Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 59 of 59

Thread: Our 'Brave New World' with Medical Profiling

  1. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Shepherd View Post
    I have no problem giving the bank information if I apply for a loan. That's not what's happening here. Essentially what's happening (and not with the bank, but with other institutions) is that the company is essentially selling your transaction history to the highest bidder. You wouldn't be happy if the bank took your transactions and sold them to a marketing firm who now knows you buy beer every Tuesday, frequent McDonalds for lunch, etc. If a bank did that, this country would come unglued. However, people are doing that very thing every single day WITHOUT your permission (I don't recall seeing ANY posting on ANY terminal at ANY store that says "By swiping your card, you have given us the right to collect and use data in any way we see fit". Now, if you sign up for their frequent shopper cards, there's probably that line in there. However, I'm just a guy walking in, no relationship with the store's programs, and all I do is buy a bag of chips and now you've logged that data against my debit card and started recording my shopping habits, linking them to my name and card number.

    To me, that's a huge violation of privacy. I should be able to opt in or out of anything you plan to do with data collected about me.
    Pay with cash and refuse to give any information, zip code or phone number, etc.

    I went to harbor freight this weekend, we just got a new one here, which means all of the merchandise is new and the chemical/cosmolene smell was 10 times as strong as usual. I was quite surprised when my $7 order prompted the cashier to ask for my phone number and when I got home, a second copy of my receipt had been sent to my email. Next time, I won't give them my phone number, and we'll see what they do - there's nothing there I can't live without.

    I expect it at lowes and other places who want to have a digital copy of everything you do, but I could really do without it there.

    As far as life expectancy goes, the OP's email was bizarre in terms of that, because as far as I know, life insurance products have factored in life expectancy for at least several hundred years. It's pretty hard to provide such a thing (insurance based on someone's life) without doing something to estimate when the payment might occur. Iterations before that were no so equitable or economical about what was charged and what was paid.

    Data collection about what we do has been going on for an awful long time, too, it just had less resolution and precision and it wasn't used for individual direct marketing like it is now. The resolution and precision of the data, and therefore the applicable uses of it have increased due to computing power and connectivity.

    In terms of government having a stake in what we do and how healthy we are, we are all, if we live long enough, destined for medicare. Medicare has a serious and real cost to all of us, and to the extent that we can avoid unnecessary complications from chronic disease, etc, prior to being terminal, it will be better for the system. They have a real mess on their hands with projected deficits as they are. If utilization increases significantly because we have poor lifestyles, but can be extended at length because of things like statins (which had and have a significant observable effect on extending life spans) while incurring high cost of treatment along the way, the problem that creates is just reality - it's inevitable that we would need to try to moderate costs one way or another.

  2. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by David Weaver View Post
    Pay with cash and refuse to give any information, zip code or phone number, etc.
    Good luck doing that at the Dr's office. I do try and pay cash when I got into places like that. However, even that won't stop it since they are using facial recognition programs in stores now.

    I've often thought about ideas for new businesses that all marketed the fact that nothing about you was being captured or sold to anyone. I think there's increasing value in that business model.
    Lasers : Trotec Speedy 300 75W, Trotec Speedy 300 80W, Galvo Fiber Laser 20W
    Printers : Mimaki UJF-6042 UV Flatbed Printer , HP Designjet L26500 61" Wide Format Latex Printer, Summa S140-T 48" Vinyl Plotter
    Router : ShopBot 48" x 96" CNC Router Rotary Engravers : (2) Xenetech XOT 16 x 25 Rotary Engravers

    Real name Steve but that name was taken on the forum. Used Middle name. Call me Steve or Scott, doesn't matter.

  3. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Shepherd View Post
    Good luck doing that at the Dr's office. I do try and pay cash when I got into places like that. However, even that won't stop it since they are using facial recognition programs in stores now.
    The FBI has Carnivore for E-Mail servers. I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts (in the spirit of this thread) that the FBI and/or other agencies have or are working on servers they could drop into a shopping mall security room that would allow them to grab whatever they need, in the interest of national security of course.

