Re: Protocols for Insurance to Maintain Privacy

[Secret Squirrel <nobody@secret.squirrel.owl.de>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Tim May wrote:
> The FDA has probably killed more people in the last 30 years than
> all the wars the U.S. has been in during the same time. Mostly
> because of the game-theoretic nature of the system: all that matters
> to FDA officials is covering their ass so that promotion is
> ensured. No points for approving a controversial drug, but lots of
> demerits for approving a drug which hurts even one person (if the
> media reports it as "another FDA oversight").  Avoiding flipper
> children is the raison d'etre for these people.

Tim no doubt already knows this, but I'm going to mention it anyway.
The FDA has other reasons for existing such as protecting the major
drug cartels from competition and providing wonderful employment
opportunities for former FDA employees in said drug cartels.

The choice of medical products and services as a choke point to
exploit is a particularly evil one as the link between government
imposed oligopoly profits and people's lives is very clear.

And, of course, this is worst of all for poor people because they are
least able to manage their situation.

I have my doubts as to whether it is possible to set up a really good
anonymous insurance scheme.  At some point the customer must
physically be matched up with the policy.  The damage may be minimized
by putting a hash of the customer's DNA markers in the policy instead
of the markers themselves.  But, when the customer wishes to draw on
the policy, his or her markers will have to be taken.

If there were a way for the representative of the insurance company to
absolutely verify the DNA markers such that the customer could be
absolutely certain the information didn't leave the room, a really
good anonymous policy would be feasible.  But, I can't think of a way
to do this.

The really good way to protect your medical privacy is to self insure.
Most people are happy with policies that tap out at $1 million.  If
you would be happy with such a policy, then all you need is $1 million
to protect your privacy.  It is likely that this $1 million will not
ever be consumed by health care costs.  (Probably much less likely
than that a policy holder will hit that limit.  People tend to spend
their own money more responsibly than somebody else's.)

One of the most important criteria for issuing insurance must be age.
Is there anyway to unambiguously determine somebody's age?  I know how
to do it with trees, but it doesn't work with people.

Monty Cantsin
Editor in Chief
Smile Magazine
http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html
http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBNFgp6ZaWtjSmRH/5AQES/wf+Ijrvktr6VxOxFRKZsad19G6fLuotWLTx
/kGEncb+3cAHg26Pxn2FRjt8FO4fdqNp/adaEtCmaVDJeJavhhiqW+XyXuLb1Iy4
5YrvG/xIbbPIIYdVeZ5coATNAIaKZvQu0UWrbDQzbmyxi0bIHmaixxx53isc14w1
qn+4PrlV7jVyKCPf/BMw7Mv7L33v8ZR3r3iS15L/OjIxBtvpVDvnBv8BdKwMA7C+
S5HBSYhiYjSGi1CnisnKI0POD9BqXXr5LwNA+407hPWDTkSGZ4iRqY3koiO0e/Je
eEvfbcSBEazaXcqlMtuI5xkFhLOY3L9oF+BtRjAfc9TRocFTTzZwHA==
=VcKo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----