No you're not. You can choose which hospitals you're getting opinions from.
> In healthcare you have two modes: 1. I can afford the care, price is fairly immaterial make me better. 2. I can't afford the care, doesn't matter what the price is.
No it doesn't. I've shopped around for PCP. It wasn't like that at all. Do you think every doctor works in an inner city ICU or something? I'm not sure where you're pulling this view from.
> Given that the majority of bankruptcies in the US are due to health care just proves this point.
What point does it prove? I don't really see what point you're making. Is it the US system has major problems? If so, I agree. Is it that nationalized healthcare is the best choice? I haven't seen you make an argument for that at all other than conjuring your own personal ethical code.
> these two statements are functionally equivalent
I'm trying to make a coherent point, so that makes sense.
> not sure how you get to this idea. the point is you're hung up on the dying aspect which is basically immaterial...
So you agree with me now? Emergency care doesn't play a major role in the market?
> we already do. you can argue whatever you want but as a society we've already mandated this level of access
I'd like to see the mandate you're referencing. Sounds like you actually agree with codifying qualifying circumstances for care ;)
> every country with universal coverage disagrees with you
No they don't. Countries with nationalized healthcare routinely ration care. They recognize limited resources same as us, just through a bureaucratic system a oppose to a market system. Just because it's a man with an office deciding if you get to see the doctor rather than your bank account doesn't make it morally superior.
> If you want to discuss how to make a healthcare system that works, fine
This is the discussion I've been getting at the whole time. You're the one constantly conjuring some vague sense of morality as opposed to discussing which models may work better than others.