    I was recently in the security monitoring room at a large shopping mall. The gear employed was over the top. If you need good enough resolution for facial recognition, they have it in spades.

  4. #49
    Yeah, the doctor is probably not permitted to do any such thing at this point. I was referring more to retail. I have never gotten anything at rockler (rockler is very local to me) where they didn't request a phone number, but in the case of rockler, I want the coupons if I can get them because their prices appear to be set such that regular price is after coupon.

    Same with HF - except it seems that any magazine that is remotely related to an all male audience will have HF coupons in it. I doubt they're sharing data, but who knows? Maybe they are? Maybe tell have an affiliated line of business and use that.

    I think IWF get the record for the amount of junk mail that I receive, though, after unsubscribing every time I get one. They must have caveats in the unsubscribe where it only relieves me from not getting a specific type of email, because something always follows, and I haven't registered for one since 2008. Actually, I've noticed that with unsubscribes from junk mail lately, that they are fairly narrow and there is no option on the unsubscribe page to work back to unsubscribing from *all* junk from a given spam network.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Matthews View Post
    There are two sides to this. The unrelenting pressure on young people to conform.
    And the inability of the overweight to conform to an airline seat.

    At a certain point, it's not longer just a personal problem.
    Accommodation of a "disease" that's caused by indulgence sets up a perverse incentive.

    We have to face the consequence of leaving this unchecked;
    not enough longterm medical care is available, particularly for the dangerously heavy.

    It's the same approach that has lead to lower morbidity and mortality from smoking,
    and I would hazard a SWAG that the success of the first lead to the failure of the second.
    Why does everyone feel the need to tell everyone else what they are doing wrong and give the mightier than thou speech. The fact is everyone is different, everyone has their own problems, some more evident than others. Why are people so hesitant to be accepting of this fact instead of feeling the need to dictate lifestyles. Take the high and mighty pink lungers for example. Quit playing the trump card of "its for their own good", or "their problems are costing all of us money". Why do you care so much that I wear a seatbelt for example - are you really concerned for my welfare or the impact on your pocket-book. What about your family - say you have a history of cancer in your family. Why should I be subsidizing your health care costs for that when my own family history doesn't show the same preponderance of risk as yours? This goes on and on. No one is perfect

  6. #51
    A history of cancer (assuming it's not smoking related or something) is significantly different than something that is controllable (like wearing a seatbelt), etc, or overeating.

    There has never been a time in history that mental illness didn't exist, the diagnosis of it has gotten more precise rather than having superstitious thoughts about origin.

    But we have gotten to a point now where a large part of society views obesity as something that has arrived from somewhere else and infected them. If it was uncontrollable, and we had no idea how it occurred, we would see it as a pattern throughout history. But at this point, we don't.

    When there is cost sharing, controllable behaviors (like overeating and smoking) become something that everyone has a stake in.

    As far as genetic issues, I wouldn't be surprised as genetic identification and possible genetic modification becomes the norm if folks who have a "fixable" history of cancer are forced to get it fixed through some kind of genetic modification or gene therapy.
    Last edited by David Weaver; 07-22-2014 at 1:17 PM.

  7. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Shepherd View Post
    Good luck doing that at the Dr's office. I do try and pay cash when I got into places like that. However, even that won't stop it since they are using facial recognition programs in stores now.

    I've often thought about ideas for new businesses that all marketed the fact that nothing about you was being captured or sold to anyone. I think there's increasing value in that business model.
    Facial recognition software? Oh lord...

    This has been an interesting read.

