[Deepsycher]

Insurance trainers

I have a vision that one day people might be required by law to take out another type of insurance. This insurance would require everyone to wear shoes that are fitted with radio frequency identification or tracking hardware. So how this would work; if I physically insulted someone by kicking them my insurance will pay for their damages. Every location and move I make can be tracked. The amount of force can be measured through the body to prove the amount of damages exactly so they can charge accordingly.

“Uniformed trainers might serve some interest because if all the trainers are the same fewer types of damages can only be done.” - This is the sort of thing that uniformly obsessed people might think of without consideration for people who do a lot of exercising.

This could be a good idea for those who believe that tracking everybody is security and that it would solve many crimes. For those who refuse to wear their insurance trainers they could be watched very closely for little movements and possibly sentenced as a criminal. Next thing could be is to have the hardware surgically implanted in criminals as an agreement to let them go.

Also as a cure for congestion insurances could set up cheaper packages like they are doing now to charge people for where they go or how much feet they take.

To discuss does anyone think that this is possible someday?

[Deepsycher]

No discussion.

Just wondering if subject is less appealing or boring by the title or content.

It has been proven that insurances do take advantage and I read in an article today about a high increase for one insurance because of competition with other competitors.

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 01 September 2006 - 12:51 PM

[Deepsycher]

Extending this further as for monitoring people's movements in public through their trainers the information can be used for market purposes and research to induce lower insurance costs. For those who choose a sponsored insurance package: At a fee a store can request those results for finding out which places are visited most by the majority of those people so this can lead to another level in competition.

The insurance companies may make visitations to sponsored shops free for pay as you go and a discount for those who pay the full to be in public.

To a whole new level people could then win free trips for visiting enough stores. Trust them to make a public competition about being the longest moving maggot in their bait boxes and possibly to be put out at the end of a hook. Then a new challenge would be about staying alive.

Any thoughts?

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 02 September 2006 - 08:23 PM

[Icey]

Well going back to the root of the discussion. My main problem with it, is the lack of privacy, that to me seems a bit too close to Big Brother establishing. Lack of privacy = lack of freedom = lack of safety.

Also, if I were going to kick someone, I'd just take my trainers off and kick the living snot out of the guy, slip my trainers in again, poke him a few times with my toe and then be on my merry way, claiming he clearly overreacted and that my trainers state I only poked him. Go me!

[Deepsycher]

Well I don't want this to happen at all. The problem is that I can see it happening with their sort of attitude to problems.

Water - Don't improve the quantity, lets auction it off to whoever can pay for the last drops in our supply.

Car insurances - Lets demean people by age and overcharge to a culture of compensation. Doesn't always work as joyriders can just get in but that can be stopped with a nanny state control on cars.

Health insurances - I read a story last year about a man who died and the insurance company refused to pay out the family because of his weight. The family needed that money to pay out their home but the insurance couldn't care because they were to busy caring about weights, eventually they got paid after complaining on television.

Unions - Now if a case is predicted less than 50% chance of winning, they reject funding even if it was a life threatening situation. Yet people sued by falling over themselves and it is alright for the government in my place because that proves their point on the type of people they are dealing with leading to further excuses of a nanny state.

Buses - For long routes that lead to bottlenecks instead of dividing the buses into two running groups; one for the long route and the other for the short route to the same destination, they throw every bus they got down the same route. So it takes longer times than it states on the timetables and sometimes three buses arrive at one stop.

Alright enough of that explanation above but this proves that these people do those actions out of profit or money.


Privacy - To what I see, there is little or no privacy, even that bill to introduce surveillance on internet traffic last christmas and some private firms even went ahead before the bill was passed. As read they started to boast how much surveillance they have on traffic. They could watch people and probably use their actions against them when convenient. Also the helicopters with flashlights who fly round my house at night. Guessing they carry infrared cameras to see.

I am thinking of a system where an insurance could exist for people who are enticed from their privacy which might only be for whoever can afford it. Rich people being enticed out of their freedom by money.

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 02 September 2006 - 10:45 PM