Earlier this month I noted that the health care bureaucrats of the U.K. consider paying fat people to walk a judicious use of taxpayer money. Well, here’s an example what these apparatchiks consider an injudicious use of that money:
Jack Rosser’s doctor says taking Pfizer Inc.‘s Sutent cancer drug may keep him alive long enough to see his 1-year-old daughter, Emma, enter primary school. The U.K.’s National Health Service says that’s not worth the expense.
Hmm, let’s see … it makes sense to fork out £30 million to lazy gluttons, but it is wasteful to spend far less on cancer treatment for truly ill people—-people whose paychecks have been raided for decades to pay for “free” health care.
Explain to me again how government-run health care is a “moral imperitive.” Explain how such a system would be fairer than our “money-driven” health care system—-the one in which Mr. Rosser would have no problem getting this treatment even if he were uninsured.
Better yet, explain it to Jack Rosser’s wife:
‘It’s immoral,” Rosser’s wife, Jenny, said. ‘They are sentencing him to die.’
Government-run health care is indeed immoral. It is also cruel and inefficient. How can anyone with an IQ exceeding single-digits think that we in the U.S. should emulate such systems?