ClosingADoor
Member
I think you are really missing the point. The issue is that when you get in for cancer treatment, even if resources are limited, you should not be put on the back of the list because you are poor. It should go by how much you need the care right away.In one of my earliest posts in here, I state that I am all for free preventative care for all --- that is a FANTASTIC thing that I think, while not a "right", is a service that the government should make sure is available in a timely manner to all of its citizens.
The "right not to die", however, is the impossible pipe dream --- there are only so many specialists (with maintained standards), only so many cancer meds & facilities, only so many livers, hearts etc. to go around.
And how does offering free treatment to all sick citizens encourage healthy living? People in here have already said things like "no, the drunk shouldn't be penalized --- you can't nitpick whether smoking or heavy constant drinking is costing everyone more when they go for cancer treatments, liver transplants etc.".
Why should anyone have the motivation to live healthily if they will just get bailed out by their neighbor when they need a triple bypass? Sure, some rational-thinking people will stay healthy to avoid hospital stays and live-threatening circumstances, but for those countless people out there that don't think that far ahead, there will be no motivation to actually take care of themselves. If anything happens to them, the state-run medical system has got their back, free of charge.
For transplants, there is a serious supply problem, so until we can grow new organs and put them in, there will be choices made. But those should be based on the medical need, not financial ones. You shouldn't get a new liver because you are rich, while the other guy doesn't get one because he is poor.
I don't see why you make this distinction between preventative care and other treatments.