroke that could be coming your way).
4 Likes
Are you sure of that?
I wouldn’t be willing to assert that without putting it on a network and sniffing all the coming and going traffic.
2 Likes
No, it isn’t either of those things - you’re right. Nor would this be problematic if insurers today were like proper insurers of yesteryear - mutual pooling of risk via membership societies where every customer is in fact a member/owner. But today’s insurers are stock market driven late stage capitalists - they WILL inevitably, eventually use the data to fuck the customers/benefit the shareholders (a.k.a. ensure appropriate executive rewards in an artificially inflated competitive talent market).
4 Likes
Part of living in a society where you don’t get to choose what I smoke, or where I put my sex organs (or even what sex organs I possess) is that you also don’t get to choose what I eat, or how many situps I do every day.
6 Likes
The entire policy is predicated on the data collection. Waiving that one part would not be reasonable. That’s the fundamental thing and they would back it up with actuarial data.
Again…NO ONE was forcing that on you. But if you choose willingly to live unhealthy and be at a higher risk for heart disease, stroke, etc…then the insurer should and will be able to charge you more.
I don’t want my premiums going up because you can’t eat a salad once in a while.
Enjoy your day.
But all of those effect your odds of getting sick and dying, so the insurance companies ( large odds pools, basically ) can justfiably charge you more based on that.
( Except for the sexual preference, that is a protected case )
Someone could equally well say that “I don’t want my premiums going up because you don’t use a condom.”
Enjoy yours.
2 Likes
" In 2016, 55.2 million fitness trackers were sold worldwide. This figure is expected to increase to 105 million in 2022."
A minuscule portion of the public has bought in.
Seems relevant:
1 Like
you’re linking to some pay for use site, thanks but I don’t have any desire to buy into it. I do not know what they are measuring exactly. Is the apple watch also a fitness tracker? what about the iPhone or Android phones that have fitness tracker apps…are they counted too?
105 mill is not minuscule unless you are comparing it to total world population. But that isn’t accurate as a large portion of the total world pop is not eligible to purchase devices like this for various reasons (age, income, location, health, etc). I do not think 105 million is anything to sniff at.
You are conflating two different things. But ok sure. Again, no one stated you MUST use a fitness tracker, must stay in good health, or agree with it as a business model.
You do you.
Perhaps it’s not something to sniff at - but what toys a small portion of the population choose to buy and often not use isn’t a basis for directing everyone else.
What? Your premiums only go up because insurance companies are a for profit enterprise not because some people don’t eat salads. Let’s shame the correct people here.
6 Likes
But, Justice Kavanaugh, it’s not really snake handling if they aren’t venomous snakes, is it? This “heart rate monitoring” is an unconscionable imposition on the free practice of my religion!
But that is not what the current programs are doing. They are incentivizing good health options. And they do need some way to track that, fitness monitoring devices are one such method (I outlined an alternative my employer uses above).
This is not a new or alien concept…we have this in all sorts of applications from buy 9 pizzas and get the 10th free, to rewards cards for stores, to points on credit cards.
Again…the argument of should health care be single payer universal coverage or non-profit industry VS what we have today IS NOT what the article/post is about.
Additionally, offering perks to a voluntary group does not somehow marginalize those that choose to not take advantage of said perks.
@LadyBrains I am not shaming anyone…I am asking they have some personal accountability. At no point did I advocate that everyone needs to be picture perfect specimens of health. Merely being engaged in and actively taking care of oneself is a reasonable ask.
1 Like
As I asked earlier, do you have a background in law? I posted something, you disagreed.
I’ve given you an incredibly detailed and polite reply explaining your misunderstanding of the matter, and you continue to disagree.
That’s certainly your right, but frankly it comes off a little mansplainy since we’re not discussing a matter of opinion.
Sure about that?
3 Likes
