Okay. Lulu.Let me explain this one to you to my satisfaction.This issue (viagra & the pill) penetrates to the core of the weakness of a policy of using insurance to finance health care. Insurance is an aleatory contract in which performance, on the part of the insurer, is dependent upon the occurrence of a contingent event, i. e., something wrong, something more or less unexpected, or at least unexpected during the term of the contract of insurance, except, of course, in the case of whole life (which is different). To put it simply — something icky like “sick.”When a man suffers the loss of the humors that most viscerally express his manhood, then for the sake of Darwin, something is wrong! (Sick) When a woman, having been humored, gets pregnant, it may be a crisis but it's not ‘wrong’ under either the Darwinist or Christianist world view. (Not sick) Therefore, insurance covers the one and not the other. Simple. Uncontroversial.The answer is not to rag out the insurance companies; it is to run the insurance companies out of this market. You can still use actuaries and the law of large numbers to calculate an adequate rate for the underwritten costs, but you have to treat the need for medical care as certain and expected and continuing throughout the life of the individual and you have to recognize as well that an effective cost containment program will provide for care even when the prospective patient is not technically sick.And the ultimate weakness of health care financing under the Canadian model is that Canada does not finance enough health care to go around. So youse guys aren't so good either.As an aside, did any of you know that almost all the actuaries employed in the business of insurance in the United States are Canadians? Actuarial science is math intensive. Americans as a general rule are not into math; Canadians, apparently, are.
Math, and sex. Oh, and women's rights! We're totally into that shit too.
Post a Comment