I like this post.

READ IT. It's about the economics of Healthcare reform. What I do not like, however, is this comment:
"Terminally ill patients should not be given expensive and/or experimental care. It is estimated that nearly 30% of all healthcare dollars go to terminally ill cancer patients. This must stop. It’s a waste of money. We must also stop the excesses of care to the elderly. President Obama’s 88 year old grandmother, who was terminally ill, received a hip replacement. Utterly ridiculous. She died a few months later. There are drugs that can increase a terminaly ill patient’s life by 6 months, but at a cost of nearly $100,000. We must say no to these exhorbitant treatments. We must more wisely spend our healthcare dollars on proven, cost-effective treatments."No person should receive better access, better coverage or better treatment than another person.

Okay sir. Maybe you could say that in a way that's less acerbic/eugenic/discriminatory/flagrantly immoral? I think your tone makes it hard for people to accept your thought.

Unfortunately, I've seen this sort of cognitive dissonance all around. Complain that healthcare is discriminatory, then discriminate against the weak. Complain that no one should ever profit from health insurance, and then bring up the loss of profit from treating terminally ill patients as a reason to avoid doing so. Really now? "No person should receive better access, better coverage or better treatment than another person" Yeah, except old people, dying people, and whoever else's life I've decided isn't worth sustaining!The doctors at Cold Spring would be ever so proud of modern Americans. Unfortunately as well, I don't think I can totally agree that healthcare is a right. By that, I mean that I do not beleive that any person can claim an absolute moral right to anyone's goods or services. The care of the sick if a Work of Mercy, and certainly it is true that no one should ever be left uncared for or made to suffer. But that's a perfect society. We don't live in a perfect society. We don't have hordes of chariable people willing to care for the sick and the dying for their own sake, as they deserved to be cared for, just as we don't have hordes of people willing to dive their last cent for education. Those services which people are not willing to do freely can and should be done by people who are willing to do them for profession. Yet it's just that, profession.
To claim out of fairness that healthcare is a human right and that you are entitled to it's services no matter what is akin to walking into Shopright and stealing four carts of groceries for yourself. Tell the police that food is a human right and see how far you go. It's akin to walking into the University of Penn and demanding a roster, because education is a right. It's akin to walking into a random stranger's home and demanding that they give you a room for the night, because shelter is a human right.
If you follow my logic, what I say is that I don't beleive that your have a right to have something neccesarily means that you have the right to obtain it by any means whatever. To try and obtain something like schooling, or housing, or even healthcare by force is to claim the right to have use of someone elses's goods and services. Worse yet, there are even some who, pointing to the extravagancies of many in the healthcare industry, beleive that they ought to have use of such services without the payment of the people providing them!
If I recall correctly, did'nt the government at one time feel that everyone had a right to house. Because of that, they made it possible for banks throw around mortgages like free cosplay gear at Comicon?
How did that turn out by the way? I suspect it turned out quite well.Deus, qui humánae redemptiónis opus per Unigéniti tui paschále mystérium implevísti, concéde propítius, ut, qui Christi mortem et resurrectiónem in sacramentórum signis annuntiámus fidénter, salvatiónis tuae contínuum experiámur augméntum. Per Dóminum.