The only examples I can think of is auto insurers buying your vehicle usage data, and creditors buying your borrowing data. I don’t know if cameras or the Internet has anything to do with either case.
And then there are the really creepy services. There was a service not long ago in Russia that would allow you to upload a picture of any woman you saw on the street. They would identify the face (via VK) and provide you with their contact and job information. Totally creepy. Totally abusive. But easily done with basic tech.
if this results in lower insurance for those who are deemed to be healthier due to exercises, then it's a good outcome. Pricing insurance more accurately is almost always a good outcome.
And those deemed at risk are not only people skipping jogging.
As you say, while there's probably some correlation between cycling and healthy activity in general, it's probably also an activity--depending on local infrastructure and where you cycle--that by itself adds risk of injury.
Varying the premiums across the insured population adds some fairness to the equation, but the moment it starts actually culling members of said population through outrageous pricing, it is just plain cheating.
Meanwhile in the US if you get kicked off your medical insurance with any kind of chronic illness then you either pay out the ass for basic treatment or die.
The problem with medical insurance is that it's a flawed system in the US. Everybody gets sick, it's a near 100% chance guarantee, esp. as you age.
Therefore, medical "insurance" should not be insurance, but should be a fund. It should be paid into by all taxpayers at some rate proportional to their income (like VAT), and then the fund goes to fund _all_ non-elective medical procedures.
Insurance for medical should be for _premium_ facilities, like private rooms, private nurses etc. Not for the treatment.
That is the case. If your house is currently on fire, no one will insure you. What are you doing about this awful situation?
> Therefore, medical "insurance" should not be insurance, but should be a fund. It should be paid into by all taxpayers at some rate proportional to their income (like VAT), and then the fund goes to fund _all_ non-elective medical procedures.
You seem to be extremely US-centric. You can't differentiate between "how the US does insurance" and "fundamental truths about insurance". This discussion is not just a proxy for an incredibly well-worn, and separate, conversation on US healthcare.
in reality, it'll result in higher insurance for those who are deemed unhealthy, or simply at risk. As someone said already, maybe joggers suddenly get lower premiums and bikers (especially in biker unfriendly cities) get higher ones. Maybe you end up paying even more if you bench more at a gym than the "recommended amount". Maybe they collaborate with certain fitness companies and will charge you less if you click an affiliate link to buy this health product.
The possibilities here are endless, and this is just for one aspect of life. This can in theory work with a benevolent leadership, but that ship sailed decades ago.
Seems like gender technically wouldnt be a blocker, was that a product choice, or a marketing choice?
The entire junk debt collection industry.
DeleteMe is a product that was made in response to the productization of PII, so that's an interesting footnote in this conversation as well.