Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 333 posts

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#301

Post by pyuser583 »

mykehunt wrote: post #277
dylan604 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After all, you called them, which shows you're a ripe target. Every sales person knows that. Oh, you thought they were a support person? Maybe sales support.

When in doubt try the "God" opt-out. I have found they usually either do not have a scripted rebuttal to this or they are legally not allowed to go against one's religious views. This can also be useful when feeling pressured to make an immediate decision by asking for a moment to "pray". Examples: 1- "God told me to..." While canceling Time Warner Cable I tried cancelling a few times prior. Always met with rebuttals…

It’s scary they pulled the “spousal abuse” card.

It should be illegal to manipulate people by implying they’re breaking the law.

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#302

Post by Our_Benefactors »

brewdad wrote: post #282
arkadiyt wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I get a new car I'm just taking the modem out.

One of the automakers in the article claims that voids your warranty. It may or may not but enjoy the legal battle should you ever need to make a claim.

It does not. There are laws against voiding a warranty based on aftermarket modifications made by the end user. This is the case in the USA at least.

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#303

Post by brewdad »

garaetjjte wrote: post #289
jowea wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is only useful for a consumer if they cannot access cash or a credit line to pay for a sudden large expense. Isn't that the main point of insurance? Insurance can also socially redistribute bad things. Which fair enough it is in practice a result of insurance but I don't think that's what it was invented for. And indeed the better the insurer's crystal ball the smaller this effect is. Although in practice I do…

>Isn't that the main point of insurance? No, insurance claim can be larger than sum of lifetime premiums, contrary to credit.

Again, that’s the point of insurance. Most of us will pay more in premiums than we ever get paid in claims. A few of us will avoid bankruptcy because insurance will pay out a claim we can’t otherwise afford either through cash or any line of credit we could get.

The trick is no one can know which side of the ledger we’ll fall on. You can be the world’s safest and best driver and still get t-boned by a driver with no assets and no insurance.

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#305

Post by speed_spread »

pyuser583 wrote: post #301
mykehunt wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When in doubt try the "God" opt-out. I have found they usually either do not have a scripted rebuttal to this or they are legally not allowed to go against one's religious views. This can also be useful when feeling pressured to make an immediate decision by asking for a moment to "pray". Examples: 1- "God told me to..." While canceling Time Warner Cable I tried cancelling a few times prior. Always met with rebuttals…

It’s scary they pulled the “spousal abuse” card. It should be illegal to manipulate people by implying they’re breaking the law.

"Are you implying that I'm implying you're breaking the law?"

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#306

Post by ethbr1 »

snowwrestler wrote: post #285
ethbr1 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this true? My understanding of HIPAA (possibly incorrect) is that it's attached to the data. If a covered provider is leaking HIPAA covered data to a non-covered business associate entity... that's a big no-no and a fine.

There are criteria for which organizations are covered by HIPAA’s privacy protections. It is not attached to the data wherever the data goes.

Yes, those are covered entities. Their subcontractors who touch HIPAA data are business associates.

See https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/covered-entities... and https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-...

In my experience, covered entities are really serious about signing BAAs with any of their hosting vendors and partners, as afaik the liability falls on the covered entity if they didn't have an agreement in place and data leaked from a vendor/partner.

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#307

Post by HnUser12 »

theogravity wrote: post #152

After seeing this article, I did a bit of searching and you can also get your LexisNexus report and also opt-out of data sharing along with deleting associated data. I did it and recommend everyone else does as well. https://consumer.risk.lexisnexis.com/consumer

For anyone looking

https://www.lexisnexis.com/global/privacy/en/privacy-center-...

This looks like the Canadian page, made a request and let’s see where this leads to.

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#309

Post by mykehunt »

pyuser583 wrote: post #301
mykehunt wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When in doubt try the "God" opt-out. I have found they usually either do not have a scripted rebuttal to this or they are legally not allowed to go against one's religious views. This can also be useful when feeling pressured to make an immediate decision by asking for a moment to "pray". Examples: 1- "God told me to..." While canceling Time Warner Cable I tried cancelling a few times prior. Always met with rebuttals…

It’s scary they pulled the “spousal abuse” card. It should be illegal to manipulate people by implying they’re breaking the law.

Modern medicine is great, but sadly they push C-sections a lot. My understanding is they can bill at least 50% more than a natural birth. This skews even higher if you don't have the best insurance.

A bit outdated but: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/c-section-...

https://archive.is/4jj0h#selection-761.59-761.224

Also once you have one c-Section, the chances of a second increase significantly. It is not suggested to have more than two c-Sections, so if you want three kids you are out of luck.

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#310

Post by mykehunt »

mykehunt wrote: post #309
pyuser583 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s scary they pulled the “spousal abuse” card. It should be illegal to manipulate people by implying they’re breaking the law.

Modern medicine is great, but sadly they push C-sections a lot. My understanding is they can bill at least 50% more than a natural birth. This skews even higher if you don't have the best insurance. A bit outdated but: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/c-section-... https://archive.is/4jj0h#selection-761.59-761.224 Also once you have one c-Section, the chances of a second increase significantly. It is…

My wife's first language is not English. (Though US citizen for well over 12+ years.) The hospital brought in someone who spoke both languages to bring up the concern while I was in the room.

Friends suggested bringing in a Doula. They are really good at patient advocating for patient's rights.

Post reply on HN