On 1/29/2024 7:15 AM, John B. wrote:
>
> But I've lived in a number of developing countries and personnel
> transportation seems to grow the same way in all of them. In the
> really undeveloped countries people walk of use animals for
> transportation - ox cart. As the economy grows bicycles appear on the
> scene and then comes the small motorcycle and finally the motor car.
>
> And people don't go backward. They don't sell the car and buy an ox
> cart.

Some of us have reduced car use and bought bicycles. It happens.

What you describe is true; people tend to progress in laziness and
convenience. That doesn't mean that progression is good for either the
individual or society as a whole. Popularity isn't proof of quality.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/29/2024 12:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 8:09 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>
>> My health incurance by law is allowed to hand out money in
>> symbloic quantities as long as they are able to convince
>> their governors that the money spent on average reduces my
>> health costs.
>
> Somewhat related: A few years ago I was in a rehearsal for a
> musical production. A wife of one of the musicians was
> pacing back and forth energetically during the entire
> rehearsal. Afterwards, I asked her about that. She said that
> her medical insurance company had given her a step counter,
> and she got reduced rates if she met a minimum number of
> steps each day.
>
> The insurance company, a for-profit enterprise, had
> apparently determined that this incentive program paid off
> for them monetarily. The lower revenue from premiums was
> more than offset by the lower medical expenses of the people
> who opted into the walking program.
>
> Why would this be OK if a for-profit company did it to
> maximize their net profit, but a similar scheme would be
> evil if a government did it, trying to minimize government
> health care expenses?
>

One might say that, "We pretend to exercise, they pretend to
pay us" is the modern version of the Soviet era's "We
pretend to work, they pretend to pay us". Same game,
smaller stakes.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/29/2024 1:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 12:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 1/29/2024 8:09 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>
>>> My health incurance by law is allowed to hand out money in symbloic
>>> quantities as long as they are able to convince their governors that
>>> the money spent on average reduces my health costs.
>>
>> Somewhat related: A few years ago I was in a rehearsal for a musical
>> production. A wife of one of the musicians was pacing back and forth
>> energetically during the entire rehearsal. Afterwards, I asked her
>> about that. She said that her medical insurance company had given her
>> a step counter, and she got reduced rates if she met a minimum number
>> of steps each day.
>>
>> The insurance company, a for-profit enterprise, had apparently
>> determined that this incentive program paid off for them monetarily.
>> The lower revenue from premiums was more than offset by the lower
>> medical expenses of the people who opted into the walking program.
>>
>> Why would this be OK if a for-profit company did it to maximize their
>> net profit, but a similar scheme would be evil if a government did it,
>> trying to minimize government health care expenses?
>>
>
> One might say that, "We pretend to exercise, they pretend to pay us" is
> the modern version of the Soviet era's "We pretend to work, they pretend
> to pay us".  Same game, smaller stakes.

Except she was not pretending. She was walking, and walking a lot.

And AFAIK they were not pretending to "pay" her. They were reducing her
premiums. At least, that's what she said.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/29/2024 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 1:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 1/29/2024 12:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 1/29/2024 8:09 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My health incurance by law is allowed to hand out money
>>>> in symbloic quantities as long as they are able to
>>>> convince their governors that the money spent on average
>>>> reduces my health costs.
>>>
>>> Somewhat related: A few years ago I was in a rehearsal
>>> for a musical production. A wife of one of the musicians
>>> was pacing back and forth energetically during the entire
>>> rehearsal. Afterwards, I asked her about that. She said
>>> that her medical insurance company had given her a step
>>> counter, and she got reduced rates if she met a minimum
>>> number of steps each day.
>>>
>>> The insurance company, a for-profit enterprise, had
>>> apparently determined that this incentive program paid
>>> off for them monetarily. The lower revenue from premiums
>>> was more than offset by the lower medical expenses of the
>>> people who opted into the walking program.
>>>
>>> Why would this be OK if a for-profit company did it to
>>> maximize their net profit, but a similar scheme would be
>>> evil if a government did it, trying to minimize
>>> government health care expenses?
>>>
>>
>> One might say that, "We pretend to exercise, they pretend
>> to pay us" is the modern version of the Soviet era's "We
>> pretend to work, they pretend to pay us".  Same game,
>> smaller stakes.
>
> Except she was not pretending. She was walking, and walking
> a lot.
>
> And AFAIK they were not pretending to "pay" her. They were
> reducing her premiums. At least, that's what she said.
>

Seemed clear to me. The rate increased just enough to allow
for some number of 'step volume' discounts. Trust me, their
actuaries know how many will participate and how many will
finagle the rules.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 13:15:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 1/29/2024 1:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 1/29/2024 12:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 1/29/2024 8:09 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My health incurance by law is allowed to hand out money in symbloic
>>>> quantities as long as they are able to convince their governors that
>>>> the money spent on average reduces my health costs.
>>>
>>> Somewhat related: A few years ago I was in a rehearsal for a musical
>>> production. A wife of one of the musicians was pacing back and forth
>>> energetically during the entire rehearsal. Afterwards, I asked her
>>> about that. She said that her medical insurance company had given her
>>> a step counter, and she got reduced rates if she met a minimum number
>>> of steps each day.
>>>
>>> The insurance company, a for-profit enterprise, had apparently
>>> determined that this incentive program paid off for them monetarily.
>>> The lower revenue from premiums was more than offset by the lower
>>> medical expenses of the people who opted into the walking program.
>>>
>>> Why would this be OK if a for-profit company did it to maximize their
>>> net profit, but a similar scheme would be evil if a government did it,
>>> trying to minimize government health care expenses?
>>>
>>
>> One might say that, "We pretend to exercise, they pretend to pay us" is
>> the modern version of the Soviet era's "We pretend to work, they pretend
>> to pay us".  Same game, smaller stakes.
>
>Except she was not pretending. She was walking, and walking a lot.

