Fine with me.
However, I think it is reasonable to point out that the American people will not stand for leaving people to suffer and die on the street because they don’t have the funds to pay for their treatment.
Ayn Rand and you obviously think it’s fine to do so, and I might even agree with you. But politically, even in a GOP primary, it’s not going to fly.
So do we recognize the fact of public unwillingness to accept such a policy, and do what we can to help develop a policy acceptable to the voters that minimizes negative side effects?
Or do we just abandon the field to those who want to minimize human freedom? Cause I can tell you right now that if we give the voters a choice only between locking people out of the ER unless they pay in advance or having a single-payer system, the SP system will be voted in.
BTW, I’d appreciate it if you’d point out what in my post was dishonest. You may disagree with it, but that doesn’t make it dishonest.
You were dishonest first because you said the right wants no changes. Patently false unless you define change exclusively in leftist terms: i.e., more state involvement. Make the tax exemption individual. Expand health savings accounts. Allow insurance sales across state lines. Or better yet, like I said, get the government out of it ALTOGETHER. Those are all changes.....they just aren’t changes of the compulsory statist variety.
You were also dishonest because you talked about conservatives being willing to let people die in front of hospitals. Either that was dishonest or you truly don’t understand the difference between valuing liberty and blind malevolence. I chose dishonest because I was giving you credit for having the intelligence to grasp the distinction.
Hank