[tzs]

Say a 68 year old veteran went to a VA doctor for a facial skin cancer, and was denied treatment because when he enlisted 50 years earlier he got a tattoo of his unit on his buttocks.

Do you really believe that denial would not be controversial?

[rayiner]

No, but only because he made up for it by being a veteran.

[tzs]

What if he was a retired farmer, the 50 year old tattoo was to commemorate the year he led his high school football team to the state championship, and it was Medicare denying coverage for a facial skin cancer because of that old buttocks tattoo?

[rayiner]

Probably not controversial.

[tzs]

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion.

About 1/3 of Americans have a tattoo [1]. Of the people without tattoos 66% say seeing a tattoo on someone gives them neither a negative or positive opinion of the person.

A tattoo on the buttocks will not cause skin cancer on the face. (There is a small association between tattoos and skin cancer but that is skin cancers at the tattoo sight, and it is not so much that they cause the cancer but rather make it harder to notice the cancer so it tends to be farther along before detected).

So I don't see how it could not be controversial to cut of Medicare to someone over something that a solid majority don't care about and that almost certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with their skin cancer.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/15/32-of-ame...

[tptacek]

He's saying he doesn't personally approve of tattoos. I don't think there's any further place you can productively take this conversation.