>I’d say there’s an argument to be made that we all aught to be okay with a small fraction of people getting healthcare that far outstrips their contribution via taxes – given that we never know if that one day may be us.

Yes, but that still must have limits. Society certainly should not pay one trillion dollars to care for a single patient. That’s too inefficient.

for every single patient, sure, but if that's the cost of the treating the first patient (it being a revolutionary new procedure and all), and it goes down from there, then why shouldn't we?

Paying to develop and scale a significantly improved treatment for a condition that affects many people is an altogether different proposition.

> then why shouldn't we?

Ultimately, there's only so much economy to go around. What percentage of it are you willing to dedicate to treating that one condition? What about everything that can't be funded as a result of that allocation?

One of the key ways that single-payer government healthcare influences costs is precisely by refusing to offer treatments that are too expensive for the benefits compared to the next-best option. In particular, the NHS in the UK - which is often pointed to by US politicians as an example of how single-payer can save money - refuses to offer treatments that cost more than a relatively low amount per quality-adjusted life year saved, which is specifically illegal for US healthcare providers and insurance companies to take into account.

Yes, I was just thinking of an acquaintance's similar cancer situation in the UK. The NHS denial of the more effective but more expensive treatment was intractable, and so they paid for the treatment out of pocket through a fundraiser and saved her life. Their fundraiser was successful enough that they were able to give some money to other UK residents in the same situation. In the US I think they could have at least switched jobs to get it covered if they couldn't hack the appeals process.