"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article et,
Maxprop wrote:


I won't tell you that that explanation wasn't accurate or honest, but I'm
betting his age had as much or more to do with the response than his
general
health and condition. It's called rationing.

I see. When you can't afford it, it's not rationing. Right?

I presumed something I shouldn't have--that your uncle lived in a place with
socialized medicine. Perhaps that was not the case. In socialized
medicine, health care is always rationed. I don't know if that answers your
question, because I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

This topic makes for a *great* argument.

The USA rations on money. Canada arguably rations on age. There have
been suggestions put fwd that various treatments be denied people who
smoke, are clinically obese etc etc. I suspect it's going to happen.

Not here. The discrimination lawsuits would clog the legal system worse
than it already is.


Oz's idol in the last Aussie Fed election proposed giving priority in
public (ie taxpayer funded) hospital care to people over 75 in an
attempt to buy votes. I had a lotta fun asking why a 75+ y/o was a
better target for a limited resource than say a 5 y/o with a long
future in front of her.

The answer: politics. But you already knew that.

Max