[becuzThrowaway]

> but it really is the case that we should disabuse ourselves from the notion that one should be entitled to life-saving care.

I couldn't disagree more. If it truly is life-saving (as opposed to death-prolonging) care, we really should _dedicate_ ourselves to the notion that each of us should be entitled to life-saving care. That should be an explicit part of the social contract.

Oh, and btw, society was NOT paying ~100k to keep your dad alive. Assuming you're here in the U.S., if you were looking at medical bills to figure out that number, SURPRISE! those numbers are just made up. (Seriously, they're fiction)

That's not to say that you made the wrong choice with your dad, mind you. We do tend to prolong life way past the point of cruelty in this country.

[doubleg72]

But thats just your opinion man.. not a single fact in all that gibberish. Until everyone has a will to live their best life, take care of themselves and you create a utopian society, the most cutting edge, life-saving drugs will be expensive and not an entitlement.

You should do some research on medical billing and R&D costs in pharmaceutical development; those are two totally different things.

[becuzThrowaway]

I would say it is a fact that medical billing has little relationship to actual costs of care. You should do some research on it.

It's also a fact that the real cutting-edge R&D is invariably funded by taxpayers, while pharmaceutical companies spend their budgets creating patentable variants, often cherry-picking studies to show marginal improvements over existing drugs. You should do some research on that, too.

[throwawaymaths]

Suppose the life saving technology requires you to mow down a rainforest to obtain. Is that still a right? This isn't even a thought experiment. For quite a bit of time, taxol was only obtainable from the endangered yew tree only found in PNW rainforests.