Robert Maxwell wrote:
Who the hell are you to decide who deserves life-saving medical treatment and who doesn't? Your child at home gets a little mouthy, so you cut off her insulin until she behaves?
For real. I do not want someone arbitrarily deciding who "deserves" medical care and who doesn't.
But that's exactly what will happen when health care is "free". There will eventually not be enough money to pay for everything for everyone, so someone
will have to decide who gets what, and how much of it. That someone
will be the bureaucracy created by the new system.
It will cost a fortune to run, it will be unbelievably inefficient, and will be accountable to no one but itself.
Deny it all you want, but just watch.
I've heard conservatives spew this bile before. The thing that they love to gloss over is that their little scenario HAPPENS RIGHT NOW!
The difference between rationing in a government run system vs a private system is that the government will ration resources based on NEED. Private systems ration care based on the ability to pay. So in countries with UHC, EVERYONE gets adequate care even if most people don't get the luxury care that you find in the US. In the US some people get first class medicine of the future...other people get nothing.
It seems to me that if you accept that medical care is a scarce resource...which conservatives universally agree on...then it seems reasonable that the best way to divvy up those resources would be to ensure that the people most in need get first crack at care. Instead what we have is a situation where people with the most money move to the front of the line and consume as much of the resources as they afford. Those with nothing get next to nothing. Even those with insurance can be denied coverage by insurance adjusters and in the worst case scenarios can be dropped entirely.
How is the current system better than one based on need?