I've already said my piece on the subject of health insurance, charity, and social provisioning, and haven't the slightest intention of engaging in a bit of blog stuttering for everyone's dissatisfaction, so let it suffice by way of response to the post immediately preceding mine for me to state that it would be no more, and no less, monstrous to say and believe the things in that post than to argue for the liceity of a government-run health system rationing on the basis of a politically-determined cost ceiling, or even a quality-of-life/quality-of-life-years "metric" devised by those
satanists intellectuals called utilitarians. In each case, the determination of care is governed, in part, substantially, or in whole, by criteria extrinsic to the practice of sound medicine and the delivery of health services. Governments should neither balance budgets - on the assumption of some sort of public provision - by rationing care, thus implicitly determining who lives and dies, nor simply strive to reduce costs ala Peter Singer, by shouting at the untermenschen, "To the Kevorkians, GO!" And neither should corporations earn profits by implicitly determining who lives and dies. It is as much blood money in the latter instance as in the former, and it is merely a certain mysticism of markets that causes it to seem otherwise. As for the matter of charity, it should suffice to observe - although, doubtless, it will not in practice, for reasons already given - that the insufficiency of charity is one of the reasons for the present configuration of the health care system, and for the regulation, however often misguided in certain particulars, of the insurance industry. Among those reasons for the configuration will not be found a conspiracy against your freedoms, unless, of course, any acknowledgment of collective goods - even nonpolitical ones - constitutes a conspiracy against freedom - in this instance, perhaps, the 'freedom' to consign the weak, infirm, and unfit to fortuna, all in the name of some abstract doctrine, or perhaps the glorious totality of an economic system.
Resources, of course, are indeed finite, and the intersection of this inescapable reality with health care policy merits extended reflection, and that of moral and formal qualities surpassing those of Peter Singer's discussion of the subject. Nonetheless, the tedium of most conservative discourses on the subject is a function of, first, a failure to present this reality as the attainment of a profound and tragic wisdom, arduously acquired; and second, of a tone, sometimes rising to the level of a chorus, that the unfit and poor should be grateful, as of crumbs from the table of the King, for what little they receive. That is to say, it is a function, first, of a combination of celebratory apologetics and masked utilitarianism, and second, of intermittent spasms of callousness: We are well, so we cast these unwell upon the mercy of God and the vagaries of the wills of American self-positing supermen. Conservatives would do well, I believe, to focus on such things as abortion and euthanasia coverage in public health care plans, or in private plans as mandated by officious cultural leftists. At least such arguments are not exercises in special pleading for for-profit rationing and "free-market" utilitarianism. Bah.