[jfoks]

The money spend where '1/10 the money' was needed to save their lives is additional money spent, not 'instead money'.

In this particular case, the 'instead money' was pure profits for a company (and some taxes for the government).

Do you really think that the 'instead money' would have been a better choice?

Money is just money and is completely replaceable. Actually, we have machines to make it: it's printable. Actually, we don't even have to physically print the money to 'print the money'... It's a number in a computer file.

Every dollar is the same as every other dollar.

Each and every life, on the other hand, is unique.

[malandrew]

Unfortunately, I wasn't clear in my comment above like I was in other comments in this thread. I am specifically referring to a not-for-profit focused healthcare system. If the choice is between profits and the care necessary to help a life, then it boils down to the contractual obligation of the insurer given the level of coverage purchased. In a nationalized healthcare system where costs are spread across all of society and the government has more or less determined the pool of healthcare dollars available by specifying the premium spent per citizen, there most certainly is a cost benefit analysis to consider.