3 ms·

I'm sorry but your argument boils down to you not wanting to see the other side of the debate. What you're saying doesn't change the fact that the resource is

I'm sorry but your argument boils down to you not wanting to see the other side of the debate. What you're saying doesn't change the fact that the resource is limited. The question is can the limited resource be stretched to accommodated everyone and if so can government create a more efficient distribution method to harness that resource. Because if either of those things aren't true than your "need-based" distribution is going to leave as many if not more people without treatment (it will just be richer people) That's the debate: Is it possible to give high quality health care to everyone? You stating that there are enough resources as a certainty is just arrogance on your part.

nlogn 16y ago
I don't see anywhere in his comment where he claims that there are enough resources to give high quality health care to everyone. He states that the distribution should shift from a "who can pay" based mechanism to a "who needs it the most" based mechanism. Yes, as you mentioned, you would certainly see more wealthier individuals that would be denied care. You would also see more poor people getting care they desperately need. >That's the debate: Is it possible to give high quality health care to everyone? I don't think this is really the debate. I think the debate is whether or not health care should be portioned out based on how much money someone is willing to/able to spend or based on how badly somebody needs the treatment. Personally, I think that's the only moral way it can be done.