Sex Insurance
May 16, 2007 11:14 AM Subscribe
Once upon a time in America, an employer came up with an idea for saving on payroll expenses. He noticed that many of his employees seemed uncomfortable with the idea of paying for sex, even though they wanted it. So he tried reducing worker salaries by $1000 a month, and instead he gave his workers an insurance card that they could present to prostitutes whenever the workers wanted their services.
This post was deleted for the following reason: This strained, inexplicable allegory doesn't make for a very good mefi post. -- cortex
Was this supposed to be funny? I might note that the author is from the Cato Institute, hardly a bastion of progressive thought.
Also, prostitution is something people choose to do.
Healthcare is a necessity.
Meh.
posted by MythMaker at 11:20 AM on May 16, 2007
Also, prostitution is something people choose to do.
Healthcare is a necessity.
Meh.
posted by MythMaker at 11:20 AM on May 16, 2007
Nice, but I think he could have done further with it. Instead of "prostitution insurance" why not call it "stomping on baby ducks then beheading grandmas insurance"?
posted by L. Fitzgerald Sjoberg at 11:20 AM on May 16, 2007
posted by L. Fitzgerald Sjoberg at 11:20 AM on May 16, 2007
Further proof that conservative thinkers may study wit and humor intensely without really ever coming to understand them.
posted by boo_radley at 11:22 AM on May 16, 2007
posted by boo_radley at 11:22 AM on May 16, 2007
Sometimes, these consumers would show up at brothels and expect free sex, with the cost shifted to other consumers.
THE NERVE OF THOSE POOR PEOPLE
posted by eddydamascene at 11:22 AM on May 16, 2007
THE NERVE OF THOSE POOR PEOPLE
posted by eddydamascene at 11:22 AM on May 16, 2007
MythMaker writes "Was this supposed to be funny? I might note that the author is from the Cato Institute, hardly a bastion of progressive thought."
They're libertarians, right? Socially progressive, fiscally conservative. They favor legal drugs and prostitution, and they oppose the income tax.
posted by mullingitover at 11:23 AM on May 16, 2007
They're libertarians, right? Socially progressive, fiscally conservative. They favor legal drugs and prostitution, and they oppose the income tax.
posted by mullingitover at 11:23 AM on May 16, 2007
You people all read too quickly. I wanted to be the first to decry this post as completely inane. Try reading with one eye closed next time please.
posted by Keith Talent at 11:23 AM on May 16, 2007
posted by Keith Talent at 11:23 AM on May 16, 2007
Who wants healthcare if any jack ass can get it.
posted by chunking express at 11:25 AM on May 16, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by chunking express at 11:25 AM on May 16, 2007 [2 favorites]
Also, and tell the truth here, how many paragraphs did you get through while still labouring under the illusion you were reading some sort of history of The Netherlands?
posted by Keith Talent at 11:25 AM on May 16, 2007
posted by Keith Talent at 11:25 AM on May 16, 2007
Weird. The author seems not to understand the concept of "insurance" at all:
He noticed that many of his employees seemed uncomfortable with the idea of paying for sex, even though they wanted it.
Being "uncomfortable" with paying for health care directly is not the reason that it makes sense for people to join insurance plans. It's about sharing risk.
Clearly the author doesn't really fail to understand. He's just being a dick. If it were otherwise a funny or interesting article, I might forgive him.
posted by gurple at 11:26 AM on May 16, 2007
He noticed that many of his employees seemed uncomfortable with the idea of paying for sex, even though they wanted it.
Being "uncomfortable" with paying for health care directly is not the reason that it makes sense for people to join insurance plans. It's about sharing risk.
Clearly the author doesn't really fail to understand. He's just being a dick. If it were otherwise a funny or interesting article, I might forgive him.
posted by gurple at 11:26 AM on May 16, 2007
I'm legally blind in one eye to start with; did that count?
Sure, it's bull$hit, but at least it's interesting bull$hit. What about the employees who were happily married -- could they transfer their benefits or exchange them for something else?
posted by pax digita at 11:26 AM on May 16, 2007
Sure, it's bull$hit, but at least it's interesting bull$hit. What about the employees who were happily married -- could they transfer their benefits or exchange them for something else?
posted by pax digita at 11:26 AM on May 16, 2007
I completely and utterly reject the premise of this satirical essay. "A Modest Proposal" this is not! I failed to address prostitution insurance for poor children or prostitution insurance for homeless persons.
Wait, are you now clamoring that there's no comparison between our drive for sex and our drive to NOT DIE? How enlightened of you!
posted by muddgirl at 11:26 AM on May 16, 2007
Wait, are you now clamoring that there's no comparison between our drive for sex and our drive to NOT DIE? How enlightened of you!
posted by muddgirl at 11:26 AM on May 16, 2007
Many Mefites were interested in crappy post insurance, but no one wanted to pay for it.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:28 AM on May 16, 2007
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:28 AM on May 16, 2007
So Arnold Kling is saying that doctors are whores?
posted by Western Infidels at 11:28 AM on May 16, 2007
posted by Western Infidels at 11:28 AM on May 16, 2007
Nice, but I think he could have done further with it. Instead of "prostitution insurance" why not call it "stomping on baby ducks then beheading grandmas insurance"?
Don't be so dramatic.
Besides, a good question to consider would be how do you get a whorehouse to accept insurance cards over money?
posted by 29 at 11:30 AM on May 16, 2007
Don't be so dramatic.
Besides, a good question to consider would be how do you get a whorehouse to accept insurance cards over money?
posted by 29 at 11:30 AM on May 16, 2007
This was a really dumb idea for an essay. I don't understand the motivation for this analogy at all.
The idea of attaching real economic incentives to health care is not entirely dumb, however.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:30 AM on May 16, 2007
The idea of attaching real economic incentives to health care is not entirely dumb, however.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:30 AM on May 16, 2007
A more intelligent assessment of the health care situation.
posted by mullingitover at 11:30 AM on May 16, 2007
posted by mullingitover at 11:30 AM on May 16, 2007
The fallacy in most simple plans is thinking that everyone fits the same profile and has the same needs as the originator of the plan.
posted by Cranberry at 11:30 AM on May 16, 2007
posted by Cranberry at 11:30 AM on May 16, 2007
Most people, particularly prostitutes, were outraged by the economist's suggestions. The idea of paying for sex was too offensive to contemplate. So the existing prostitution insurance system kept stumbling along.
My stepdad's a doctor, which means I've met a fair number of doctors, and, well, every doctor I've ever met hates the insurance companies like anti-semites hate the ADL.
Of course, I wouldn't expect someone like the author of this piece to have a clue as to what they're talking about.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:31 AM on May 16, 2007
My stepdad's a doctor, which means I've met a fair number of doctors, and, well, every doctor I've ever met hates the insurance companies like anti-semites hate the ADL.
Of course, I wouldn't expect someone like the author of this piece to have a clue as to what they're talking about.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:31 AM on May 16, 2007
This piece meets all expectations for a TechCentral Station article.
posted by brownpau at 11:31 AM on May 16, 2007
posted by brownpau at 11:31 AM on May 16, 2007
Yes, of course this article is rediclous.
Unfortunately, shifting the costs of prostitution insurance to taxpayers was fiscally impossible.
Either we spend the money or we don't. If taxes were rased, but health-care were not deducted from my paycheck, I wouldn't notice at all, except that I'd never have to worry about not being insured....
posted by delmoi at 11:34 AM on May 16, 2007
Unfortunately, shifting the costs of prostitution insurance to taxpayers was fiscally impossible.
Either we spend the money or we don't. If taxes were rased, but health-care were not deducted from my paycheck, I wouldn't notice at all, except that I'd never have to worry about not being insured....
posted by delmoi at 11:34 AM on May 16, 2007
He left out the part in the middle about how the industry brokers brilliantly cut costs by replacing standard prostitution services with getting-raped-by-syphilitic-dogs. Go free market!
posted by spiderwire at 11:35 AM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by spiderwire at 11:35 AM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
Once upon a time, there was an author from the Injecting Heroin Directly Into The Eye Institute...
posted by Bugbread at 11:36 AM on May 16, 2007
posted by Bugbread at 11:36 AM on May 16, 2007
U.S. Health Care System: Paying More, Getting Less
posted by chunking express at 11:37 AM on May 16, 2007
posted by chunking express at 11:37 AM on May 16, 2007
The article made perfect sense to me. Sexual needs are exactly as important to survival as medical needs are, and both can be addressed with the same amount of care and expense. For example, if you're horny, you can have a wank and solve the problem. The cost is nil, or maybe a few cents if you figure in Kleenex. By the same token, if you have, say, stomach cancer, you can go to the drugstore and get some Tylenol and a Band-Aid. Problem solved!
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:37 AM on May 16, 2007
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:37 AM on May 16, 2007
Pope Guilty writes "My stepdad's a doctor, which means I've met a fair number of doctors, and, well, every doctor I've ever met hates the insurance companies like anti-semites hate the ADL."
Get on topic here, Pope Guilty. We're talking about prostitute insurance, not health insurance.
Unless perhaps you're talking about the doctors who look after the prostitutes...
posted by Bugbread at 11:38 AM on May 16, 2007
Get on topic here, Pope Guilty. We're talking about prostitute insurance, not health insurance.
Unless perhaps you're talking about the doctors who look after the prostitutes...
posted by Bugbread at 11:38 AM on May 16, 2007
Yeah prostitution is JUST LIKE health care. Because if I don't get laid its JUST LIKE someone's kid NOT GETTING that kidney transplant he needs to live.
posted by Max Power at 11:40 AM on May 16, 2007
posted by Max Power at 11:40 AM on May 16, 2007
I'd be more offended by his reductionism if it weren't so inept.
I don't understand the motivation for this analogy at all.
Crass elitism? Or are we just to assume that this is a case of misapplying the old maxim, "write what you know"?
posted by mkultra at 11:42 AM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
I don't understand the motivation for this analogy at all.
Crass elitism? Or are we just to assume that this is a case of misapplying the old maxim, "write what you know"?
posted by mkultra at 11:42 AM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
The analogy between prostitution and health care is weak, but I don't think it's entirely unfounded.
I think many people really are uncomfortable thinking about life-prolonging treatments in dollar terms, just as some people are uncomfortable attaching a dollar value to sex, but a significant difference is that sex can be had for free. Someone is always going to have to pay real money for health care, and it makes sense to ask who we want that to be, and how, and how much control they'll have over the use of the money.
The insurance model is probably not ideal for providing health care for indigents, because it was never intended to do so. In the insurance model, people pay in according to their expected losses (plus an administrative fee) and then receive back compensation for their actual losses. This works if the actuaries are good at their jobs. The coverage is determined by the amount the insured wants to spend and their tolerance for risk.
Having the public pay for indigents' health care is somewhat different, because it's not clear how the amount of coverage should be decided. I think this issue is hard for Americans to talk about, but it's key for any working public insurance program.
There always will be limits on the amount of coverage, whether we talk about it or not, since no plan will have infinite funding, but talking about it makes it more likely that we'll come up with sane, humane limitations.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 11:45 AM on May 16, 2007
I think many people really are uncomfortable thinking about life-prolonging treatments in dollar terms, just as some people are uncomfortable attaching a dollar value to sex, but a significant difference is that sex can be had for free. Someone is always going to have to pay real money for health care, and it makes sense to ask who we want that to be, and how, and how much control they'll have over the use of the money.
The insurance model is probably not ideal for providing health care for indigents, because it was never intended to do so. In the insurance model, people pay in according to their expected losses (plus an administrative fee) and then receive back compensation for their actual losses. This works if the actuaries are good at their jobs. The coverage is determined by the amount the insured wants to spend and their tolerance for risk.
Having the public pay for indigents' health care is somewhat different, because it's not clear how the amount of coverage should be decided. I think this issue is hard for Americans to talk about, but it's key for any working public insurance program.
There always will be limits on the amount of coverage, whether we talk about it or not, since no plan will have infinite funding, but talking about it makes it more likely that we'll come up with sane, humane limitations.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 11:45 AM on May 16, 2007
I really thought the article was going to be an interesting utopian perspective until I realized it was a hack job of Find and Replace "health care" with "prostitution." Wow, my eyes are really way wide open now. Thanks.
posted by limmer at 11:45 AM on May 16, 2007
posted by limmer at 11:45 AM on May 16, 2007
« Older Field Guide to Loners | Russian Book Jackets, 1917-1942 Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by KokuRyu at 11:19 AM on May 16, 2007