How do the ethics line up for an insurance company analyzing data from your wearables and seeing a data point that indicates a significant increase in the chance of a heart attack? Do they tell you and pay for preemptive care? Do they drop you as a customer? How many people have to die vs survive a heart attack to make warning you vs hoping you die the most profitable option?
In the US, insurance companies are required to provide you with insurance, and the insurance must cost only a certain percentage more than insurance for the healthiest (youngest) people. This is effectively a subsidy from people not likely to need healthcare (young) to people likely to need healthcare (old). Aka Medicare or nationalized healthcare in other countries.
This website has a nice table showing the adjustment factors.
NJ has a nice pdf explaining age rating factors, showing that early 20s is the benchmark, and even though people in 50s and 60s use much more than 3x the healthcare people in early 20s do, the premium is capped at 3x of those in early 20s.
As an aside, when people complain in the US that the ACA law increased their healthcare costs, what they are complaining about is having to pay for other people’s healthcare. Other than increase supply of healthcare (doctors, medicines, etc), there is no solution to bringing costs down.
https://onezero.medium.com/if-you-want-cheap-car-insurance-y...
How do the ethics line up for an insurance company analyzing data from your wearables and seeing a data point that indicates a significant increase in the chance of a heart attack? Do they tell you and pay for preemptive care? Do they drop you as a customer? How many people have to die vs survive a heart attack to make warning you vs hoping you die the most profitable option?