They do need to be made. By medical professionals. The people who can actually determine who’s viable to save and who can best utilize resources, and who actually know if there even is a shortage. Which there usually isn’t.

The last people you want doing it are the people with a financial incentive to always deny care.

In the ideal world, an insurance company handles the paperwork of collecting money for risk pooling and paying the bills as they come in, as well as assessing individual risks to set premiums.
Sort of like most other insurance industries. Maybe arguing about if you paid for coverage, but not actually arguing that you don’t need the fix.

Your car insurance might argue you aren’t covered for damage that happened while the car was parked in the garage, but they won’t try to argue that your car might not actually require a new windshield since you haven’t tried plastic wrap yet.

In this ideal world, the people making the decision to ration care would be… The doctors, who are perfectly positioned to do this, and actually do when there’s a real need to do so.

They don’t actually hate Wikipedia. They hold that it’s not a primary source for things that require citation, and that it’s not a great textbook.

Reading the Wikipedia page for optics is a bad way to learn optics.
It’s also difficult to cite as a source because you can’t actually specify who you’re citing, which is why Wikipedia, for research purposes, is a great way to get a quality overview and the terms you need, and then jump to its sources for more context and primary sources as you need them.

Encyclopedias in general are overviews or summaries of what they reference. Teachers would typically like you to reference something that isn’t a summary or overview when writing one, sincenthat what most of those reports are.