[The359]

Again, your location or speed is not private. Nor is Allstate's device tracking your location. A lack of a complete answer on specifically GPS is not a definitive statement of privacy, not that one needs GPS to track a vehicle.

I get higher rates for paying my bill every month instead of every six months. Why? Because it costs the company money to handle that every month instead of once every six months. I get higher rates if I get a paper bill. Why? Costs more money to mail the letters than email them. So how exactly are higher rates scare tactics?

How exactly are these companies making a profit from "behaviour manipulation" if these devices tend to lower people's insurance rates? That would be a net loss in my book...

Again, the insurance companies would not want the government to regulate the use of this technology because it puts more obstacles in their way and decreases the chances of "manipulation for profit". What health insurance company is enjoying this government regulation nonsense right now? And wow, really, seat belt laws is a lobby now? Next you'll tell me we didn't land on the moon...

You have to have a data plan with a smart phone because...who would want a smart phone without one? Sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it? The number of people who would want one is so tiny that to make a plan just for these people would not be very profitable. It's streamlining and simplification of a business product, not privacy invasion.

The internet goes through your ISP, why would you not expect them to keep track of what is going through their network? That's like telling them to just turn on the faucet and ignore what might be going throught he pipe.

Google has been adament about not giving their search data to outside organisations. There is quite a difference between acquiring information and giving it away. Your health insurance provider has all kinds of personal information, but they do not give it away. Tell me how you choosing to use a service that stores information for their own benefit of the service, which in turn benefits you, is any different than you choosing to provide your personal information for your own medical benefit? And demise as lemmings? Jesus, theatrics much? This isn't 1984.

As for CVS, you appear to be slightly incorrect. CVS's health insurance is from an outside party, the same party that would handle the required screenings. CVS would not have access to the screenings, just like they have no access to the health insurance information of their employees. This has been law since 2003 under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. This includes health information and insurance payment history. Thus the only thing that CVS is gaining from this move is having healthier employees because they're actually getting more frequent health checks than the average person gets. In fact, CVS is probably taking a bit of a monetary loss on this as their payment of the company insurance would likely increase to cover the costs of all the screenings.

The point is, "if they become mandatory", "if they track with GPS", "if they whatever" is all useless, because none of these things exist yet, and at the moment I don't see a single person showing a single shred of evidence to indicate that there is movement in this direction. "What could happen" is fine, but a ton of things "can happen". Simply believing there is only one conceivable outcome is foolish.