You suggest an ambiguous, hypothetical fact pattern. I have to reply on the premise your coverage more than likely depends on what you or your employer are willing to pay for it. Some people would rather have a new flat screen TV or a car instead of paying those pesky premiums. Good insurance is available to those that are willing to pay. Some people feel healthy and don't buy any insurance and than reach for the government lifeline when illness hits. The taxpayer picks up the tab. You label folks lucky who have good insurance without recognizing that they personally or through their employers by hard fought contracts are paying for that good extra coverage. In essence, people make their own luck by putting a priority on health insurance instead of the new car, boat, bigger house or TV. I worked hard, contributed and paid for my "luck" for decades.

Personally, I have always found a way, to fund extra coverage for my family on top of what an employer may offer. I paid and continue to pay extra for enhanced coverage. Why would a person who puts a low priority on personal health insurance have an expectation to enjoy the same coverage someone has invested and sacrificed for.

The problem with the public option is that it penalizes those who have been farsighted enough to pay tens of thousands in premiums and riders by taxing them or reducing their benefit in "spread the health" dictates. Many who have good plans covered by employers will lose those plans when employers decide its cheaper to go with a diminished public option or pay the fine than continue to pay employee premiums. Incidentally, many believe that is Obama's strategy and path to "single payer" insurance. The other side of that coin is those who were more self indulgent are delighted at the prospect of Obama's free health care at the expense of others. Who's being greedy now? Do you still wonder why Obamacare is distressing to so many hard working Americans?

Can you see how the concept of government councils, boards or other political appointees who are given the authority that "approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit." raises the ire of so many Americans who faithfully paid into the system only to have the government decide what their options are in their golden years?

I know I've oversimplified this rebuttal but, I was just working with what you offered.