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: Peter Dierks who wrote (24508)	8/15/2012 12:47:48 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

I think spouses of presidents would be put in a different category, just like the presidents themselves. They wouldn't sign up at their local insurance exchange. You could instead look at the loser of the upcoming presidential election or their spouse (perhaps your assuming Obama loses), but ex presidents, and maybe their families, might still get some special coverage, just like they get Secret Service protection. If they don't, or if Romney loses and you look at his family, well both candidates are wealthy (I think Obama's in the tens of millions range, Romney in the hundreds), covered or not they can pay for the treatment. Someone well connected but not necessarily wealthy or getting special care as part of their compensation for their position might be someone like one of the chairmen of either party or some other party official, or a lower level politician, or a senior bureaucrat. They would likely have money, but perhaps not tens of millions or more, and they might have good insurance, but perhaps not some special platinum plated government program. They would be the people who might call for special treatment. (the Obama's wouldn't have to bother to call). Their equivalent without political connections, say a senior manager or director at some business, might not get the same level of treatment if political connections become important. OTOH they could afford good insurance, outside the exchanges and less limited by their rules, I don't think the coverage would be outlawed, and certainly the treatment wouldn't be (unless it was unapproved because it wasn't found to be safe and effective by the FDA).

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (24508)	8/15/2012 1:37:01 PM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Respond to of 42652

We have already been through this. I don't recall having been through this. Obviously the death panel is going to reject anything buy palliative care for that prognosis. Do you think that there is greater than a zero percent probability that she would be denied every possible care option? What in the world do you think that the death panel is charged with doing? I suppose it might, as you say, deem anything but palliative care unwarranted for that diagnosis. But what do you think that "unwarranted" means in that context? That they will disallow private coverage of it or make it illegal to buy that treatment on your own dime? There's nothing in the law that provides for that nor even remotely suggests that. Surely you don't really think that it does. The most the death panel could impact would be to take if off the list of covered treatments under Medicare or Medicaid and not require private insurance to cover it. Whether you are connected or not, health care programs cover what they cover regardless of how connected one is. Connected people would get treatment if they want it via Blue Cross or their Visa cards, just like anyone else, or from some connected, fat-cat provider as a personal favor. They might also try to exert influence with a private insurance company to get the company to pay for it. But they're not going to get the death panel to get Medicare or Medicaid to make an exception. You're right that individuals without resources beyond Medicare, Medicaid, or some cheapo insurance policy would not get treatment but that's not because they're businesspeople rather than connected democrats so they don't have anyone to manipulate the death panel on their behalf. Anyone with resources, connected or not, a businessperson or not, would simply bypass the policy of the death panel. I would do just that if I wanted the treatment and I assume that you, too, have the necessary resources. Some street person would not have that option. The suggestion that the health care system under the direction of the death panel could be made to systematically discriminate in favor of connected democrats and against businesspeople is ludicrous. Sure, the net effect of the death panel could be that individuals with resources get treatment and individuals dependent upon the state don't. But it's not about being politically connected to the democrats or a businessperson. It's about having money and other resources.