I think that's a bogus anecdote. The insurance would have realized how
easy it would be to fake the data.

>And AFAIK they were not pretending to "pay" her. They were reducing her
>premiums. At least, that's what she said.

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:24:39 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 1/29/2024 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 1/29/2024 1:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 1/29/2024 12:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 1/29/2024 8:09 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> My health incurance by law is allowed to hand out money
>>>>> in symbloic quantities as long as they are able to
>>>>> convince their governors that the money spent on average
>>>>> reduces my health costs.
>>>>
>>>> Somewhat related: A few years ago I was in a rehearsal
>>>> for a musical production. A wife of one of the musicians
>>>> was pacing back and forth energetically during the entire
>>>> rehearsal. Afterwards, I asked her about that. She said
>>>> that her medical insurance company had given her a step
>>>> counter, and she got reduced rates if she met a minimum
>>>> number of steps each day.
>>>>
>>>> The insurance company, a for-profit enterprise, had
>>>> apparently determined that this incentive program paid
>>>> off for them monetarily. The lower revenue from premiums
>>>> was more than offset by the lower medical expenses of the
>>>> people who opted into the walking program.
>>>>
>>>> Why would this be OK if a for-profit company did it to
>>>> maximize their net profit, but a similar scheme would be
>>>> evil if a government did it, trying to minimize
>>>> government health care expenses?
>>>>
>>>
>>> One might say that, "We pretend to exercise, they pretend
>>> to pay us" is the modern version of the Soviet era's "We
>>> pretend to work, they pretend to pay us".  Same game,
>>> smaller stakes.
>>
>> Except she was not pretending. She was walking, and walking
>> a lot.
>>
>> And AFAIK they were not pretending to "pay" her. They were
>> reducing her premiums. At least, that's what she said.
>>
>
>Seemed clear to me. The rate increased just enough to allow
>for some number of 'step volume' discounts. Trust me, their
>actuaries know how many will participate and how many will
>finagle the rules.

"Honey, will you wear my step counter when you go for a walk. Wake me
up when you get home, so I can strap it on the dog before he goes out
to play."

On 1/29/2024 12:28 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:24:39 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 1/29/2024 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 1/29/2024 1:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 1/29/2024 12:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 1/29/2024 8:09 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My health incurance by law is allowed to hand out money
>>>>>> in symbloic quantities as long as they are able to
>>>>>> convince their governors that the money spent on average
>>>>>> reduces my health costs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Somewhat related: A few years ago I was in a rehearsal
>>>>> for a musical production. A wife of one of the musicians
>>>>> was pacing back and forth energetically during the entire
>>>>> rehearsal. Afterwards, I asked her about that. She said
>>>>> that her medical insurance company had given her a step
>>>>> counter, and she got reduced rates if she met a minimum
>>>>> number of steps each day.
>>>>>
>>>>> The insurance company, a for-profit enterprise, had
>>>>> apparently determined that this incentive program paid
>>>>> off for them monetarily. The lower revenue from premiums
>>>>> was more than offset by the lower medical expenses of the
>>>>> people who opted into the walking program.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would this be OK if a for-profit company did it to
>>>>> maximize their net profit, but a similar scheme would be
>>>>> evil if a government did it, trying to minimize
>>>>> government health care expenses?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One might say that, "We pretend to exercise, they pretend
>>>> to pay us" is the modern version of the Soviet era's "We
>>>> pretend to work, they pretend to pay us".  Same game,
>>>> smaller stakes.
>>>
>>> Except she was not pretending. She was walking, and walking
>>> a lot.
>>>
>>> And AFAIK they were not pretending to "pay" her. They were
>>> reducing her premiums. At least, that's what she said.
>>>
>>
>> Seemed clear to me. The rate increased just enough to allow
>> for some number of 'step volume' discounts. Trust me, their
>> actuaries know how many will participate and how many will
>> finagle the rules.
>
> "Honey, will you wear my step counter when you go for a walk. Wake me
> up when you get home, so I can strap it on the dog before he goes out
> to play."

