I haven't actually heard anyone in the health/IT profession recommend I stay opt in - they have all suggested I opt out. That's good enough for me.
On a similar note, I'd like to mention that a lot of the arguments about faster administering of health procedures is a poor argument. Doctors aren't going to chuck in some A blood just because you health records says that. Standards tests will still happen and take time.
I've got a slightly different perspective on this. I'm an economist and deal with population level data day in and day out. For public health researchers and policy makers the my health data could be very valuable. Not in a 'lets screw them for more many way' more a 'if we provide universal childcare, kids will be smarter, better socialised and have better health across their lives'.
Regarding some of the common arguments:
-Insurers require you to disclose relevant medical history anyway. If you omit anything, your cover is withdrawn.
-In order for someone to bother trying to hack your data, they have to give a shit about you. Sorry kids but hardly anyone cares about you as an individual.
-The government will probably mishandle the data and the whole dataset will be corrupted/useless/whatever. Data is data, as long as the cockups are consistent you can still glean useful information from populations level data.
-It's a waste of money. I could talk all day about white elephants, this at least tries to do something useful.
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk