chris 🤘🏻
@ckurdziel.eth
Life insurance companies should front the cost for longevity doctors Their incentives are sometimes better aligned with people (help them live longer!) than healthcare insurance companies Wdyt @keccers.eth?
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
keccers
@keccers.eth
The biggest barriers to longevity imo aren’t access to practitioners but the time and money. Time to work out and to get enough sleep. Money to afford fresh fruit and live somewhere that doesn’t have environmental risks. Etc etc. Why I have revised my stance and become a lot more lenient on drugs. Our whole society is set up to ensure people stay unhealthy. We are unwilling to change that. Who would we be to deny the one bit of relief Or mitigation?
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
chris 🤘🏻
@ckurdziel.eth
it is a fair criticism that this is not the bottleneck for society as a whole i am thinking on a more atomic level - for a given person with a 20 year policy, even one with a known preexisting condition, does access to more information/testing/etc could move the outcome for a given person farther out and is this worth it for an insurance co if it becomes the difference between having to pay out for the policy or not
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
keccers
@keccers.eth
But Why would you ever extend a 20yr policy to someone with a pre existing condition? I doubt any insurer would agree to your terms. And the terms are a must have, because you need to guarantee the person will be a customer for that time period to reap the benefit of the investment Think you could maybe pull this off with nationalization but that’s a pipe dream But I am also unconvinced access to information is the problem. CDC research shows smth like 90% of Americans KNOW excess sugar is bad for you. And yet I also have bias. I used to be one of these “know everything” types and now I know too much. It’s mostly been a negative especially emotionally
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
chris 🤘🏻
@ckurdziel.eth
yeah. in the case of known pre-existing, easier to just not insure. but in the case of pre-existing where you didnt know but it was there anyway and you insured the person... why not protect your asset? i guess the answer is...you don't have to bc its not your biz and you already underwrote the risk agree that nationalization helps and yeah, there is also the case where even gaining knowledge doesn't help you (a person is doing everything right and still can't change an outcome) agree that knowing too much (and focusing on trying to change an outcome) can be negative...
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
keccers
@keccers.eth
With genetic risk testing there’s often nothing additional you can do other than sit there and wait around for the bad thing to maybe happen. It’s crazy to me APOE4 double mutation testing is basically a standard for most DTC blood tests for this reason. Most people buy those to like, see if they are eating right and then get slapped with an existential “you’re probably going to get ALZ and there’s nothing you can do” on the side
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
chris 🤘🏻
@ckurdziel.eth
yeah, the APOE4 one specifically is interesting. seem to be a lot of people with that mutation that don't get Alz, though their risk is much higher than others without it. and not a lot of clarity on which lifestyle changes move the needle if at all.... so what good does the info do...
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
keccers
@keccers.eth
Allows for the people in charge to have another dimension to evaluate a person’s worth
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
