JOHN SHIMKUS AND HEALTH “INSURANCE”: A RARE POLITICIAN WHO KNOWS SOMETHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT HE ADDRESSES

3/29/17

I wrote the following letter to the Chicago Sun-Times in response to the flack that Representative John Shimkus was getting for having the temerity to suggest that it makes no sense for men to be required to buy coverage for pre-natal care.  The Sun-Times published the letter on 3/15/17.

My major point in this missive is that as long as we insist on maintaining the charade that what we are dispensing is health insurance, we are obligated to follow the patterns and practices of effective insurance.   This entails realistic assessment and spreading of risk and effective allocation of costs to those subject to those risks.  If we ever get around to admitting that Obamacare, any alternative thereto, or health “insurance” as we have known it in this country for years is, in reality, pre-paid health care, then we can expand the discussion to universal coverage and reasonably universal spreading of the cost:

3/13/17

Representative John Shimkus (R., IL) is under attack from, among other, the Sun-Times, for his perfectly logical contention that a health insurance policy that covers a man should not be expected to provide coverage for pre-natal care. 

Opponents of Mr. Shimkus’s reasonable contention predictably start their attack by screaming “Unfair!”, which is nearly always a canard wholly grounded in one’s perspective.   More interesting is Mr. Shimkus’s detractors’ follow-up argument, made as if they were suddenly imbued with a profound understanding of how insurance works, that insurance is about spreading risks and costs and that men should therefore pay for women’s prenatal care and women should pay for men’s prostate cancer treatments.    That can almost sound reasonable until one considers the nature of a risk.   A risk exists only if there is a chance of something unexpected taking place.    There is no chance of a man getting pregnant and needing pre-natal care.  Similarly, there is no chance of a woman developing prostate cancer and needing the appropriate treatment for that malady.  Yes, insurance is about spreading risks but only among those who face the particular risk being spread.   A man faces no risk of getting pregnant and a woman faces no risk of developing prostate cancer.   Therefore, to argue that a man’s insurance policy should cover pre-natal care and a woman’s insurance policy should cover prostate cancer is akin to arguing that those who don’t drive should be required to buy car insurance and those who don’t own a home should buy homeowner’s insurance.   After all, according to the “logic” of those who so decry Mr. Shimkus’s reasonable assertion, insurance is about spreading risk. 

I almost hesitate to bring up the car and homeowner’s insurance analogy for fear of giving these newfound experts on the nature of insurance any ideas.