In your scenario, people are either middle-class (high, medium, or low) or charity cases. The truth is a large portion of the U.S. is poor: due to age, education, unemployment, immigration status, whatever. Some of these people work, own cars, and some even own their own homes. Out of to pride, habit, or ignorance, they choose not to present themselves for charity - they skimp and do without, instead. Those with health problems, eventually become a statistic.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Matthew Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, if you want to assume that there is no charity in the US. No > religious hospitals that will care for the uninsured, no children's > hospitals providing endowment / other sourced care. > > The issue is should the power of government compulsion be used to pay > for care, which WILL result in government deciding what care is > provided, or should the private sector, including private charity > provide care based on what is wanted and needed. > > Matthew > > > On Mar 27, 2008, at 9:04 PM, katan wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:28:14 -0400, Matthew Taylor wrote: > > > >> To be rationed requires that there be a shortage of supply. There > >> is > >> no shortage of supply for those able to pay - if you can afford the > >> procedure you will get the procedure in the US (organ donations being > > > > And those that can't afford it can just go away and die. Yes? > > > > -- > > R:\katan > > > > > ************************************************************************* > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > ************************************************************************* > ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