Or knowing a guy who plays drums.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 1:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 1/29/2024 12:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 1/29/2024 8:09 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My health incurance by law is allowed to hand out money in symbloic
>>>> quantities as long as they are able to convince their governors that
>>>> the money spent on average reduces my health costs.
>>>
>>> Somewhat related: A few years ago I was in a rehearsal for a musical
>>> production. A wife of one of the musicians was pacing back and forth
>>> energetically during the entire rehearsal. Afterwards, I asked her
>>> about that. She said that her medical insurance company had given her
>>> a step counter, and she got reduced rates if she met a minimum number
>>> of steps each day.
>>>
>>> The insurance company, a for-profit enterprise, had apparently
>>> determined that this incentive program paid off for them monetarily.
>>> The lower revenue from premiums was more than offset by the lower
>>> medical expenses of the people who opted into the walking program.
>>>
>>> Why would this be OK if a for-profit company did it to maximize their
>>> net profit, but a similar scheme would be evil if a government did it,
>>> trying to minimize government health care expenses?
>>>
>>
>> One might say that, "We pretend to exercise, they pretend to pay us" is
>> the modern version of the Soviet era's "We pretend to work, they pretend
>> to pay us".  Same game, smaller stakes.
>
> Except she was not pretending. She was walking, and walking a lot.
>
> And AFAIK they were not pretending to "pay" her. They were reducing her
> premiums. At least, that's what she said.
>
I believe some folks get lower premiums (cars) with “black box” devices ie
measuring speed acceleration and so on.

Roger Merriman

On 1/29/2024 2:28 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 1/29/2024 1:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 1/29/2024 12:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 1/29/2024 8:09 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> My health incurance by law is allowed to hand out money in symbloic
>>>>> quantities as long as they are able to convince their governors that
>>>>> the money spent on average reduces my health costs.
>>>>
>>>> Somewhat related: A few years ago I was in a rehearsal for a musical
>>>> production. A wife of one of the musicians was pacing back and forth
>>>> energetically during the entire rehearsal. Afterwards, I asked her
>>>> about that. She said that her medical insurance company had given her
>>>> a step counter, and she got reduced rates if she met a minimum number
>>>> of steps each day.
>>>>
>>>> The insurance company, a for-profit enterprise, had apparently
>>>> determined that this incentive program paid off for them monetarily.
>>>> The lower revenue from premiums was more than offset by the lower
>>>> medical expenses of the people who opted into the walking program.
>>>>
>>>> Why would this be OK if a for-profit company did it to maximize their
>>>> net profit, but a similar scheme would be evil if a government did it,
>>>> trying to minimize government health care expenses?
>>>>
>>>
>>> One might say that, "We pretend to exercise, they pretend to pay us" is
>>> the modern version of the Soviet era's "We pretend to work, they pretend
>>> to pay us".  Same game, smaller stakes.
>>
>> Except she was not pretending. She was walking, and walking a lot.
>>
>> And AFAIK they were not pretending to "pay" her. They were reducing her
>> premiums. At least, that's what she said.
>>
> I believe some folks get lower premiums (cars) with “black box” devices ie
> measuring speed acceleration and so on.
>

That's true, but it's a different concept - driving a vehicle "safely"
versus healthy activities.

I was tempted to try my insurance companies 'safe driver plan', which
requires the installation of a tracking device (your 'black box'). AFAIU
It's essentially a GPS device with accelerometers to measure
acceleration and cornering forces. The fine print that they would be
allowed to adjust premiums based on the tracking data turned that into a
hard "NO".

--
Add xx to reply

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 14:43:04 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 1/29/2024 2:28 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 1/29/2024 1:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 1/29/2024 12:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 1/29/2024 8:09 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My health incurance by law is allowed to hand out money in symbloic
>>>>>> quantities as long as they are able to convince their governors that
>>>>>> the money spent on average reduces my health costs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Somewhat related: A few years ago I was in a rehearsal for a musical
>>>>> production. A wife of one of the musicians was pacing back and forth
>>>>> energetically during the entire rehearsal. Afterwards, I asked her
>>>>> about that. She said that her medical insurance company had given her
>>>>> a step counter, and she got reduced rates if she met a minimum number
>>>>> of steps each day.
>>>>>
>>>>> The insurance company, a for-profit enterprise, had apparently
>>>>> determined that this incentive program paid off for them monetarily.
>>>>> The lower revenue from premiums was more than offset by the lower
>>>>> medical expenses of the people who opted into the walking program.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would this be OK if a for-profit company did it to maximize their
>>>>> net profit, but a similar scheme would be evil if a government did it,
>>>>> trying to minimize government health care expenses?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One might say that, "We pretend to exercise, they pretend to pay us" is
>>>> the modern version of the Soviet era's "We pretend to work, they pretend
>>>> to pay us".  Same game, smaller stakes.
>>>
>>> Except she was not pretending. She was walking, and walking a lot.
>>>
>>> And AFAIK they were not pretending to "pay" her. They were reducing her
>>> premiums. At least, that's what she said.
>>>
>> I believe some folks get lower premiums (cars) with “black box” devices ie
>> measuring speed acceleration and so on.
>>
>
>That's true, but it's a different concept - driving a vehicle "safely"
>versus healthy activities.
>
>I was tempted to try my insurance companies 'safe driver plan', which
>requires the installation of a tracking device (your 'black box'). AFAIU
>It's essentially a GPS device with accelerometers to measure
>acceleration and cornering forces. The fine print that they would be
>allowed to adjust premiums based on the tracking data turned that into a
>hard "NO".

Wouldn't need any fine print to reject such an invasion of privacy.

