[sayfer bullets]

There is also a practical limit to the amount that society can spend on care for any individual.

Perhaps true, but would it be "skimming over" if the author did not consider it relevant? Seems to me it's a different subject to be discussed.

Whether privately or publicly funded, Doctors should not be forced or tempted to bow to expediency.

[JMJ333]

There is also a practical limit to the amount that society can spend on care for any individual.

What worries the author as well as me, is the slippery slope that your beliefs lead to. There are many reforms that can be made, and the cost of care can be driven down by competition. What is really at stake is the further reduction of human life. Reread the article and think about it interms of what is happening with abortion, eugenics, and atrocities being pushed by the proponents of death. My concern is not a monetary issue. Its a "value of life" issue.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

a more utilitarian desire to balance the state budget, or to better allocate limited resources, this view pushes well beyond the level of comfort for most Americans. Perhaps this is why it is not frequently verbalized by proponents of physician-assisted killing as validation.

This is where the author skimmed over the issue rather than ignoring its relevance.