Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Koligman who wrote (3454)	12/24/2007 11:03:30 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

re: Doctors at UCLA determined she needed a transplant and sent a letter to CIGNA Healthcare on Dec. 11. The Philadelphia-based health insurance company denied payment for the transplant. CIGNA stated her plan did not cover "experimental, investigational and unproven services," her doctors said, reports CBS News station KCBS-TV. This is the 'current rationing' that Peter and Tim think is so great. The basis of the rationing decision is the bottom line of the insurance company. You pick your poison. I can think of better rationing poisons.

To: John Koligman who wrote (3454)	12/24/2007 12:52:30 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

"In their letter, the UCLA doctors said patients in situations similar to Nataline's who undergo transplants have a six-month survival rate of about 65 percent." I wonder what a single-payer system would do with that scenario. And I wonder what it would cost to fund all those surgeries for all comers. And, if denied, I wonder how the anger would manifest if the parents couldn't sue the single-payer, aka the government.

To: John Koligman who wrote (3454)	12/27/2007 9:22:10 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 42652

"The family is planning to sue the insurance company, their attorney said Friday. Attorney Mark Geragos said he also plans to ask the district attorney to press murder or manslaughter charges against CIGNA HealthCare for the death of Nataline Sarkisyan. " Given that people want to arrest people for denying coverage would you want to be the decision maker in a socialized medical system with limited funds? Would you want to pay for a socialized medical system that paid all claims? Of course litigation would be excluded, but not the eventual backlash ending in prison time.

To: John Koligman who wrote (3454)	12/27/2007 11:02:03 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

Attorney Mark Geragos said he also plans to ask the district attorney to press murder or manslaughter charges against CIGNA HealthCare for the death of Nataline Sarkisyan. That's probably just a stunt by the attorney. There is no justification for such charges. If they didn't meet their contractual obligations than they would be open to a lawsuit. Theoretically if it can be shown that they made the contract with no intension of carrying it out (which probably isn't true, and even if it was probably couldn't be proven) than they might be open to a fraud charge, but manslaughter or murder charges would be totally unjustified.