Ross: Who is guilty and who is innocent under health care?
I’m hoping President Trump brings up health care at the State of the Union address tonight, because it touches more of us than any other issue.
Last week I posed the question: Who should be denied treatment when their money runs out?
Quite a few listeners said no one.
But one guy predicted if the leftists get their way on health care, they would be the ones denying treatment. He wrote: “Smoker with COPD or lung cancer? Die sucker!! Alcoholic with a bad liver? Die sucker! Obese because you eat too dam much and don’t exercise? Wait till you go food shopping and try to buy that bag of chips and your card is declined … [with a message] saying you are NOT ELIGIBLE TO BUY THIS ITEM!!! [Edited]”
He was not about to let the leftists decide who gets treatment.
Although, that last idea might not be so crazy.
But other listeners wanted some form of moral judgment. They felt that if people ended up sick because of their own bad choices, that’s just Darwinism, and there’s nothing the government can do but make the process more expensive than it needs to be.
So I’m going to ask another question.
No one seemed to want to deny treatment to people who fall ill through no fault of their own. Let’s call them the “innocently ill.”
So for those of you who feel only the innocent deserve treatment when their money runs out – how do they prove their innocence?