Spot the Omission: Health Lawsuit

So in this article, I actually read to the end and something seems to be missing. See if you can spot it...

Did you notice how there was no mention of the fact that livers are scarce and that if this experimental surgery would have meant someone else would have died instead? Now, this may not be that big of a thing itself, but they take the time to point out that if she had the transplant, she had a 65% chance of living 6-months. It isn't callous to think that maybe someone else should have gotten the liver who could have lived for longer.

Why are livers scarce? They don't mention that one either. Organs are scarce because it is illegal to sell them. Why should I donate my organs when I die? To feel better? Bullcrap! I'm DEAD! What do I care? But, say I could sell it; wouldn't it both inspire me to take better care of myself and provide needed money for my family? As economist Walter Williams has mentioned numerous times, why should he forgo enjoyment so someone else can have his organ? With a payment system, there will be an incentive to do so.

While this case sounds sad, don't be. Realize the other thing they didn't mention. The insurance company turned down her transplant because it was TOO RISKY; yet, people will use this to call for government-run health care. In what universe would the government bureaucraps approve this sucker? Not in England; not in Canada; so where? It wouldn't happen; not now, not ever!

So, here you go. I hope this case gets thrown out instead of this family scamming the company out of a settlement or putting this case in front of a bunch of wimpy jurors, who in no way whatsoever could be considered "peers" of this insurance corporation. Then again, this is in the People's Republic of California so it might take the Supreme Court to stop this family's asinine attempt at extortion.