This gets complicated in the details. One good example is colorectal cancer testing. Recently in the US testing has been recommended for people ages 45-50 eve

This gets complicated in the details. One good example is colorectal cancer testing. Recently in the US testing has been recommended for people ages 45-50 even though detectable colorectal cancer in people under the age of 55 is extremely rare and happens only in an extremely small fraction of the population. Based on cost of tests and expected results this regimen will cost society over $6 million per cancer found and current treatment regimens are not expected to save most of those people. Where are the lines drawn? Should we spend millions per case on people with colorectal cancer when we don't even have a fully reliable treatment regimen? What about other rare diseases? This idea that health is a human right implies heavy handed decisions about who gets what care. Pretending that there is plenty of money for all potentially needed care is ridiculous. This raises extremely awkward issues regarding the balance between preventive care and treatments and should force us to reevaluate how we treat elderly sick people.