Has your healthcare ins. provider asked you about motorcycles yet?
- Thread starter BlackStar
- Start date
Help Support Yamaha FJR Motorcycle Forum:
wheatonFJR
...
Good thing you put that disclaimer in there...we might have thought otherwise.
Bockelrider
Well-known member
That little plug taps your cars computer and can come up with a ton of info on how you drive! The history shows throttle openings, brake applications and speed to name a few. Police can tap you car after an accident and tell what you were doing at the time of the crash.
On a side note I am a lifetime member of the AMA and urge everyone to join. They watch both Washington and the states for things that are not in our best interest and lobby for the riders!
Steve
Aasland
Depleted
I really don't see a problem with this.
I agree with the premise that low risk drivers should pay lower rates. Also, if you manage your health by avoiding destructive and unhealthy habits then it makes perfect sense that you pay lower health care premiums. Both of these premises are based on the assumption that being a lower risk means you will be a lower cost. The alternative is to ask safer drivers to pay more so that the risky drivers can pay less (proportionately speaking).
Is this a matter of perspective? The insurance premium (or deductible) goes lower if you submit these voluntary intrusions. If you don't want to participate, you pay the normal (higher) rate. I do not see a problem with this. If this was the opposite .. i.e. your rates go up if you don't submit to the monitoring, that's a different story. I suppose the perspective is "what is the starting point".
While this is pretty clearcut in the case of vehicle insurance (since owning and operating a vehicle is voluntary and you can easily switch to a competitor who doesn't operate in this manner), applying it to healthcare adds many additional considerations such as the perceived "right" to healthcare, regulations distorting the free market, insurance being tied to employment, and several other issues I won't bother to elucidate here.
I suspect these issues are close to home in our little FJR community because we do take more than average risks and thus stand liable to pay higher premiums. The alternative is to propose that others pay for the risks we take ... anyone want to step and make that proposal?
If your beef is with the profits the insurance companies make, then I challenge you to find out what their profit margin is and explain why profit is bad, or perhaps undertake the task of determining how much profit is bad.
Reading between the lines, I think the outrage you're feeling is over the fear that the questions and monitoring devices could someday become mandatory. I'll lend my support behind that one, but since that isn't currently the case, I'm not going to sweat it.
I agree with the premise that low risk drivers should pay lower rates. Also, if you manage your health by avoiding destructive and unhealthy habits then it makes perfect sense that you pay lower health care premiums. Both of these premises are based on the assumption that being a lower risk means you will be a lower cost. The alternative is to ask safer drivers to pay more so that the risky drivers can pay less (proportionately speaking).
Is this a matter of perspective? The insurance premium (or deductible) goes lower if you submit these voluntary intrusions. If you don't want to participate, you pay the normal (higher) rate. I do not see a problem with this. If this was the opposite .. i.e. your rates go up if you don't submit to the monitoring, that's a different story. I suppose the perspective is "what is the starting point".
While this is pretty clearcut in the case of vehicle insurance (since owning and operating a vehicle is voluntary and you can easily switch to a competitor who doesn't operate in this manner), applying it to healthcare adds many additional considerations such as the perceived "right" to healthcare, regulations distorting the free market, insurance being tied to employment, and several other issues I won't bother to elucidate here.
I suspect these issues are close to home in our little FJR community because we do take more than average risks and thus stand liable to pay higher premiums. The alternative is to propose that others pay for the risks we take ... anyone want to step and make that proposal?
If your beef is with the profits the insurance companies make, then I challenge you to find out what their profit margin is and explain why profit is bad, or perhaps undertake the task of determining how much profit is bad.
Reading between the lines, I think the outrage you're feeling is over the fear that the questions and monitoring devices could someday become mandatory. I'll lend my support behind that one, but since that isn't currently the case, I'm not going to sweat it.
Last edited by a moderator:
eastern5
Well-known member
My previous insurance company had no issues because I was a motorcyclist. I asked the question because I wanted to make sure I was covered, and I was treated just like anyone else.
Bokerfork
Well-known member
I don't get it. My motorcycle insurance covers my medical costs if I'm involved in an accident. My healthcare policy does not.
And I'm pretty sure my motorcycle insurance company is aware that I ride.
And I'm pretty sure my motorcycle insurance company is aware that I ride.
hppants
Well-known member
Unless you have some really (REALLY) unusual motorcycle policy, your med payments coverage will likely not go very far if you are involved in even a moderately serious crash. If you are involved in an accident with another vehicle that is at-fault, and that vehicle is either uninsured or underinsured, and you have U/M coverage, you could use that to supplement your med. payments limit. <<<< - edit: That sentence may vary from State to State. In Louisiana, it is true as written.
Twigg
Just an old, bald man!
It is all very well to suggest there is "not a problem with this", if the insurance industry was adiding by the principles they were founded on.
That is, we pool the risk of as many as possible, to reduce the cost for those who need help.
That is not what is happening here. What insurance companies are doing is attempting to narrow the risk pool so small that they reduce payouts and increase profits. When it gets to the point that they begin intruding on quite normal activities, then the very point of them existing at all is becoming blurred.
For example ... You might not like the fact that I ride a motorcycle, but I don't much care for your private plane, or the fact that you have been married three times, you have an unstable life-style.
I agree that those taking unnecessary or unusual risks ... and riding without a crash helmet would be one of them, should either be excluded or charged a premium rate, but we really do need to be on our guard against the insurers cherry-picking the risk pool too much. It is not in our interests that they should be allowed to do so.