    Reading through this I begin to wonder... What if you were lowe's, dollar general, or any one of the thousands of retailers out there who are being literally robbed blind by an army of thieves who will work endlessly to shop the sales flyers, case stores, come up with elaborate ways to get out of the store with entire cordless drill packages and lord knows what else as opposed to going out and getting a real job. Of course you keep trying and trying with any and every way possible to thwart them. Put it on your manufacturers making them embed theft detection in weird places, invest in alarms at the doors, on and on.. And then of course technology advances and one of the arrows in your quiver becomes the technology for an idiot camera, a computer, and some software, to tell you when a known thief walks through the door. Or even perhaps some algorithm makes it possible to pick up on suspicious movement or actions. Of course all the while its recording your every step, every move, every booger pick and wedgie adjustment. Oh oh! And wait! This technology takes no coffee break, never gets distracted, can be all places at all times, and has no unemployment insurance premium, workers comp, or benefit package! But you'd opt out on moral principal?

    I have never ever ever been one to defend the big box stores or corporate america, but when you are the one paying for the losses and your the one struggling to satisfy a customer base that wants one thing and one thing only and thats a cheaper price regardless of quality or national and global conscience, Id almost guarantee you you'd be singing a completely different tune.

    Of course all this gathered information is used for things we'd wish it not to be. It irritates me to no end to see the item I looked at on Amazon two days ago pop up on some other website Im looking at, but the choice is mine. Toss the computer. Cut the DSL. The option is there to go straight back to the simple life, the good life. I own a large piece of property. Completely off grid. Solar power, rain water catchment, no telco, in the middle of no where.... I choose a balance. The alternative to all this technology is a lot more work than anyone in this country is willing to endure which is why these topics abound.

    The simple fact of the matter is, perhaps other than health care, you have the option to opt out of all you wish to. The simple life is out there to be had. But its just too painful for the vast majority to endure so they want their cake and eat it too.

    When I walk into Lowes I know exactly what I am getting long before I walk in the door. To think I would give them my real phone number is ludicrous, to think I am not being watched is ludicrous, to think my card payments are not being logged is ludicrous. I have the option to never walk in there again....

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    1,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Barry View Post
    Why does everyone feel the need to tell everyone else what they are doing wrong and give the mightier than thou speech.
    I'll agree that society at large loses nothing by dispensing with the holier-than-thou speech, but society is all about telling people what they can and can't do--we routinely balance the rights of the individual against the larger interests of society as a whole. And the perceived balance changes over time. Frankly, it is probably most accurate to frame the debate as "when is paternalistic behavior by the State appropriate?" If there are large costs your behavior imposes on society, I'd argue it can be justified. If it is something that is purely "moral"--say, anti-euthanasia laws--I'm going to say it is pure paternalism and ought to be stopped. So you have to look at individual cases--

    -- As far as the "mighty pink lungers," I'm assuming you are talking about anti-smoking. As an ex-smoker, however, I can still appreciate the simple reality here--smoking in public places disturbs nonsmokers and subjects them to increased risk of respiratory distress caused by second hand smoke. In addition, the health issues associated with smoking impose costs on society as a whole (see, e.g., http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wo...st-of-smoking/). That's probably enough of a justification for legislation around smoking.

    -- As far as seatbelts go, the financial costs to society seems like it justifies seatbelt laws--"According to NHTSA, the average charge for an unbelted passenger vehicle to an inpatient facility as a result of a crash injury was over 55 percent greater than the average charge for those who were belted" (http://exchange.aaa.com/safety/roadw.../safety-belts/). Since those costs are often transferred to society as a whole, again, I see the justification.

    So, in my book, the answer is that if the State is acting out of "concern" for your welfare, the State probably shouldn't be. But if the State is acting out of concern for my pocketbook, it is probably OK.

  9. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Barry View Post
    Why does everyone feel the need to tell everyone else what they are doing wrong and give the mightier than thou speech. The fact is everyone is different, everyone has their own problems, some more evident than others.
    Fixing my own flaws is hard, telling you to fix yours is easy?

