In article <9205292203.AA03905 at rust.zso.dec.com>, french at RUST.ZSO.DEC.COM writes
> In reply to article <9205290120.AA10093 at inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> by
> GERALD M. PHILLIPS
>> In the not too distant future, we will face the prospect of being able
> to keep such elderly people alive and kickiing for as long as we are
> willing to pay for the health care. Yet the cost of health care is
> now at the point where any large increase will signifigantly lower the
> quality of life for the general public.
>> The problem runs deeper than limiting the amount of public funds
> spent on health care. For example, if the rich have unlimited
> access to any medical technology they are willing to pay for, then
> a great deal of resources will be diverted away from areas such
> as education and so on. Furthermore, we are all subject to the
> survival instinct and few of us are capable of acting in the best
> public interest when it involves a matter of life and death.
People are going to spend money on things that aren't productive.
For instance, I suspect most people would regard USENET as an unproductive
waste of time, money, etc. But that doesn't mean that they should be able
to restrict or ban USENET.