> Wow… instead of a lifesaving cure they recommend the treatment of the symptoms until the kid dies because it’s cheaper. That's the same sort of ethical calcu

> Wow… instead of a lifesaving cure they recommend the treatment of the symptoms until the kid dies because it’s cheaper. That's the same sort of ethical calculus that goes into deciding the distribution of any life-saving resources. We can always spend more (resources/social capital) to save more lives/years of life. How do you decide where that line gets drawn? Most medical systems decide it by looking at the cost of treatment (Dollars, organs, risks), and quantifying years of quality life gained. If you'd like that bar raised, increase the tax rate/insurance costs. 'Save every life at any cost' is not compatible with a world where you have decide whether your budget goes on a low-ROI, or a high-ROI intervention. 'First come-first-serve' is not compatible with a world where you are optimizing for overall positive outcomes. Do you have any alternative guiding principle for where money in the healthcare system should be spent?