EsonLinji and the Chiropractor

Three weeks ago I endured a rather severe tension headache which kept me off work for two days. Although it was a lot better on the second day, I still went to the doctor on the second day, mainly to get a medical certificate for the second day (while work allows me two of my ten sick days without a medical certificate, I want to save those for something vaguer). However the doctor I saw on the second day told me I should visit a chiropractor for some further assistance.

Now I was somewhat less than enthusiastic about this suggestion. In the Simon Singh vs the Chiropractors of Britain, I was on the side of Simon Singh. I have advised family members not to visit chiropractors on the basis of the unverified claims that chiropractors make. When I admitted to my sister I was going to see the chiropractor she burst out laughing.

A few factors got me over my distrust. The first was the fact that it was a regular doctor who had recommended it, so the chiropractor was riding on his credibility. Second was that the letter of recommendation was addressed to someone with the title doctor. I assumed that this indicated that the person had some non chiropractic medical qualifications and had simply branched out into chiropracty. Finally, about the only area chiropractors treatments may be of use is for spinal conditions, which is what the GP suggested was the problem.

So about a week later I turned up at the chiropractor. Actually I first turned up across the road at the medical centre which was a lot more obvious and professional looking. Only after not finding the chiropractor on the building directory I looked around and saw the chiropractors office. It was a slightly worn down old house with a sign out front. I walked in and introduced myself. while signing in, I asked if the person I was seeing was an actual doctor and was informed that they were in fact a doctor of chiropractic. This was less than reassuring. The all natural massage oil didn't feel very clinical either.

After waiting for a little while, I was ushered into the main room. On the wall were two posters. One was of a nice landscape with some platitude about chiropracty and overall health. The other more worrying one was of a bunch of sesame st style puppets with a kid getting some sort of treatment by a puppet chiropractor. This I did not like.

The chiropractor was a bit late, and after a quick read of the letter from the GP, had a look at my back. After a few different twists of my neck to see where the problem may be. After this was what was essentially a back massage. The only thing different was that she also had a mini jackhammer doohickey she used to apply pressure to different places.

My back felt a bit better afterwards, but in much the same way it feels better after any massage. My skepticism about the whole endeavour remains, and I won't be going to the follow up session the chiropractor suggested. In fact she suggested regular sessions, which at 50 bucks per 15 minutes is a lot more expensive than a massage.

Economics Bullshit 101: Co-insurance Clauses

Over the past few years I've been trying to build up my understanding of economics, and along the way I've come across a few things that are apparently standard practice that just seem like bullshit. Since I've just started a course on finance and such, I'm coming across a few more, and I feel like sharing. So here's the first installment of Economics Bullshit 101, Co-insurance.

Co-insurance is a practice that mainly affects insurance policies on big ticket items, like homes. Lets say I have a home that's worth $1,000,000 (sure, it's not going to happen anytime soon, but this is a hypothetical), and insurance to cover that much seems a bit too expensive to me. So, I cut a few corners, and insure the house for up to $800,000. Sure, I'll take a big hit if the house gets totaled, but I live in a pretty safe area and I'm not too worried.

So I've got my insurance, and while it doesn't cover the whole value, I'm feeling pretty safe. But then something bad happens. Nothing too major, but still pricey. All up, the bill comes to $100,000. No big deal, I'm insured up to $800,000, so that's well under my limit, no problemo.

Actually, problemo. Here's where the co-insurance clause kicks in. What it says is that when I said I wanted $800,000 worth of coverage on a $1,000,000 house, what I meant was that I wanted coverage of 80% on any damage. This means that when I put in my claim on the $100,000 worth of damage, they go "Fine, sure, $100,000 damage, 80% of that is $80,000, here's your cheque, have a nice day" and I look bamboozled and wonder where the hell the other $20,000 is. And I'm willing to bet they work that bit out before factoring in your excess, so there's another hunk of cash you don't get back.

Now, sure, I knew I was underinsured, but if I have coverage for up to amount X, and I claim for an amount Y that is less than X, I expect to get amount Y back from the insurers, regardless of whether amount Z, the value of the property insured, is greater or less than amount X. That's why I pay the insurer amount W every month.

So today's lesson is, like I guess many of these will be, read the god damn contract and make sure you understand it. And be sure you can afford the insurance if you buy a house.