On 1/29/2024 1:43 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 2:28 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 1/29/2024 1:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 1/29/2024 12:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 1/29/2024 8:09 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My health incurance by law is allowed to hand out
>>>>>> money in symbloic
>>>>>> quantities as long as they are able to convince their
>>>>>> governors that
>>>>>> the money spent on average reduces my health costs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Somewhat related: A few years ago I was in a rehearsal
>>>>> for a musical
>>>>> production. A wife of one of the musicians was pacing
>>>>> back and forth
>>>>> energetically during the entire rehearsal. Afterwards,
>>>>> I asked her
>>>>> about that. She said that her medical insurance company
>>>>> had given her
>>>>> a step counter, and she got reduced rates if she met a
>>>>> minimum number
>>>>> of steps each day.
>>>>>
>>>>> The insurance company, a for-profit enterprise, had
>>>>> apparently
>>>>> determined that this incentive program paid off for
>>>>> them monetarily.
>>>>> The lower revenue from premiums was more than offset by
>>>>> the lower
>>>>> medical expenses of the people who opted into the
>>>>> walking program.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would this be OK if a for-profit company did it to
>>>>> maximize their
>>>>> net profit, but a similar scheme would be evil if a
>>>>> government did it,
>>>>> trying to minimize government health care expenses?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One might say that, "We pretend to exercise, they
>>>> pretend to pay us" is
>>>> the modern version of the Soviet era's "We pretend to
>>>> work, they pretend
>>>> to pay us".  Same game, smaller stakes.
>>>
>>> Except she was not pretending. She was walking, and
>>> walking a lot.
>>>
>>> And AFAIK they were not pretending to "pay" her. They
>>> were reducing her
>>> premiums. At least, that's what she said.
>>>
>> I believe some folks get lower premiums (cars) with “black
>> box” devices ie
>> measuring speed acceleration and so on.
>>
>
> That's true, but it's a different concept - driving a
> vehicle "safely" versus healthy activities.
>
> I was tempted to try my insurance companies 'safe driver
> plan', which requires the installation of a tracking device
> (your 'black box'). AFAIU It's essentially  a GPS device
> with accelerometers to measure acceleration and cornering
> forces. The fine print that they would be allowed to adjust
> premiums based on the tracking data turned that into a hard
> "NO".
>

I would have made the same decision if offered.

Which is not to say that I, or you, drive unsafely. But
where's the incentive for honesty where their analysis from
their instruments with their software escalates their
charges?? No thanks.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/29/2024 1:24 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 1/29/2024 1:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 1/29/2024 12:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 1/29/2024 8:09 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> My health incurance by law is allowed to hand out money in symbloic
>>>>> quantities as long as they are able to convince their governors
>>>>> that the money spent on average reduces my health costs.
>>>>
>>>> Somewhat related: A few years ago I was in a rehearsal for a musical
>>>> production. A wife of one of the musicians was pacing back and forth
>>>> energetically during the entire rehearsal. Afterwards, I asked her
>>>> about that. She said that her medical insurance company had given
>>>> her a step counter, and she got reduced rates if she met a minimum
>>>> number of steps each day.
>>>>
>>>> The insurance company, a for-profit enterprise, had apparently
>>>> determined that this incentive program paid off for them monetarily.
>>>> The lower revenue from premiums was more than offset by the lower
>>>> medical expenses of the people who opted into the walking program.
>>>>
>>>> Why would this be OK if a for-profit company did it to maximize
>>>> their net profit, but a similar scheme would be evil if a government
>>>> did it, trying to minimize government health care expenses?
>>>>
>>>
>>> One might say that, "We pretend to exercise, they pretend to pay us"
>>> is the modern version of the Soviet era's "We pretend to work, they
>>> pretend to pay us".  Same game, smaller stakes.
>>
>> Except she was not pretending. She was walking, and walking a lot.
>>
>> And AFAIK they were not pretending to "pay" her. They were reducing
>> her premiums. At least, that's what she said.
>>
>
> Seemed clear to me. The rate increased just enough to allow for some
> number of 'step volume' discounts. Trust me, their actuaries know how
> many will participate and how many will finagle the rules.

Your statement isn't clear to me. What "rate increased just enough"?

I don't know how she reported her step count. But it's conspicuously
obvious she was actually walking, not somehow cheating. And she
certainly thought she was getting a break on premium costs as a result.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Am 29.01.2024 um 11:45 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:38:17 +0100, Rolf Mantel
> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 28.01.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:32 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/27/2024 3:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21?PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via bicycle more?
>>>>
>>>> Well, probably despite a long history of failures worldwide.
>>>
>>> Why is there such a driving issue of trying get people to commute on
>>> bicycles?
>>
>> Because it reduces CO2 compared to driving.
>
> Plant more trees instead of making people do what they may not want to
> do.

The free-market variant of this is that there is an auction for emission
rights, and that the tree-planters generate additional certificates they
can auction off (Methane emissions from oil, gas agriculture would be
converted at a physically meaningful rate).

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:00:10 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

>Am 29.01.2024 um 11:45 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:38:17 +0100, Rolf Mantel
>> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 28.01.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:32 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/27/2024 3:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21?PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via bicycle more?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, probably despite a long history of failures worldwide.
>>>>
>>>> Why is there such a driving issue of trying get people to commute on
>>>> bicycles?
>>>
>>> Because it reduces CO2 compared to driving.
>>
>> Plant more trees instead of making people do what they may not want to
>> do.
>
>The free-market variant of this is that there is an auction for emission
>rights, and that the tree-planters generate additional certificates they
>can auction off (Methane emissions from oil, gas agriculture would be
>converted at a physically meaningful rate).

