[FairOpinion]

In a capitalist society, people have insurance and either they or the insurance pays for it. THAT is the purpose of insurance.

In a socialist society or a country like Canada, where medicine is socialistic, the problem is precisely what you point out -- they ration medical care to save cost.

I am not advocating heroic measures to prolong the life of someone who is 97 years old, by a few days or weeks. But would you want some random people make decisions about your life based on cost or their own likely inaccurate assumptions about you? Three is such a thing as common sense -- or should be.

I think there was an old StarTrak episode, where there was a society, where people walked into a disintegrator, when they reached age 60, regardless of their health or use to society.

[kms61]

But my point is that insurance companies also decide what they're going to pay for and how much. It's a form of rationing, just different people making the decisions. Maybe it's a more efficient way, I dunno. But you still run up against the problem of too many needs chasing too may dollars. Eventually, something has got to give.

I'd love to stick around and hash this out further, but I have an early day tomorrow.

[Comico Atómico]

In every war America's been in since at least 1861, in the field hospitals closest to the line, we have used the concept of "triage" - the wounded are divided into three categories.

1 - those who will survive anyway without immediate attention
2 - those who can survive only if immediate attention is given
3 - those who will likely die even if given immediate attention

It's not considered immoral or a violation of the doctor's oath to concentrate on category 2.

I do believe that the inability of any society (regardless of economic system) to generate effectively unlimited health care resources for every person will eventually bring about a civilian equivalent.