The other side of the coin on healthcare

Yesterday I wrote about the general hypocrisy regarding "access" to healthcare. But today I suggest we look at the other side of the coin.

With all the amazing technology that has been developed in the bio-med field, cures for certain diseases as well as disease management tools are now available that were not a mere ten years ago. However, these new technologies are not free and are more often than not, prohibitively expensive.

So the question becomes "at what cost to society, are these treatments worth the cost?". I am not talking about rationing healthcare. I am talking about the difference in spending $100k+ on a cancer treatment that will extend the life of a 75 year-old by a few months, vs. using the same money to restore an individual's mobility for up to 20 years or longer so that individual might be a productive member of society.

Not to say that cancer treatments are not valuable as they often lead to a better understanding of the disease and new tools with which to treat it.

There is an underlying cost to society under both scenarios; are either or both worth it?

I wonder what you think?