[batiudrami]

It's an okay thought experiment but I don't think it's especially valuable when the reality is closer to "we take an additional 1-2% of your taxable income in return for people being confident that they can go to the hospital if they need to". Which is where we're at, not $100M hearts.

Of course there are issues with it. Government inefficiency, people taking up GP time when they don't need to, over-prescription pushed by drug reps as the government pays for it etc. But comparatively I think it's a small cost to pay for avoiding poor people dying because they can't afford to go to the hospital.

[oconnor663]

That is where we're at, but the word "exponential" makes me worry that it won't be where we're at for very long.

[batiudrami]

I think we're likely to cap out on a quality of life front before it becomes genuinely affordable. Bodies still break down over time, even if we're able to prolong lives a little through modern medicine.