"I don't want to wait in line, so make sure poor people can't go to doctors", which is the reason there are lines and wait times, is basically a cartoon villain argument and anyone making it should be treated as such.
The anxiety is not about the wait but rather the potential consequences of the delay, such as the potential death or prolonged suffering of a loved one.
Got it. "my sick dying relative > your sick dying relative". Total morally reasonable now, thanks for clearing that up.
Why are there going to be lines and waits with expanded healthcare coverage? Because people who need to see doctors will be seeing doctors. If your logic train is "Expanding coverage will create lines, therefor don't expand coverage" and not "Expanding coverage will create lines and therefor we will need to find solutions to new problems when we expand coverage" IDK how you're not just doing some gatekeeping to keep services high for yourself at the expense of others.
>Got it. "my sick dying relative > your sick dying relative". Total morally reasonable now, thanks for clearing that up.
Yes, either that or one's own health being potentially at fault and having to wait too long for treatment. I didn't mean to insinuate that it was a morally correct choice; only that I thought it was a perspective not being considered. Better healthcare for all is a good thing and is something many people support, but doing so at cost of a loved one's health makes the decision far more difficult.
I will die on this hill. If you oppose expanding healthcare because you feel that then too many people will have healthcare and that will cause problems for you, you're a terrible person. "What about the smaller number of people who have a great situation" is never a counterpoint to "what about the much greater number of people who have a terrible situation"
