> Life-or-death care almost certainly needs to be a government-run, single-payer system.

> If giving another kid their cancer meds means one less gold-leaf-covered item in the presidential ballroom, so be it.

Why do you think a government would choose to cover an additional kid’s cancer medications rather than an additional luxury for government workers? You’re placing a ton of faith in governments.

At least with private companies there is choice (normally). And private companies do not directly wield government power (normally).

We have that in canada and it does not work that way at all. Single payer turns into a big en(ugh line item that there is political "otivation to limit supply and it all goes to crap just in a different way than it has in america. The solution is way simpler: ensuring there is enough supply that price raising bs fails. That gives you a bunch of different ways to get to the solution that will all work vut they all have ensuring enough supply to limit shenanigans at their base.

> If giving another kid their cancer meds means one less gold-leaf-covered item in the presidential ballroom, so be it

I agree. I want to expand on this and make my question more explicit. In my previous post I tried to give one extreme (where we clearly do not want restrictions on behavior). This is the other extreme (where we clearly do want restrictions on behavior). There must be some line drawn in between in order to enforce either of these extremes (that we clearly want to enforce).