But who will guard the guardians?

Under the heading of "Be careful what you wish for" come two news items that might interest those who advocate a greater government role in providing health care.

On Thursday, Seattle-area musician Timothy Garon died of liver failure resulting from advanced hepatitis C. The 56-year-old was rejected as a candidate for a liver transplant because he smoked marijuana.

That the marijuana was legally prescribed by a doctor to ease Mr. Garon's pain and nausea and stimulate his appetite was irrelevant to the committee that denied him a spot on the transplant waiting list. Because demand for transplantable livers significantly exceeds the available supply (in part because everyone involved can be paid except the donors), that supply must be rationed. And when health care is rationed, the people charged with deciding who lives and who dies have the power to deny their services based on patient behaviors -- even legal ones -- that they consider unhealthful.

Item No. 2: On Monday, The Associated Press reported that a task force of doctors, academics, and government and military officials has proposed guidelines for determining which patients will be refused treatment in the event of a flu pandemic or other catastrophic event. The standards are meant to be a blueprint for addressing "deficiencies in supply or staffing" should an area's hospital become overwhelmed with victims seeking life-saving treatment.

Among those the task force's report recommends leaving to die: anyone older than 85, anyone older than 60 suffering from severe burns, and those suffering from severe trauma or dementia.

Clearly, under such circumstances, the line must be drawn somewhere, and countries with nationalized health care already routinely deny catastrophic care to the elderly to keep their systems solvent.

The next subgroup of patients the report proposes turning away from emergency rooms shouldn't surprise the defenders of the Nanny State: those with chronic heart or lung problems, and those with poorly controlled diabetes. Translation: Longtime smokers and the obese will be sent to the back of the line.

For all the flaws of our current health care system -- its lack of transparency in pricing and interstate competition among them -- the requirement that people assume some of the costs of their care ensures that bed space is available for those who need it most. In nations with "free" universal health care, such as Canada and Great Britain, long waits are the norm because there is no rationing by price -- less sick citizens have no financial incentive to stay home.

Nonetheless, Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have proposed an increased federal role in American health care, including the creation of new means-tested insurance programs for the middle class. Millions of Americans have cheered these platforms, which promise that higher taxes on "the rich" will cover the bulk of their medical bills, giving them the freedom to spend their money on other stuff.

But as we've learned, when authorities grab more control over your health care decisions, personal freedom is the first casualty. So even if your state's voters overwhelmingly approved a law that allows the sick to smoke marijuana, even if you pay exorbitant taxes to enjoy tobacco, even if it's not a crime to down a six-pack of sugary soda pop with a pizza every day, the very government that promises to take care of you can decide to provide you with no care at all -- and haughtily tell you your bad lifestyle choices make it "your own fault."

Be warned.