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    South Coastal Massachusetts
    Posts
    6,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Barry View Post
    Quit playing the trump card of "its for their own good", or "their problems are costing all of us money".
    I couldn't care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes.
    Cancers are a World wide concern, even in places where people watch their weight.

    Obesity, isn't.

    The precursors for developing cancers are exposure to carcinogens, natural mutations and genetic.
    The precursor for obesity is excess calories.

    It's a false equivalence and hazy analysis.
    If you don't think that fat old people are expensive to maintain,
    you haven't read the papers lately.

    From the article below:

    "“But I can’t charge double for an obese patient,” Carter said.In the end, she says, it comes down to a personal decision."
    If they don’t lose the weight, Carter said, “I’m paying the cost of other people’s choices.”

    http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2012/08...-who-are-obese

    As someone struggling to maintain a constant weight and has worked in hospital settings for
    my entire adult life I can attest to the added cost, physical demand and poor outcomes that
    climb along a logarithmic curve with each additional inch around the belt line.

    Last edited by John Keeton; 07-24-2014 at 8:39 AM.

  11. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by David Weaver View Post

    When there is cost sharing, controllable behaviors (like overeating and smoking) become something that everyone has a stake in.
    How about amateurs using woodworking equipment? Meh.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Millerton, PA
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Matthews View Post
    I couldn't care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes.
    Cancers are a World wide concern, even in places where people watch their weight.

    Obesity, isn't.

    The precursors for developing cancers are exposure to carcinogens, natural mutations and genetic.
    The precursor for obesity is excess calories.

    It's a false equivalence and hazy analysis.
    If you don't think that fat old people are expensive to maintain,
    you haven't read the papers lately.

    From the article below:

    "“But I can’t charge double for an obese patient,” Carter said.In the end, she says, it comes down to a personal decision."
    If they don’t lose the weight, Carter said, “I’m paying the cost of other people’s choices.”

    http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2012/08...-who-are-obese

    As someone struggling to maintain a constant weight and has worked in hospital settings for
    my entire adult life I can attest to the added cost, physical demand and poor outcomes that
    climb along a logarithmic curve with each additional inch around the belt line.





    Spare us the Libertarian Theology.
    hmmm...

    I'm sure I am misreading this. At least I hope I am.

    Granted, obesity is a health problem. But then (as you stated) so is smoking and drinking and...well...stress. But, my question is, what are we to do about it? Ship all of the obese off to "Fat Farms"?

    Oh wait, that would cost money.

    Perhaps we should just take them out and shoot them.
    I am never wrong.

    Well...I thought I was wrong once...but I was mistaken.

  13. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Matthews View Post
    I couldn't care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes.
    Cancers are a World wide concern, even in places where people watch their weight.

    Obesity, isn't.

    The precursors for developing cancers are exposure to carcinogens, natural mutations and genetic.
    The precursor for obesity is excess calories.

    It's a false equivalence and hazy analysis.
    If you don't think that fat old people are expensive to maintain,
    you haven't read the papers lately.

    From the article below:

    "“But I can’t charge double for an obese patient,” Carter said.In the end, she says, it comes down to a personal decision."
    If they don’t lose the weight, Carter said, “I’m paying the cost of other people’s choices.”

    http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2012/08...-who-are-obese

    As someone struggling to maintain a constant weight and has worked in hospital settings for
    my entire adult life I can attest to the added cost, physical demand and poor outcomes that
    climb along a logarithmic curve with each additional inch around the belt line
    .
    Spare us the rude and incendiary preaching. Next you'll be saying that poor people should get less healthcare than rich people because they pay less into the system. Or perhaps we should have mandatory employment to make sure everyone pulls their weight, and if you can't get a job in the private sector (or if you're just lazy), we'll send you to a work camp. Because you see, we must have uniformity across the board.

    No thanks, comrade.
    Last edited by John Keeton; 07-24-2014 at 8:40 AM.

  14. #59
    As expected, this thread has reached rock bottom. We are done here folks!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •