Your question posits a scenario that is fairly rare, and assumes that it's common enough that it's an issue. You again ignored my direct rebuttal in the parent

Your question posits a scenario that is fairly rare, and assumes that it's common enough that it's an issue. You again ignored my direct rebuttal in the parent comment as well, which was that there is large amounts of regulation that goes into making sure that a treatment actually works and is effective. The original argument was never about 'should the government pay for fringe treatment that is not confirmed to work' but rather 'should the government pay for people who have fringe diseases or issues'. Your hypothetical scenarios and arguments have been drifting from the latter and into the former.