Moral question?
Really the moral question is 'how can such a silly argument be part of such a serious public policy issue?' Your skewed hypothetical doesn't even make the case well, and your conclusion is ridiculous - I know of no Western country with what you might call 'socialised medicine' where the choice would be made on the basis of who is likely to pay the most tax, either by decree or covertly. Haven't you heard of triage?
Because of course the real answer in 'free enterprise medicine' land is 'the one with the most money' - whether it was earned (legally or illegally), inherited, or won at poker.
I just know I'm going to regret responding - assuming 'You can do better...' was being ironic that was probably a much smarter response.
