I'm sure all the people that lost their jobs and can't pay for their medical treatment anymore or have zero access to insurance even if they wanted to pay for it will appreciate your principled, Randian stance at the ripe age of 16.
And I'm sure they'd appreciate the lottery system-based healthcare overhaul that you're proposing that has produced cases in which patients are told to wait months for anything from routine check ups to life-altering procedures. I'm also sure they'd appreciate the vast expansion of Government that comes along with it because, you know, free healthcare comes with a price.
I'm sure waiting is preferable to dying or not being able to say, afford medication or cancer treatments, yes. Not that anyone that's bothered to study the subject would find this draconian rationing you're talking about. In fact we have quite long wait lists in our country
compared to a lot of industrialized societies. And the US subsidizes something like >60% of its healthcare market anyway while spending more per capita than any other country. The reality is that a universal healthcare system would be forced to either allocate resources better or go bankrupt, like the present system is. I do not deny that, where have I ever said otherwise?
But that's not even why I replied that way, I just can't stand darwinian "bootstraps" rhetoric on this issue. I can understand the "non-aggression principle" line of morality even if I don't agree with it, but not that. That just makes me sick, to be quite honest.
Poll
