That wasn't really a response. When you work through it, it was just a rewording of the question, and a conclusion at the end that has no data to support it and is based solely on prejudice.

Do you honestly think any of the services Gifford got were because the service providers tossed out someone else who wasn't Gifford? Anyone in an emergency room at our hospital who shoved aside a poor person in favor of a rich one, assuming both were in equal need, would be fired. In fact, nobody at the level of emergency room personnel or other direct service providers has any mechanism for connection to the financial resources of the patient.

The article fulfilled its intended function: to create a sense of "unfairness" about things, and lead to the desired conclusions in the minds of the readers, i.e. Somebody Should Do Something, and three guesses who or what "somebody" will be. It's exactly what went through your mind, and you knew anybody would be able to guess it. Small wonder you wanted to nip any real "discussion" in the bud.

If you go through the comments section, the article had the intended effect on a lot of people.