Look, in any system, there are going to have to be arguments where patients or doctors say some treatment is necessary, and the entity paying for the treatment

Look, in any system, there are going to have to be arguments where patients or doctors say some treatment is necessary, and the entity paying for the treatment says it's not. For example, in Canada, the Ontario government refused to cover a cancer treatment that her doctors said could extend her life by a year or more: https://globalnews.ca/news/927721/milton-mother-devastated-after-ohip-fails-to-cover-cancer-treatment/ https://globalnews.ca/news/927721/milton-mother-devastated-a... In the UK, two Cystic Fibrosis drugs were rejected for not being cost-effective even though they were clinically effective. https://www.cysticfibrosis.org.uk/news/nice-rejects-orkambi https://www.cysticfibrosis.org.uk/news/nice-rejects-orkambi https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/nices-trikafta-snub-could-portend-another-pricing-standoff-between-vertex-and-uk https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/nices-trikafta-snub-coul... You will of course stick to your principles here? The single-payer healthcare systems in Canada and the UK are irredeemable and it's morally repugnant to look at any good they've done for anyone?