View Single Post
  #78   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
Reginald P. Smithers III Reginald P. Smithers III is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,557
Default Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 5, 8:29?am, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:01:53 -0700, Tim wrote:
sounds to me like the old "chip-under-the-skin" deal.
1984?

Yes, it's pretty easy to imagine something like that now that
technology has evolved the way it has. Imagine that you now have the
ID chip that everyone thought would be a good idea to reduce crime of
all kinds, and also imagine that you are enrolled in the nationally
funded health plan that everyone thought was such a good idea. The
health plan knows *everything* about you of course.

Suppose you are now sitting down to eat in a nice restaurant at an "on
topic" marina, about to order their world class prime ribs. They've
already scanned your chip at the door of course so that they know you
won't be a criminal threat, and so you don't have to worry about
carrying your credit cards. As you place your order, an alert comes
up from the health plan telling you not to order the prime ribs
because they are bad for your high cholesterol ( a function my wife
presently performs). You press the over ride button because you're
willing to take a calculated risk once in a while. Another message
comes back and says: "Fine, if that's what you really want to do, but
be advised that you will no longer be covered for medical benefits".

The possible variations on this scenario go on and on, the technology
is readily available, and the temptation to create the linkages would
be too compelling to ignore.

Do you still think ID chips are a good idea?


That's not as far out as you think. Now that our purchases are
routinely tracked in grocery stores, it's only a matter of time before
some insurance company declares "Sorry, Mr. Policyholder. We're not
going to pay for your angioplasty because we have evidence you have
been buying a case of Twinkies every month for the last five years.
Your health problems are the result of your own bad decisions, so you
pay."


If they wanted to restrict their claims, it would be much easier to just
to say "anyone who exceeds their ideal weight or cholesterol levels by
more than X% will not longer be covered by their health insurance, since
your health problems are the result of your own bad decisions, you now pay.