You get what you "pay" for

There really is, unfortunately, no shortage of this kind of story. And it's tragic that we're barreling down the road toward this just as fast the Democrats can take us.

An Iraq war veteran died after receiving cancerous lungs from a heavy smoker in a transplant.

Matthew Millington, 31, a corporal in the Queen’s Royal Lancers, had the operation to save him from an incurable respiratory condition.

But the organs were from a donor who was believed to have smoked 30 to 50 roll-up cigarettes a day. A tumour was found after the transplant, and its growth was accelerated by the drugs that Mr Millington took to prevent his body rejecting the organs.

Because he was a cancer patient, he was not allowed to receive a further pair of lungs, under hospital rules. The soldier had radiotherapy but died at home in Stoke-on-Trent in February last year.

Hey, at least his health care was "free,"¹ right? He got what he paid for...






¹ - Obviously, "free" isn't "free." It's just a system in which the payers of health care costs are disconnected from the consumers of health care. Those that pay more don't get more, or use more, they just pay more. Those that use less don't pay less, they just use less. Under those circumstances, "demand" increases dramatically (as there is no "cost" associated with consumption) and "supply" plummets (as no one profits from providing it). What could possibly go wrong?