That’s not even the point. Trying everything possible should be the norm, and it shouldn’t be dictated by some uncaring jackass with a 35th floor office. The entire little point of health insurance is to distribute the cost of those in need amongst all of the input of the whole. If you take enough of that input as profit for the stockholders and executives, there’s less available to do what the insurance is meant to do. They’re legally embezzling the investment of the whole without providing sufficient practical benefit to warrant it.
But even if you made the insurance system completely non-profit, there’s no upper bound on how much you can spend on each individual. You’d still run into cases where you have to distribute a limited number of resources.
I think the point is that while your point is broadly true, in this specific scenario the treatment might not have been available anyway. Looking up on the named procedure, it seems likely most nations would have declined to offer this treatment, considering it futile in his situation.
I’m not advocating for the US style of health insurance. I’m saying this specific case, if the medical commentators in this thread are to be trusted, may have ended up the same way in a non-profit model.
That’s not even the point. Trying everything possible should be the norm, and it shouldn’t be dictated by some uncaring jackass with a 35th floor office. The entire little point of health insurance is to distribute the cost of those in need amongst all of the input of the whole. If you take enough of that input as profit for the stockholders and executives, there’s less available to do what the insurance is meant to do. They’re legally embezzling the investment of the whole without providing sufficient practical benefit to warrant it.
But even if you made the insurance system completely non-profit, there’s no upper bound on how much you can spend on each individual. You’d still run into cases where you have to distribute a limited number of resources.
Most of the world can pull it off. Why not the US?
I think the point is that while your point is broadly true, in this specific scenario the treatment might not have been available anyway. Looking up on the named procedure, it seems likely most nations would have declined to offer this treatment, considering it futile in his situation.
I’m not advocating for the US style of health insurance. I’m saying this specific case, if the medical commentators in this thread are to be trusted, may have ended up the same way in a non-profit model.
Fuckin’ A.
Let’s cross that bridge once we get there