Practical Governing vs. Moral Obligations

If I was in the legislators position or any member of the AHCCCS I would probably have thought the plan was sound. Some people just can't get transplants because the funds and resources can be better used in other places. That's one of the difficult decisions politicians and administrators have to make and if my hands are dirty because of it, so be it. I guess I would be in about the same line of thought as Dr. Kirschner. This is ultimately a utilitarian viewpoint based on the available resources and might be slightly cold, but I guess I would still like to allow AHCCCS to make individual exceptions for people who have greater chances of survival from the more expensive transplants. This is just the realities of the health care system and its sad that those who can't afford private coverage are not going to have access to all forms of treatments. I do not like that this decision has to be made this way. Why does the populace as a whole put up with this kind of system?

Despite the obvious answer of cost and the lack of resources I feel like the moral obligation to other humans in the overall moral community, as Calhoun described it, has been ignored. It's just odd to me that the case by case basis will bring about sympathy and outcry but when we simply look and statistics we can just deny coverage to people and be content. I myself, would be willing to do that if I was in a similar position. So I guess to some extent Nozick's theory is legitimized in a way because it is impossible to to take care of everyone and so there has to be some level of self reliance. I wish this wasn't the case but I think we have to acknowledge that it is wrong to try and complain about health care without calling for its drastic upheaval. If the people were willing to fight for socialized medicine or universal health care, which I feel would be a good idea, then I feel as if people at the poverty level should have every right to transplant procedures. Otherwise, I just don't feel as if the state of Arizona has an obligation to trade off the health of the many in the notch group, over the few who would need the more expansive and less successful transplants. Without a change in policy though, the "triage" system makes more sense and until people actually decides that the U.S. should give the best health care to everyone by amending the law, why should we expect states to do anything different?