People with life threatning illnesses are still being turned away from hospitals for lack of funds everyday, so by no means am I supporting the current system. But, again, in a nationalized healthcare system, who would decide whether its utilitarian to spend 1 million dollars on one person to keep them alive for only one day? Would it be non-utilitarian to not spend that money even if it only kept them alive for one day?

B/c even those who do have adequate funds and access to such care must sometimes come to the stark reality that no matter how much they spend they're only buying themselves a short amount of time, and it's not worth spending infinite sums just to buy days or months--much the same way you'd forgo that million dollar surgery for your dog or cat b/c it seems superfluous to spend such monies that only result in a minimal amount of sustained life for an animal.

But who makes such a decision in a nationalized health care system, and how? (We can't look to any of the models used by the Nordic countries for the answer b/c they're living in an insular society unlike ours with a population constituting a mere fraction of our own.) Do the monies to finance such an endeavor in a nation as economically diverse as ours even exist? Or are notions of national healthcare simply a myth and inherently non-utilitarian given the inordinate number of people around the world who still go without basic anemities of life?