Jon Henke makes sense on the idiocy of government run healthcare

writing:

A few months back, many were outraged when a young girl, Nataline Sarkisyan, died after the administrator of her insurance plan, Cigna Healthcare, did not approve a liver transplant procedure until it was too late to save her life. Many Lefty bloggers (and Michael Moore) were outraged, though they got some of the facts wrong and the situation wasn’t nearly as clear as they seemed to think.

This raises some more questions:

Do advocates of universal health care think cost/benefit resource allocation decisions will no longer happen under universal health care? Do those advocates believe nobody will ever be denied any medical care for any reason? If they disagree with those decisions when the government pays the bills, where will they take their business?

Finally: Cigna Healthcare denied one procedure that had a chance of extending a life. But the FDA routinely delays and denies thousands of medical treatments based on potential risks and uncertainties far less than in the case of Cigna and Nataline Sarkisyan. Far more people are denied treatments by the FDA, but where is the outrage from the Left over government interference and obstruction in the health care decisions?

As McArdle says, we already accept that the process is manned by imperfect people with perverse incentives. Yet we have given them a monopoly over decisions about our medical treatments. That is absurd and inconsistent with the kind of reaction we saw in the Cigna case.