4 ms·
The 1.5x the profits issues may not be enough. A few years back, I read a story about a doctor who ran a scam that would assure the sex of your unborn child fo
by rprospero 11y ago
The 1.5x the profits issues may not be enough.
A few years back, I read a story about a doctor who ran a scam that would assure the sex of your unborn child for $3000. Now, his treatment literally did nothing and he knew this. Half his patients didn't get the gender they paid for. He'd bring the distraught parents in, immediately hand over a full refund, talk about how the procedure was only 99.95% effective, then offer the parents another $1500 back as sign of his sincere regret.
Basic algebra shows that, despite doing nothing, he could expect to make $750 per patient, despite doing nothing, because the half of the children who had the sex desired by their parents more than paid for the half that didn't.
As you said, these people are masters of economics. If there is less than a 66% chance of being caught, a 1.5x fine means that there's still money to be made.
- msandford 11y agoWhich is why a 10x the profits number makes a lot more sense. At that point you've got to be VERY sure you won't get caught. It'll also encourage the beancounters in bigger organizations to just make people do the right thing. Once the fine becomes big enough no amount of "it'll be OK, we won't get caught" goes out the window.
- selestify 11y agoThat's actually a well thought-out scam, where can I read more about this doctor? I wonder how he finally got caught.
- steven2012 11y agoThis is similar to the joke about someone running a lottery for $1, with a chance of winning a live donkey. 1000 people buy tickets, and the winner comes to claim their prize, and discovers a dead donkey instead. So he complains, and the lottery runner give him back his $1. The key is to fine them for every patient, not just the patients that complain, because every patient is being defrauded, not just the ones who complain. Then 1.5x will actually be meaningful.