As I see it there are two equity issues with health care. What extra health care assistance, if any, the government should provide to the poor and/or the chronically ill? In both cases I believe some assistance is reasonable but that it should not be an unlimited entitlement.
Poor people have less ability to buy lots of goods and services, food, clothing, housing etc. I don't see why health care should be any different. It may be reasonable for the government to provide a floor but I don't see any reason everybody should be entitled to the best possible health care any more than they are entitled to the best possible food or housing. And I think people should have the same freedom to spend more or less on health care that they have for spending on other things like clothing or cars.
My thoughts about the chronically ill are similar. People are fortunate and unfortunate in many ways and I don't think it is the job of government to attempt to compensate for all misfortune. Particularly when this is an open ended entitlement that can be impossible to fulfill no matter how much is spent. There are many chronic medical conditions that can be alleviated but not cured. I think some government assistance is reasonable for people with costly medical conditions but that it should be subject to a cost-benefit analysis and limited to cases where substantial benefit for reasonable cost is possible. My thoughts here are similar to my thinking about education for "special needs" children. In some cases school districts end up spending more on a single "special needs" child than 100 normal children. I don't think such disproportionate spending is reasonable and I don't think it is reasonable in the case of medical care either.
Note medical care is subject to decreasing marginal returns. In other words the more you spend the less each additional dollar will buy in terms of increased quality of life. So cutting medical spending does not affect outcomes much when you are in the flat part of the curve as we are.
1 hour ago