Tag Archives: health

Should We Convert U.S. Health Insurance Into True Insurance?

William M. Briggs thinks that would be a great idea. He starts with this explanation:

Health Insurance should be, but isn’t, a bet you make that you hope you lose.

It has become instead an inefficient form of socialized medicine, increasing costs. Here’s how.

Here’s what insurance should be. You bet with an Insurer that you get cancer, say. If you get it, the Insurer pays costs of care X. If you lose and remain cancer free, you pay Y. You re-bet every month (or whatever). You pay Y every time you lose. The X and Y are negotiated between you and the Insurer, and the risk of cancer is decided by you and separately by the Insurer. That is the bare bones of true Insurance. Or, indeed, of any bet.

You can also group diseases, say cancer and CHF. Then you pay Y_1 + Y_2 (say) and the costs are X_1 + X_2. The result is a contract bet just the same. But with higher stakes for both.

Suppose you already have cancer and bet the Insurer you won’t get it. You immediately win the bet! The Insurer must pay X.

How much should the Insurer charge you for this sure-thing bet? X. After all, your “pre-existing condition” is a sure-thing bet the Insurer is bound to lose. There is no sense in you making the bet.

Unless a Ruler steps in and says “Insurer, you must take this bet!” Which, of course, happens. Then the Insurer must spread the costs of X to others.

If the Insurer doesn’t spread the costs, he has sure loss (assuming calibrate bets, about which more later). Which means if you bet you have cancer when you do, when your neighbor makes a bet for cancer when he doesn’t have it, he must pay Y+S, where S represents the spread. The more people in the system, the smaller S is.

Voilà! With coverage mandates Insurance automatically becomes socialized medicine. Very inefficient, too, because not only are we paying a private entity to manage this, and take his profits, we pay bureaucrats to monitor it all. Costs must increase. Health care won’t get better, but costs must rise. 

It’s worse than all this, too!

RTWT. I discuss the pros and cons of this approach in my new book below.

Steve Parker, M.D.

It’s Almost Time for Dry January

See you in February. Or not.

I’ve run across a number of people who slowly increased their alcohol consumption over months or years, not realizing it was causing or would cause problems for them. Alcohol is dangerous, lethal at times.

From a health standpoint, the generally accepted safe levels of consumption are:

  • no more than one standard drink per day for women
  • no more than two standard drinks per day for men

One drink is 5 ounces of wine, 12 ounces of beer, or 1.5 ounces of 80 proof distilled spirits (e.g., vodka, whiskey, rum, gin).

Dry January was conceived in the UK in 2012 or 2014. (A related concept is Sober October.) The idea is simply to abstain from all alcohol for the month of January. The Alcohol Change UK website can help you git ‘er done. Many folks notice that they sleep better, have more energy, lose weight, and save money. There are other potential benefits.

If you think you may have an unhealthy relationship with alcohol, check your CAGE score. It’s quick and easy.

Alternatively, if you make a commitment to a Dry January but can’t do it, you may well have a problem.

Steve Parker, M.D.

PS: Check out this video about the benefits of sobriety.

PPS: This guy quit drinking for 30 days:

More Science in Favor of the Mediterranean Diet

The Mediterranean diet is linked yet again to improved health, according to an article in ScienceDaily May 29, 2012.  Study participants were Europeans whose health was monitored over the course of four years.

-Steve