The folks who manage that "emission rights" silliness aren't making
much headway. Thousands of acres of tree are being cut and burned
every day to make way for homes and businesses.

There is a technology that converts Co2 to oxygen, but it takes a
massive amount of energy.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/56/can-new-nasa-carbon-to-oxygen-conversion-technology-like-moxie-be-used-to-address-climate-change/

Too bad that the "environmentalist jackasses" killed off commercial
nuclear energy.

On 1/29/2024 3:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 1:43 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 1/29/2024 2:28 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 1/29/2024 1:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 1/29/2024 12:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/29/2024 8:09 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My health incurance by law is allowed to hand out money in symbloic
>>>>>>> quantities as long as they are able to convince their governors that
>>>>>>> the money spent on average reduces my health costs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Somewhat related: A few years ago I was in a rehearsal for a musical
>>>>>> production. A wife of one of the musicians was pacing back and forth
>>>>>> energetically during the entire rehearsal. Afterwards, I asked her
>>>>>> about that. She said that her medical insurance company had given her
>>>>>> a step counter, and she got reduced rates if she met a minimum number
>>>>>> of steps each day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The insurance company, a for-profit enterprise, had apparently
>>>>>> determined that this incentive program paid off for them monetarily.
>>>>>> The lower revenue from premiums was more than offset by the lower
>>>>>> medical expenses of the people who opted into the walking program.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would this be OK if a for-profit company did it to maximize their
>>>>>> net profit, but a similar scheme would be evil if a government did
>>>>>> it,
>>>>>> trying to minimize government health care expenses?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One might say that, "We pretend to exercise, they pretend to pay
>>>>> us" is
>>>>> the modern version of the Soviet era's "We pretend to work, they
>>>>> pretend
>>>>> to pay us".  Same game, smaller stakes.
>>>>
>>>> Except she was not pretending. She was walking, and walking a lot.
>>>>
>>>> And AFAIK they were not pretending to "pay" her. They were reducing her
>>>> premiums. At least, that's what she said.
>>>>
>>> I believe some folks get lower premiums (cars) with “black box”
>>> devices ie
>>> measuring speed acceleration and so on.
>>>
>>
>> That's true, but it's a different concept - driving a vehicle "safely"
>> versus healthy activities.
>>
>> I was tempted to try my insurance companies 'safe driver plan', which
>> requires the installation of a tracking device (your 'black box').
>> AFAIU It's essentially  a GPS device with accelerometers to measure
>> acceleration and cornering forces. The fine print that they would be
>> allowed to adjust premiums based on the tracking data turned that into
>> a hard "NO".
>>
>
> I would have made the same decision if offered.
>
> Which is not to say that I, or you, drive unsafely.  But where's the
> incentive for honesty where their analysis from their instruments with
> their software escalates their charges?? No thanks.

Right, it wasn't an issue of following traffic laws or not.

Am 29.01.2024 um 19:25 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 13:15:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/29/2024 1:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 1/29/2024 12:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 1/29/2024 8:09 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> My health incurance by law is allowed to hand out money in symbloic
>>>>> quantities as long as they are able to convince their governors that
>>>>> the money spent on average reduces my health costs.
>>>>
>>>> Somewhat related: A few years ago I was in a rehearsal for a musical
>>>> production. A wife of one of the musicians was pacing back and forth
>>>> energetically during the entire rehearsal. Afterwards, I asked her
>>>> about that. She said that her medical insurance company had given her
>>>> a step counter, and she got reduced rates if she met a minimum number
>>>> of steps each day.
>>>>
>>>> The insurance company, a for-profit enterprise, had apparently
>>>> determined that this incentive program paid off for them monetarily.
>>>> The lower revenue from premiums was more than offset by the lower
>>>> medical expenses of the people who opted into the walking program.
>>>>
>>>> Why would this be OK if a for-profit company did it to maximize their
>>>> net profit, but a similar scheme would be evil if a government did it,
>>>> trying to minimize government health care expenses?
>>>>
>>>
>>> One might say that, "We pretend to exercise, they pretend to pay us" is
>>> the modern version of the Soviet era's "We pretend to work, they pretend
>>> to pay us".  Same game, smaller stakes.
>>
>> Except she was not pretending. She was walking, and walking a lot.
>
> I think that's a bogus anecdote. The insurance would have realized how
> easy it would be to fake the data.

This is precisely why health insurances have a symbolic maximum €20 per
year discount for regular activity, not a realistic €200 per year even
though the health costs reduce by a lot for active people.

In China, you can buy "mobile phone rockers" to simulate walking while
sitting in the office; their health bonus seems to be sufficiently high
to encourage cheating.

