Such is the way with most technological advances, where the high price initially payed by the rich is turned into more productivity and lower production costs, resulting in greater availability.
The "cost" of production of medical technologies has very little to do with their price, in the US anyway.
We shouldn't discard a system because it's not perfect. The alternative could be much worse.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that things become _equal_ over time; it's rare to find wealthy people who will purchase the same kind of cutlery as the common person, to continue your analogy - for various reasons (fear of feeling inferior, ego, or just plain being oversold on it by marketing/salespeople).
The point that the article appears to be making is that healthcare advances are applying for the wealthy - but in fact _reversing_ in some cases for the poor. That's not fair or desirable.
Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
Edit: Just realized my mistake. You are fine with trickle down healthcare in Europe, but are not fine with it in the US. There was absolutely nothing to be gained by engaging with someone so openly biased. My bad.
Does it? What's your source please.
As for you being ashamed: cry me a river.
Like, we've been to the moon, have stuff like google to search through tons of information without leaving the bathroom, and people are trying to convince me we'll soon have useful quantum computers and autonomous vehicles, but it still takes me 3 hours to book a checkup with a doctor, and the soonest they can see me is 3 months from now. Then there's the billing system, which seems to have been devised to fill the maximum number of people's rice bowls. To say nothing of what happens to the uninsured. It's nuts.
https://mises.org/power-market/dont-trust-cuban-health-care-...
Also, we've asked you this before, and continuing to violate the guidelines in this way eventually gets you banned here.
I also find it interesting that of all comments in this thread you chose mine to reply and threaten me with banning, given the absurdities that have been said above.
This speaks volumes about the moderation here. You are clearly fine with "ideological flamewar" as long as it's your ideology.
We can't read all the comments on HN, or even in any large thread, so that logic doesn't work. If you take the time to check, you'll see that we've often moderated comments that cross the line in the opposite ideological direction. Ideological rage is destructive here regardless of which charge it carries.
There’s a caveat, however: Those gains have been reaped mostly by the well-off. While racial disparities have begun to narrow, the impact of limited access to treatment for the poorest Americans has increased wealth-based inequality, according to the American Cancer Society’s annual update on trends and statistics.