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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (118099)	8/13/2009 8:29:56 PM
From: spiral3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541861

The issue, I think, is that the amortized benefit is not passed onto the consumer. And therein lies the rub....wrt amortized benefits, this takes the topic to a logical conclusion, that being compensation for choosing death itself. Apparently it's one no one is interested in. The choice, under Medicaid, would be to continue receiving care or to decline it and receive, in cash, the present value of the expected lifetime benefits that you would have received, had you continued to use the system. End of life costs are controlled by providing customers with a death benefit conversion, just like what happens with other kinds of insurance. I’d say there’s a few hoops to jump through first before something like this ever gets taken seriously. At the least as a starting point, it would be a better conversation than the endless death panel dribble. Since it’s nowhere near being on the table, (article’s from 1993) I haven’t digested it entirely, no doubt there are bound to be some difficult areas, so, just putting it out there for you to chew on, since, by the looks of it we will be stuck with marginally different cogs in the same ol' same ol' machine, for a very long time. The lonely voice of Dr. K.K. Fung Dying for money: overcoming moral hazard in terminal illnesses through compensated physician-assisted death findarticles.com