Rolf

Am 29.01.2024 um 20:28 schrieb Roger Merriman:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 1/29/2024 1:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 1/29/2024 12:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 1/29/2024 8:09 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> My health incurance by law is allowed to hand out money in symbloic
>>>>> quantities as long as they are able to convince their governors that
>>>>> the money spent on average reduces my health costs.
>>>>
>>>> Somewhat related: A few years ago I was in a rehearsal for a musical
>>>> production. A wife of one of the musicians was pacing back and forth
>>>> energetically during the entire rehearsal. Afterwards, I asked her
>>>> about that. She said that her medical insurance company had given her
>>>> a step counter, and she got reduced rates if she met a minimum number
>>>> of steps each day.
>>>>
>>>> The insurance company, a for-profit enterprise, had apparently
>>>> determined that this incentive program paid off for them monetarily.
>>>> The lower revenue from premiums was more than offset by the lower
>>>> medical expenses of the people who opted into the walking program.
>>>>
>>>> Why would this be OK if a for-profit company did it to maximize their
>>>> net profit, but a similar scheme would be evil if a government did it,
>>>> trying to minimize government health care expenses?
>>>>
>>>
>>> One might say that, "We pretend to exercise, they pretend to pay us" is
>>> the modern version of the Soviet era's "We pretend to work, they pretend
>>> to pay us".  Same game, smaller stakes.
>>
>> Except she was not pretending. She was walking, and walking a lot.
>>
>> And AFAIK they were not pretending to "pay" her. They were reducing her
>> premiums. At least, that's what she said.
>>
> I believe some folks get lower premiums (cars) with “black box” devices ie
> measuring speed acceleration and so on.

Yes, these "black box" devices are popular in Germany, but they can be
cheated by activating sometimes and not activating when you're doing
silly things, as my brother tells.

Rolf

Am 29.01.2024 um 21:10 schrieb AMuzi:
> On 1/29/2024 1:43 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 1/29/2024 2:28 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 1/29/2024 1:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 1/29/2024 12:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/29/2024 8:09 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My health incurance by law is allowed to hand out money in symbloic
>>>>>>> quantities as long as they are able to convince their governors that
>>>>>>> the money spent on average reduces my health costs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Somewhat related: A few years ago I was in a rehearsal for a musical
>>>>>> production. A wife of one of the musicians was pacing back and forth
>>>>>> energetically during the entire rehearsal. Afterwards, I asked her
>>>>>> about that. She said that her medical insurance company had given her
>>>>>> a step counter, and she got reduced rates if she met a minimum number
>>>>>> of steps each day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The insurance company, a for-profit enterprise, had apparently
>>>>>> determined that this incentive program paid off for them monetarily.
>>>>>> The lower revenue from premiums was more than offset by the lower
>>>>>> medical expenses of the people who opted into the walking program.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would this be OK if a for-profit company did it to maximize their
>>>>>> net profit, but a similar scheme would be evil if a government did
>>>>>> it,
>>>>>> trying to minimize government health care expenses?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One might say that, "We pretend to exercise, they pretend to pay
>>>>> us" is
>>>>> the modern version of the Soviet era's "We pretend to work, they
>>>>> pretend
>>>>> to pay us".  Same game, smaller stakes.
>>>>
>>>> Except she was not pretending. She was walking, and walking a lot.
>>>>
>>>> And AFAIK they were not pretending to "pay" her. They were reducing her
>>>> premiums. At least, that's what she said.
>>>>
>>> I believe some folks get lower premiums (cars) with “black box”
>>> devices ie
>>> measuring speed acceleration and so on.
>>>
>>
>> That's true, but it's a different concept - driving a vehicle "safely"
>> versus healthy activities.
>>
>> I was tempted to try my insurance companies 'safe driver plan', which
>> requires the installation of a tracking device (your 'black box').
>> AFAIU It's essentially  a GPS device with accelerometers to measure
>> acceleration and cornering forces. The fine print that they would be
>> allowed to adjust premiums based on the tracking data turned that into
>> a hard "NO".
>>
>
> I would have made the same decision if offered.
>
> Which is not to say that I, or you, drive unsafely.  But where's the
> incentive for honesty where their analysis from their instruments with
> their software escalates their charges?? No thanks.

In Germany, the benefit to the customer is that the cost of the
"standard" policy (evaluated only on the car model, the district/county
of living and the number of years driving without claim) is an upper bound.

Rolf

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 14:43:04 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/29/2024 2:28 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 1/29/2024 1:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 1/29/2024 12:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/29/2024 8:09 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My health incurance by law is allowed to hand out money in symbloic
>>>>>>> quantities as long as they are able to convince their governors that
>>>>>>> the money spent on average reduces my health costs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Somewhat related: A few years ago I was in a rehearsal for a musical
>>>>>> production. A wife of one of the musicians was pacing back and forth
>>>>>> energetically during the entire rehearsal. Afterwards, I asked her
>>>>>> about that. She said that her medical insurance company had given her
>>>>>> a step counter, and she got reduced rates if she met a minimum number
>>>>>> of steps each day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The insurance company, a for-profit enterprise, had apparently
>>>>>> determined that this incentive program paid off for them monetarily.
>>>>>> The lower revenue from premiums was more than offset by the lower
>>>>>> medical expenses of the people who opted into the walking program.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would this be OK if a for-profit company did it to maximize their
>>>>>> net profit, but a similar scheme would be evil if a government did it,
>>>>>> trying to minimize government health care expenses?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One might say that, "We pretend to exercise, they pretend to pay us" is
>>>>> the modern version of the Soviet era's "We pretend to work, they pretend
>>>>> to pay us".  Same game, smaller stakes.
>>>>
>>>> Except she was not pretending. She was walking, and walking a lot.
>>>>
>>>> And AFAIK they were not pretending to "pay" her. They were reducing her
>>>> premiums. At least, that's what she said.
>>>>
>>> I believe some folks get lower premiums (cars) with “black box” devices ie
>>> measuring speed acceleration and so on.
>>>
>>
>> That's true, but it's a different concept - driving a vehicle "safely"
>> versus healthy activities.
>>
>> I was tempted to try my insurance companies 'safe driver plan', which
>> requires the installation of a tracking device (your 'black box'). AFAIU
>> It's essentially a GPS device with accelerometers to measure
>> acceleration and cornering forces. The fine print that they would be
>> allowed to adjust premiums based on the tracking data turned that into a
>> hard "NO".
>
> Wouldn't need any fine print to reject such an invasion of privacy.
>

