WorstPlans.com updates every Monday!

Your weekly source for terrible plans and ideas!

Tag: Health

Get cheap health care and solve the doctor shortage in one amazing tip that ALSO provides new employment opportunities for struggling actors looking to make their big break!

Background:

Health care is expensive—but it could be cheaper, if labor were cheaper (apparently somewhere between half and two-thirds of costs go to salaries).

The issue:

Unfortunately, doctors and nurses will probably remain relatively expensive—but what if we can recruit cheap labor to do some of the tasks that normally require a highly-trained medical professional?

Specifically, if we look at doctors as having two primarily qualifications:

  1. Medical competence
  2. Ability to interact with patients

…we can then delegate the “ability to interact with patients” task to a group of people who are charismatic* but poorly-paid: struggling actors.

(* Or at least capable of pretending to be.)

Proposal:

Under this proposal, all the patient interaction is done by actors—the doctor just writes up some general instructions, and the non-medically-trained actors carry them out. The organizational chart for this plan is shown in Figure 1.

doctor-fanout

Fig 1: By delegating the patient-interaction tasks to barely-trained personnel (at right), the relatively expensive doctor (at left) can manage a much larger patient load.

Now, actors can focus on dealing with patients, and doctors can focus on the diagnostics.

As a bonus, each actor could be fitted with a wireless camera, allowing the doctors to monitor multiple actors at the same time, and switch around between patients by simply pressing a button on a computer (Figure 2).

doctor-computer

Fig 2: An officially-licensed doctor can monitor multiple actors at once. This also prevents the doctor from having to waste time by actually walking around from room to room. As an added bonus, the remote doctor could even be in a foreign country with extremely low salaries. Since this remote doctor would be happy to undercut the high local wages, it would drive health care costs down even further!

PROS: Doctors can now focus on medical diagnoses, rather than having to worry about their patient-interaction skills. Provides employment opportunities for struggling actors.

CONS: None! Presumably the American Medical Association will endorse this idea any day now.

Seven deadly sins of dieting: save yourself from the deadly sin of GLUTTONY by making use of the deadly sin of SLOTH. Finally, two wrongs make a right. Plus, you’ll never believe these 7 adorable animals that made their way home after beating unbelievable odds.

The issue:

For most snack foods, it’s easy to eat a HUGE quantity of the food in question.

This is no surprise—snack foods were specifically designed to be easy to eat. Plus even after you’ve eaten a bunch, it takes a minute or two to feel full.

Proposal:

Here is a technique to eat fewer snacks that—amazingly—requires no self control whatsoever!

First, an observation: it’s easy to eat a large number of individually-wrapped tiny chocolates (Figure 1), but much more difficult to over-eat on an inconvenient food like the lobster in Figure 2.

choco-drop

Fig. 1: It’s incredibly easy to eat like a million of these chocolates.

lobster

Fig. 2: Foods that are more difficult to eat, like this boiled lobster, are generally not in danger of becoming an easily-devoured “casual snack” food.

Therefore, a solution presents itself: we can make snack foods extremely inconvenient to eat, as shown in Figure 3.

chocolate-kiss

Fig. 3: By repackaging the chocolate (eft) in a giant ball of thick foil that takes a whole minute to unwrap (right), we have saved the eater from the perils of casual snacking.

As an added bonus, this might allow the “serving size” on snack foods to be realistic (e.g., a box of Nabsico Oreos lists the serving size as only “3 cookies”—that might be accurate if each oreo came inside a hard carapace that you’d need to open with a lobster cracker).

Conclusion:

A short list of foods that come in both “easy” and “difficult” forms:

  • Easy: shelled peanut halves. Difficult: whole peanuts with the shell still on
  • Easy: pitted olives. Difficult: olives with a pit
  • Easy: crab cakes. Difficult: an actual crab with a shell
  • Easy: a hamburger. Difficult: a bull that you have to defeat in one-on-one combat as a matador, while thousands of Spaniards heckle you.

PROS: May reduce over-eating and increase general health and welfare.

CONS: Increases cost of food. May generate additional waste products and be less environmentally friendly.

Bonus suggested follow-up science experiment:

It would be interesting to see what the rate of calorie consumption is for:

  • Easy-to-eat shelled peanuts
    • vs.
  • More labor-intensive unshelled peanuts

That might be a good science fair project and/or low-impact-factor-journal publication, if it hasn’t already been done!