When government is paying the medical bill, it inevitably has to "ration" care. Choices obviously have to be made by whoever is paying, but there's good reason not to leave government with the dominant decision-making power, as in Great Britain.
There's no need to demonize British care. All one has to do is point out how government fiscal objectives so often run against good patient treatment. And how most people have no exit to a better alternative.
Consider this rather amazing story from the Daily Telegraph:
Doctors have launched a campaign on behalf of a war hero who has been told he must go blind in one eye before he can receive NHS treatment and accused Gordon Brown of "incompetence" in managing the health service.
More than 120 doctors have sent £5 cheques to Downing Street, made out to the Prime Minister, in the hope of shaming him into helping former RAF bomber Jack Tagg. The 88-year-old was recently diagnosed with age-related macular degeneration, the leading cause of blindness in Britain, which affects an estimated 500,000 people.
Mr Tagg has the treatable, but most aggressive "wet" form of the disease, which can lead to the loss of central vision in as little as two months.
But he has been told that the NHS will only fund the injections which could save his sight, after he has lost the vision in one eye.
... "They told me there were three choices: let nature take its course and go blind, try to seek funding, or pay for immediate treatment. Time is of the essence, so we opted to pay up and fight for funding.
"This is happening to literally millions of people. It's appalling and something has got to be done about it."
The American medical system needs reform. But that should be accomplished by promoting patient-directed care, with individuals and families, rather than government, deciding how best to use scarce resources when it comes to medical treatment.