That and hassle would put me off! And indeed I don’t use such insurance.

Roger Merriman

Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
> Am 29.01.2024 um 20:28 schrieb Roger Merriman:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 1/29/2024 1:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 1/29/2024 12:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 1/29/2024 8:09 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My health incurance by law is allowed to hand out money in symbloic
>>>>>> quantities as long as they are able to convince their governors that
>>>>>> the money spent on average reduces my health costs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Somewhat related: A few years ago I was in a rehearsal for a musical
>>>>> production. A wife of one of the musicians was pacing back and forth
>>>>> energetically during the entire rehearsal. Afterwards, I asked her
>>>>> about that. She said that her medical insurance company had given her
>>>>> a step counter, and she got reduced rates if she met a minimum number
>>>>> of steps each day.
>>>>>
>>>>> The insurance company, a for-profit enterprise, had apparently
>>>>> determined that this incentive program paid off for them monetarily.
>>>>> The lower revenue from premiums was more than offset by the lower
>>>>> medical expenses of the people who opted into the walking program.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would this be OK if a for-profit company did it to maximize their
>>>>> net profit, but a similar scheme would be evil if a government did it,
>>>>> trying to minimize government health care expenses?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One might say that, "We pretend to exercise, they pretend to pay us" is
>>>> the modern version of the Soviet era's "We pretend to work, they pretend
>>>> to pay us".  Same game, smaller stakes.
>>>
>>> Except she was not pretending. She was walking, and walking a lot.
>>>
>>> And AFAIK they were not pretending to "pay" her. They were reducing her
>>> premiums. At least, that's what she said.
>>>
>> I believe some folks get lower premiums (cars) with “black box” devices ie
>> measuring speed acceleration and so on.
>
> Yes, these "black box" devices are popular in Germany, but they can be
> cheated by activating sometimes and not activating when you're doing
> silly things, as my brother tells.
>
> Rolf
>
I’d assume so anything can be cheated, be that fake arms to trick Tesla
that your holding the wheel to step counters, have to say my iPhone gets
confused by cycling and gives huge step counts, are certainly the commute
isn’t physically demanding as I have parks and cycleway and the difference
in time between cruise and work hard is less than a minute!

Roger Merriman

On 1/30/2024 7:38 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> I’d assume so anything can be cheated...

I suppose that's true, for some value of "can." Cheating some systems
requires arcane knowledge and skill. But more to the point, with most
systems only a small percentage of people will bother to try if it's the
least bit difficult.

> be that fake arms to trick Tesla
> that your holding the wheel to step counters, have to say my iPhone gets
> confused by cycling and gives huge step counts...

That's odd. My step counter doesn't seem to register anything when I
ride a bicycle. Maybe yours and mine have different acceleration
thresholds to trigger counting a "step"?

IME they do vary. For a while I had two step counters in my pocket, as a
sort of test. They gave markedly different counts, with one obviously
missing much. Its claimed distances didn't match what I knew from my
bikes' cyclometers. I discarded it.

> are certainly the commute
> isn’t physically demanding as I have parks and cycleway and the difference
> in time between cruise and work hard is less than a minute!

That applies to a lot of travel times. As a young man I was always in a
hurry. And when my kid was young, he was the same, once complaining that
I didn't pass a guy who was driving 50 in a 55 mph zone. I pointed out
that our exit was less than half a mile ahead, and passing would have
gained only a negligible few seconds.

Then they raised the speed limit from 65 to 70 on ~25 miles of freeway I
frequently have to drive. Wow! Five miles per hour faster! ... um, but
less than two minutes difference in travel time.

These days, I'm much more likely to tell myself "Be patient. It doesn't
matter."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/30/2024 7:38 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 14:43:04 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I was tempted to try my insurance companies 'safe driver plan', which
>>> requires the installation of a tracking device (your 'black box'). ...
>>
>
> That and hassle would put me off! And indeed I don’t use such insurance.

I'm already on a "safe driver" discount. It comes from never having an
on-road crash and only two tickets since I began driving long, long ago.

My parking lot luck is not as good. I had a guy back into my car as we
both backed out of spaces in a parking lot. Years later, exactly the
same thing happened to one of my kids, driving a different car of mine.

