Mariecel vs. A flamingpoodle - Round 2

I'm happy to say that flamingpoodle, a.k.a. Garg the Unzola, has continued the interesting exchange of standpoints. For his original rebuttal, click here and scroll down to comments. Here we go!

In fact, taking the Hippocratic Oath is no longer a requirement to become a doctor.
The oath is no longer a necessity in the US? Interesting. This speaks of a sad change in the culture of the US medical community, but is also very telling. In a quick search I was not able to find support for your statement. Would you mind providing it?

Give it a try. Claiming that there are logical fallacies in my statement and actually indentifying them and pointing them out to me are two different things entirely.
Perhaps you did not notice that I indeed address and rebut every position of your statement. But far more interesting is that you ignored a good portion of my points. Perhaps, somewhere deep down, you agree?

You are assuming that someone who suffers from cancer would necessarily be reliant on a social health care system and won't be able to afford private health care.
Either you are ignoring selective phrases or I recommend for you to take a class in logic. I do NOT assume that the patient would not be able to afford private health care - this is indicated with the use of the word 'should' in conjunction with 'on the basis of financial ability'.

By your logic, it is entirely acceptable for me to get a yacht by virtue of the fact that I can't afford it. Or for me to have someone do my accounting for me free of charge, by virtue of the fact that I can't afford an accountant. Where do you draw the line between a fundamental human right and a privilege?
I draw the line where the issue at hand no longer directly affects my physiological and mental well-being. As I said previously, long hair will not kill you, but a cancerous tumour will. Not having a yacht will not kill you, but untreated diabetes will. Not having an accountant will not kill you, but untreated heart disease will.

Are the fundamental rights of those who can't afford health care not the same as those who are qualified to provide health services? If they are, then you can't say the doctor has to provide his services to someone who can't afford them any more tha you can deny me a haircut because I can't afford it.
Yes, I believe they have the same right to health care. That does not mean, by any standard of logic, that I can therefore force my hairdresser to cut my hair. You cannot equate the right to life with a wish for comfort.

Even though I think everyone has the same right to health care, I do not think everyone has the right to the comfort of private hospital rooms or medical practices that are not necessary to the physiological and mental well-being of the patient, such as medically unprompted cosmetic surgery. In most of continental Europe, general health care does not pay for your random nose job, unless it has become medically necessary, i.e. due to an accident.

If they aren't, then all are equal, but some are more equal.
We should all be equal with respect to basic, universal access to health care that treats medical ailments in full according to best practice.

It is a matter of basic equality that anybody, regardless of their financial background, who is in need of a specific medical treatment ordered by a doctor (be that dialysis or a simple break away from stress factors), should have access to said prescribed remedy. If you are lucky enough to be affluent, you can add comfort factors, such as private rooms and exclusive attention from the head doctor of the department, at your own cost.

That's all for now. =)

(images from i-hostels.com, bluebuddies.com, and cartoonstock.com respectively)