That is, we pool the risk of as many as possible, to reduce the cost for those who need help.
That is not what is happening here. What insurance companies are doing is attempting to narrow the risk pool so small that they reduce payouts and increase profits. When it gets to the point that they begin intruding on quite normal activities, then the very point of them existing at all is becoming blurred.
For example ... You might not like the fact that I ride a motorcycle, but I don't much care for your private plane, or the fact that you have been married three times, you have an unstable life-style.
I agree that those taking unnecessary or unusual risks ... and riding without a crash helmet would be one of them, should either be excluded or charged a premium rate, but we really do need to be on our guard against the insurers cherry-picking the risk pool too much. It is not in our interests that they should be allowed to do so.
hppants
Well-known member
I can neither add to, supplement, or even comment on Twigg's post without violating the agreement to which I abide on this forum. So I will simply "like", say thank you, and move on. Well done, sir.
Cav47
Adventure Seeker
^^^^ Agreed Pants and Twigg,
My health insurance coverage went up 45.03% this year because of members in our pool had some catastrophic claims. AND some other factors related to national health care plan changes.....but that is another subject not for here.
BUT, my insurance plan does not ask me if I ride with or without gear. NOR did they ask if Work out, Smoke, Drink excessively, Sleep around, or engage in any other vices that likely would result in increased insurance payouts due to my behavior.
Insurance is a scam in some ways. This scenario is one of those in my opinion.
My health insurance coverage went up 45.03% this year because of members in our pool had some catastrophic claims. AND some other factors related to national health care plan changes.....but that is another subject not for here.
BUT, my insurance plan does not ask me if I ride with or without gear. NOR did they ask if Work out, Smoke, Drink excessively, Sleep around, or engage in any other vices that likely would result in increased insurance payouts due to my behavior.
Insurance is a scam in some ways. This scenario is one of those in my opinion.
Bill Lumberg
Merica
Doctor/Insurance hasn't asked me anything like that. I don't think they would, for various reasons. But the zoo where I have to get my annual agency physical done has a mandatory questonnaire that asks everything but motorcycle questions. I put N/A by questions that aren't their business.
08FJR4ME
-WYNPRO-
A friend of mine just recently went to the doctor. He was given a form to fill out. One of the questions was how mentally depressed you are.
A ) slightly depressed
B ) moderately depressed
C ) often deprecessed
D ) Always depressed
As you can see there is no option for not at all depressed. He had to write that in. If you happened to pick any of them you might and most likely could run into problems down the road the way the system is going.
On another note I turn down the $500.00 discount for the biometrics. It's none of my company's business as far as I am concerned. Fook them.
Dave
A ) slightly depressed
B ) moderately depressed
C ) often deprecessed
D ) Always depressed
As you can see there is no option for not at all depressed. He had to write that in. If you happened to pick any of them you might and most likely could run into problems down the road the way the system is going.
On another note I turn down the $500.00 discount for the biometrics. It's none of my company's business as far as I am concerned. Fook them.
Dave
Last edited by a moderator:
juniorfjr
Well-known member
On a similar note State Farm sent out a flier saying that now that I have Ford Sync that I could get a discount. My agent said I could but if I ever exceed the speed limit then he wouldn't. By accepting you allow Insurance Company to access your vehicles computer record and it could com back to bite you. Bad enough that the auto manufacturers know what you're doing all the time. Again mitigating perceived high risk insured.
I've gotten that memo too. Phuck 'em. Same thing with Progressive's plug-in thingee: monitoring your behavior and movements.
Cav47
Adventure Seeker
I am okay with putting that thing or any other device on my Ridgeline. I baby her. My son will soon be driving. Not sure the data points will be the same. On the other hand, the FJR and how I pilot her another story
IF, And that is a big IF, it saved me some significant money, I would do it. Maybe.
russperry
Well-known member
We have the exact same program in place at AMAT now and I have the same thoughts. It may be fair actually to ask you about risky behavior - they've been asking us about drinking and smoking for years. Not saying I like the trend though.
I do think that some day it may price me and others out of riding or other fun stuff as the insurers force us into eating nothing but kale and quinoa, and living life inside plastic bubbles.
russperry
Well-known member
It's not just Progressive, its in at least some new vehicles now. The '14 Ninja 1000 I just bought records the ECU info and in the event of a crash stores the last several seconds of data for later "analysis".
Last edited by a moderator:
kballowe
Well-known member
My company started offering $50 if you participated in a free "health fair" which includes blood tests for clorestoral, etc.
WIthin three years, it was mandatory - and they charged you $100/month if you did NOT participate.
The new thing is $100 if you participate in the voluntary "health screening" which includes blood tests for clorestoral, blood pressure, body mass index, blood glucose levels and other such stuff.
Of course, if you smoke, then that's an additional $150/month.
My wife's company is already charging extra is your blood pressure/BMI/whatever doesn't meet with their guidelines.
I'm 5'10" and 200 pounds and have just been diagnosed by the company health people as "obese".
Now excuse me while I go out for a ride
WIthin three years, it was mandatory - and they charged you $100/month if you did NOT participate.
The new thing is $100 if you participate in the voluntary "health screening" which includes blood tests for clorestoral, blood pressure, body mass index, blood glucose levels and other such stuff.
Of course, if you smoke, then that's an additional $150/month.
My wife's company is already charging extra is your blood pressure/BMI/whatever doesn't meet with their guidelines.
I'm 5'10" and 200 pounds and have just been diagnosed by the company health people as "obese".
Now excuse me while I go out for a ride
