Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Once you admit that there's a cutoff point somewhere, then it no longer
>> becomes a question of whether or not certain people will be denied
>> treatment, but only a question of where that cutoff point is.
> 
>     So, what's the cutoff point in Canada, the UK, and France? Citations 
> should be included.

Why?  I'm simply saying that you should consider all factors, not that 
any particular cutoff point should be used.

>     And, BTW, are you suggesting that insurance companies don't emulate 
> cutoff points?

Not at all - I think insurance companies do a great job of figuring out 
when it's feasible to pay for something and when it isn't.

I was responding to what you wrote:
"3. Most of the people I hear from who are against universal health care 
don't claim the US is near the "best". They claim that people who "work 
hard and earn a lot" should get some sort of priority over deadbeats who 
don't. (Not my view, but thought I'd point out that it's not about being 
the best). Effectively, the argument is that access to health care is 
not a human right"

I was basically saying that health care is NOT a universal right, but 
rather is a privilege which is awarded when money is available.  I'm not 
saying anything about how often it should be awarded, or how much money 
we should make available.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message