Anyway you're right, it is consistent. If you think Terry Schiavo's husband should be allowed to choose, because he is her proxy by way of her own earlier decision, then the same applies to the uninsured man. His own earlier decision not to take responsible steps to protect himself has consequences, just like Terry Schiavo's decisions did. It's all about personal responsibility.
Last edited by Guy Incognito; 09-17-11 at 09:55 AM.
What is the best way to ration care? I could imagine up different systems... but every one would have detractors and those that saw it as unfair. There is no single "correct" answer here, and all anyone can do is "muddle through" with their humanity intact.
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire
Healthcare isn't a right. It's a fact of scarcity that it will always be rationed, as you say. But if we treat healthcare as a right, then it's a slippery slope. Does that right extend to elective treatments? It just doesn't make sense. The only sensible thing for a leftist to do is divvy up healthcare equally for all, which diminishes the quality of healthcare for the top while raising it for the bottom. Sounds reasonable, but it's impossible to achieve without coercion.
I don't think healthcare should, morally, be determined by ability to pay. But society has outvoted me. And unless I'm willing to coerce society into following my moral prejudices (which I am not), then I have no alternative but the accept the free market.
If a fellow doesn't have insurance, he is at the mercy of fate and can only hope for the charity of others. That's his decision. He must accept the consequences of it. The upshot is, he's free.