I just make sure mines on the appropriate arm at certain times. Apparently I ran a marathon in the shower a couple of days ago…
But in all seriousness, this crap is ridiculous. My employer offers discounts/credits toward your insurance (and pretty paltry amounts) if you only agree to have an annual exam with their doctor, and have blood drawn so they can monitor cholesterol, check for nicotine etc… All optional of course. No thanks. My medical issues are between myself and my doctor. They can rely on their statistics, and not have individualized data.
Even if the insurance companies weren’t trying to turn a profit they’d still have to cover their costs. If some people who are covered eat unhealthy food, and therefore have a higher risk of health problems, the insurer’s costs will be higher and they’ll have to charge someone more: either charge everyone (including salad-eaters) a little bit more, or charge those who eat unhealthy food a lot more.
The argument for the latter option is that it incentivizes people to make healthier choices, which can reduce costs overall.
Personally, I think I’m generally OK with being charged more based on any unhealthy lifestyle choices, so long as there’s some accountability that the premiums are being set according to risk assessments based on sound evidence, and that insurers aren’t picking-and-choosing which lifestyle choices to penalize based on something other than evidence-based risk assessment.
I’m not OK with it if gathering the information necessary to assess my risk requires me to wear a surveillance device.
After thinking about it a bit, I don’t think reasonable accommodation applies to things like life insurance. If you read the link you posted, it enumerates the things it does apply to.
Also, there are religion-based insurers and financial institutions out there. How is what they do different?
And mainstream insurers have had different rates for men and women for a long time. If they can’t discriminate against religions, then they shouldn’t be able to discriminate among gender either, I would think.
But then, lots of affirmative action programs are being struck down, so who knows. Maybe all of those things I mention will be challenged and change.
Now that I think about this some more, there are all kinds of analogous situations that would be a problem if your interpretation was correct.
One of the best is that Amazon sells ebooks encumbered with DRM that prevents their use with screen readers by the blind. What is the reasonable accommodation they have to make? I think their defense would be that they sell titles in multiple formats (and at multiple prices). They maybe have large print books or audio books that would work instead. The insurance company also has multiple insurance products. If the one with tracking doesn’t work for them, then one of the others might.
Do you know if insurance companies forgo blood tests for those whose religions beliefs make that a problem? AFAIK, they just refuse to issue a policy if you refuse a blood test. Or what about people that use tobacco in religious ceremonies? Again, I don’t think you get the non-smoker rate if you smoke for religious reasons.
The practices that are being discussed in the article and post are incentives for those that have healthier habits. It is not about any policy that says “you didn’t exercise more, so we are charging you more”. No company is doing that.
Yes. Single payer would eliminate the incentives because it would be a flat rate for all.
As the system is currently structured I have zero problem with providing incentives to lower your personal costs and rewarding someone for having healthy habits.
It’s a bunch of well-meaning advice from the NHS on how to live well (as you’d expect from the URL ). Links to ‘healthy’ food choices, exercise suggestions, etc.
We get nudged, cajoled and in some cases bribed (free fitbits, gym vouchers, etc.) into being healthier.
For some people…no incentives or nudging is needed to get them to eat well and exercise regularly. For others, a little nudging and incentives is all it takes. And for others no amount of incentives is going to get them to do/change anything.
That last grouping my simple attitude to them is …You do you. Enjoy that MI at 50. I will do my part to be around to see my grand kids.
For the the third time: do you have a legal background?
It’s frustrating and condescending that you assume your lack of knowledge means I am incorrect. I’ve repeatedly explained the logic to you and given you sources. But all you do is take a glance, misunderstand, then demand more sources/info.
I’m not going to fall for your appeal to authority trap.
I never really demanded sources or info, did I? I was mostly making arguments from analogies and was hoping you would swat them away with your superior understanding of the world.
Anyway, if it’s not fun for you, I guess we’re done.
). Links to ‘healthy’ food choices, exercise suggestions, etc.