In a free market economy, people buy insurance and receive the level of health care for which they pay. Poor people might get help from charities, but there is a recognition that not everyone can get everything. Some people get a better deal, and this comes in part in return for being a productive (rich) member of society. I don't think anyone has ever figured about a better way to distribute scarce goods and satisfy the basic law of supply and demand.
In short: your level of health care is mostly dependent on you. I consider this moral.
In the new world, it's all about government. You're not going to shop around for health care. Your ability to pay for health care is irrelevant. There are rules to be followed. Government bureaucrats will decide what you get. It's all about what will help the government. People over 50? No kidney transplant for them. The guy at the desk says it hurts the bottomline.
I consider this immoral.
I think I got a knee-jerk reaction from you because I mentioned God. You probably decided that I was wrong as soon as you saw that. My real point is that we have moved toward a centralized, government-controlled system in which we increasingly see Person A take money from person B so that person C can get a kidney transplant (but person D isn't so lucky). My point is that I disapprove of that.
“I think I got a knee-jerk reaction from you because I mentioned God. You probably decided that I was wrong as soon as you saw that.”
I was attempting to have a reasoned debate with you, in case you didn’t notice (and you didn’t). There was no knee-jerk on my end, only on yours on the inexplicable comment above.
If you want to discuss the merits/demerits of your or my argument, fine, but you are going to have to quit being so defensive.