And despite very slow speed and great care, I managed to dent the rear
of my previous car. A low concrete sort-of post was in the large rear
blind spot the entire time I crept slowly backward out of a tight space.
Very embarrassing. I fixed it myself.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 1/30/2024 7:38 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>
>> I’d assume so anything can be cheated...
>
> I suppose that's true, for some value of "can." Cheating some systems
> requires arcane knowledge and skill. But more to the point, with most
> systems only a small percentage of people will bother to try if it's the
> least bit difficult.
>
>> be that fake arms to trick Tesla
>> that your holding the wheel to step counters, have to say my iPhone gets
>> confused by cycling and gives huge step counts...
>
> That's odd. My step counter doesn't seem to register anything when I
> ride a bicycle. Maybe yours and mine have different acceleration
> thresholds to trigger counting a "step"?

It’s the built in health app on the iPhone, and steps/distance
walked/flights walked are clearly triggered by cycling.
>
> IME they do vary. For a while I had two step counters in my pocket, as a
> sort of test. They gave markedly different counts, with one obviously
> missing much. Its claimed distances didn't match what I knew from my
> bikes' cyclometers. I discarded it.
>
>> are certainly the commute
>> isn’t physically demanding as I have parks and cycleway and the difference
>> in time between cruise and work hard is less than a minute!
>
> That applies to a lot of travel times. As a young man I was always in a
> hurry. And when my kid was young, he was the same, once complaining that
> I didn't pass a guy who was driving 50 in a 55 mph zone. I pointed out
> that our exit was less than half a mile ahead, and passing would have
> gained only a negligible few seconds.
>
> Then they raised the speed limit from 65 to 70 on ~25 miles of freeway I
> frequently have to drive. Wow! Five miles per hour faster! ... um, but
> less than two minutes difference in travel time.
>
> These days, I'm much more likely to tell myself "Be patient. It doesn't
> matter."
>
I have for years made calculations, ie is it really worth overtaking, and
so on particularly as years ago I did a lot of urban driving for work which
teaches one to calm and give your self time.

Bikes really depends, if it’s into town proper then well multiple lights so
not really needed though the embankment for example is a quick road so that
can be fun.

I’m more likely to pull away from folks at the lights, as with some of the
busier junctions it’s less hassle than being a cluster, and it seems to be
my forte.

Roger Merriman

On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 10:07:43 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 1/29/2024 12:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 1/29/2024 8:09 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> >>
> >> My health incurance by law is allowed to hand out money in
> >> symbloic quantities as long as they are able to convince
> >> their governors that the money spent on average reduces my
> >> health costs.
> >
> > Somewhat related: A few years ago I was in a rehearsal for a
> > musical production. A wife of one of the musicians was
> > pacing back and forth energetically during the entire
> > rehearsal. Afterwards, I asked her about that. She said that
> > her medical insurance company had given her a step counter,
> > and she got reduced rates if she met a minimum number of
> > steps each day.
> >
> > The insurance company, a for-profit enterprise, had
> > apparently determined that this incentive program paid off
> > for them monetarily. The lower revenue from premiums was
> > more than offset by the lower medical expenses of the people
> > who opted into the walking program.
> >
> > Why would this be OK if a for-profit company did it to
> > maximize their net profit, but a similar scheme would be
> > evil if a government did it, trying to minimize government
> > health care expenses?
> >
> One might say that, "We pretend to exercise, they pretend to
> pay us" is the modern version of the Soviet era's "We
> pretend to work, they pretend to pay us". Same game,
> smaller stakes.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> a...@yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Uh, because steps by themselves have so little effect on health that it isn't worth it. If a "for profit" company wishes to install such a program best of luck. Until you raise your heart rate and blood pressure above a minimum level it isn't exercise. But leave it to that communist Krygowski to believe in the tooth fairy.

On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 11:28:09 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 1/29/2024 1:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 1/29/2024 12:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On 1/29/2024 8:09 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> My health incurance by law is allowed to hand out money in symbloic
> >>>> quantities as long as they are able to convince their governors that
> >>>> the money spent on average reduces my health costs.
> >>>
> >>> Somewhat related: A few years ago I was in a rehearsal for a musical
> >>> production. A wife of one of the musicians was pacing back and forth
> >>> energetically during the entire rehearsal. Afterwards, I asked her
> >>> about that. She said that her medical insurance company had given her
> >>> a step counter, and she got reduced rates if she met a minimum number
> >>> of steps each day.
> >>>
> >>> The insurance company, a for-profit enterprise, had apparently
> >>> determined that this incentive program paid off for them monetarily.
> >>> The lower revenue from premiums was more than offset by the lower
> >>> medical expenses of the people who opted into the walking program.
> >>>
> >>> Why would this be OK if a for-profit company did it to maximize their
> >>> net profit, but a similar scheme would be evil if a government did it,
> >>> trying to minimize government health care expenses?
> >>>
> >>
> >> One might say that, "We pretend to exercise, they pretend to pay us" is
> >> the modern version of the Soviet era's "We pretend to work, they pretend
> >> to pay us". Same game, smaller stakes.
> >
> > Except she was not pretending. She was walking, and walking a lot.
> >
> > And AFAIK they were not pretending to "pay" her. They were reducing her
> > premiums. At least, that's what she said.
> >
> I believe some folks get lower premiums (cars) with “black box” devices ie
> measuring speed acceleration and so on.
>
> Roger Merriman
Not here.