Big Insurance Met Match When Turned Down a Top Trial Lawyer's Request for Cancer

Re:Big Insurance Met Match When Turned Down a Top Trial Lawy... by thfuran on Wednesday November 08, 2023 @04:37AM (#38188338)

>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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Big Insurance Met Match When Turned Down a Top Trial Lawy... by fragmede on Wednesday November 08, 2023 @04:55AM (#38188435)

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?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Big Insurance Met Match When Turned Down a Top Trial Lawy... by thfuran on Wednesday November 08, 2023 @05:11AM (#38188528)

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?

[ Parent | on HN ]