But the people for whom it would lower premiums would hand over the data, which results in the same thing. A health insurance company could offer me a $50 discount for a monthly blood test showing my sugar/cholesterol, and I would do it. Why should I pay for someone else’s cheese/alcohol/butter/sugar/bacon consumption.

I assume the reason it is not currently implemented yet is because the cost of monthly blood tests is too high relative to the cost reduction. I do get $200 if I do it annually though, so it seems like it is at least worth it on a yearly basis.

> A health insurance company could offer me a $50 discount for a monthly blood test showing my sugar/cholesterol, and I would do it. Why should I pay for someone else’s cheese/alcohol/butter/sugar/bacon consumption.

Because... You would be saving peanuts while someone else would have to pay much more (and sometimes drop their insurance completely) and that's a much worse result for society than you paying some 50 bucks extra, even more if you have a good salary and this practice would make someone poorer be forced to be uninsured.

This ultra-individualistic thinking really doesn't help a society. Might help you as an individual but good luck living without a society.

How do you know that I would save peanuts while someone else has to pay disproportionately more?

I already get a decent chunk of change ($700) just for annual preventative physical, flu shot, dental exam, blood test, and eye exam, which are all free.

There is a spectrum. ACA excluded tobacco users' risk from using tobacco, but left alcohol and sugar and saturated fats in? Why subsidize the latter 3 and not tobacco?

Should others in society subsidize drunk driving? Reckless driving? Should we keep bailing out people who continue to build and buy homes built in flood plains? It makes sense to spread costs around on unknown risks, but once a risk factor is known, I can see merit in discussing whether or not it should be subsidized.

Of course, there is a spectrum of "knowing" risk factors, and everyone is different, but some factors have a very high likelihood and some are not high enough to merit discriminating. However, that is for the actuaries to decide, because if they are wrong that will show up in the bottom line and then it will be corrected.

But things like alcohol and added sugar are basically proven to only cause harm. 1 alcoholic drink and 1 cupcake a month is not going to cause an insurance company to say let's raise this person's premium, but I do not see why an alcoholic and a person that eats donuts, starbucks, and ice cream everyday should be subsidized.

>This ultra-individualistic thinking really doesn't help a society.

On the contrary, subsidizing behavior that is known to causes problems to people's health and hence increases healthcare costs and decreases productivity does not help society. If anything, I would characterize unhealthy habits (which I am also guilty of) to be ultra-individualistic thinking.

>How do you know that I would save peanuts while someone else has to pay disproportionately more?

The point is, no insurance is just going to say you pay next to nothing because of... Instead, they will say you are in the lowest risk category, and here's your rate.

>Why subsidize the latter 3 and not tobacco?

Big Tobacco was sued and lost in court, so they are easy to "pick on". Nobody has sued Big Sugar. We've already seen what strict rules on alcohol does to the country, and doubtful anyone is ready to do that again.

>The point is, no insurance is just going to say you pay next to nothing because of... Instead, they will say you are in the lowest risk category, and here's your rate.

It was never claimed that the insurance would cost nothing. There are, of course, uncountable health risks that are still in play.

>Big Tobacco was sued and lost in court, so they are easy to "pick on". Nobody has sued Big Sugar.

I do not know what this has to do with anything, nor what "sued in court" means as specific lawsuits have specific claims. It is correct that tobacco was separated probably because, politically, it is difficult to argue that people should pay for other people's smoking. And that is my point, that the risks we choose to subsidize and not subsidize are based on politics.

Hence, alcohol and sugar get a pass because lots of voters like those and want the smaller portion of people who do not consume as much alcohol and sugar to pick up the tab for those who cannot. Smokers do not have the numbers to result in sufficient political power to force others to pick up that tab.

>We've already seen what strict rules on alcohol does to the country, and doubtful anyone is ready to do that again.

I never claimed society should stop anyone from consuming alcohol or sugar.

Insurance is just about the worst avenue to pursue your socialistic goals. Insurance is a numbers game, you will never be pursuasive with arguments about the greater good.

>But the people for whom it would lower premiums would hand over the data,

Progressive Auto has their Snapshot devices which provides them your driving habits. People signed up for it not realizing that their premiums could actually go up because they're a shitty driver even though they are "really good drivers". Once the word gets out that insurance premiums are going up because of this, there will be lots of screaming into the void on the internet.

I am not sure what the point is. If some people's premiums go up, then others' premiums would go down. Those people would choose to stick with the Snapshot device (assuming they felt the discount in premium was sufficient).

There's no guarantee that anyone's premiums would actually go down. Instead, you might find people that thought their premiums would go down actually go up because of this. After all, we're talking about insurance companies who are the poster child for fucking over their customers. Giving someone this much visibility surely means they could find something to justify a premium increase.

I would never voluntarily submit data to insurance like this. It's a suckers bet.

Total premiums would only go up if total losses go up. Simply disclosing more data would not cause total losses to go up.

Insurance pricing is very competitive and if one company raised premiums without experience by more losses, another would come in and offer insurance at a lower price.