Replies

"Those who are intent of committing suicide by overeating or drinking themselves to death, then I personally have no problem with having them placed on lower priority then someone who wants to live."

To a certain extent, I agree with you -- there are caveats though:

(1) If the public health care system intends to deny a person, or category of persons, service; then those affected should have the option of opting out of the system. They should not be required to continue to support a system, which will not help them -- and, they certainly should not be prohibited from buying health care insurance from any company willing to actually care for their health.

(2) Anyone setting the priorities must so so on the basis of absolutely proven health statistics. For instance, very recently the CDC revealed that the actual number of deaths caused by obesity is less than 1/4 of the number they were using previously. Similarly, small amounts of red wine are good for you -- should total teetotalers be denied care?

For instance, very recently the CDC revealed that the actual number of deaths caused by obesity is less than 1/4 of the number they were using previously. Similarly, small amounts of red wine are good for you -- should total teetotalers be denied care?

The issue is at the doctor level. If he/she has several patients
waiting for care, then THAT doctor has to make a decision as to who
is going to get his/her attention.
I'd rather the doctor make that decision than leave it to a politician.
In the USA it's an easy call - it's whoever has the fatest wallet.