^I agree with everything you said. That was the argument I was attempting to make: it is immoral to ration based on ability to pay rather than medical necessity.
Note: using the general "you"
Don't you love it when you intend to say one thing, it comes out wrong, and then someone straightens it all out? At those times, I always think, "Now why couldn't I have put it like that and avoided the confusion?" **sigh**
It happens to me all the time. I get ragged on for making walls of text, but it seems like if I try to get a point across in fewer then nine paragraphs people think I'm arguing the opposite.
In fairness, I wasn't being particularly clear. I entered this thread only half-assedly, because it's tiring arguing for universal healthcare. So I'll make my position completely unambiguous: every major argument against socialized health care in the United States is based either in lies and misinformation exploiting the ignorant, or in moral repugnancy. It is cheaper, more efficient, more effective, more pragmatic, more rational, and more humane than the US system and we're the only nation that has the means but are too stupid and selfish to haul our fat asses out of the dark ages and just fucking do it.