So this uncomfortable to think about, but it is what it is: given that we must all eventually die someday, the question is, how much of other's people money are you willing to spend to extend your life, by how much, and under what circumstances?
Is health care an unlimited resource with everyone being entitled to whatever is available and technologically feasible? This is a yes or no question. If no, how is the line drawn, and by whom?
What we don't need is New Yorkers telling Texas how to run their state, or vice versa.
Take it from a Floridian with experience on that topic: very true.
I fully support the Texas secession movement. That would have the added benefit of allowing Texas to retain their nations worst healthcare delivery system.
10 Things We'd Lose If Texas Actually Secededhttp://www.huffingto..._n_4213506.html
If I need medical care I would much rather be in Texas than Vermont. Do they even have doctors there or are they just the Vets from Ben & Jerry's?
In all seriousness. Texas. Particularly Huston, is at the forefront of medical technology and development.
That's nice, but how about delivery of healthcare to its residents?
What, you mean charity? Health care is nothing more than a collection of products and services. I'm really getting tired of this attitude of entitlement and helpless dependency.
Aside from charitable assistance for those with genuine need, why is the state obligated to deliver products and services to its residents?