Thank you. Yes, we can do this, although I doubt we will. But it might not involve treating everyone for everything. There just isn't that much money.
Finally, whether any of you want to hear it or not, people are no more entitled to get free access to a $100k+ treatment than they are to wear an iWatch, drive a Tesla, or own a yacht. I have no idea why everyone thinks all medical care is a human right. As soon as something expensive becomes available, there is always someone to tell us that we should pay for it collectively. But everyone cannot get everything; there are financial constraints. Basic stuff to make people comfortable, vaccinate them, treat easily treatable illnesses, help people improve their lifestyle, etc: yes, maybe we should ensure that those things are available.
But there is just not enough money to treat everyone for extremely complex and rare diseases with these very costly treatments. It is a drain on society and the things we could be doing for people. Should this society really even be paying for old people like me to get cardiac stents and such problems of the elderly? For example, I am sure my insurance company is paying my glaucoma specialist more per year than my entire premium. By the time I die or he retires from practice, I suspect he will have extracted more money from my insurance company now (and Medicare later) to care for me than I ever paid into them. Is this really fair to expect that these costs be spread across society when there are impoverished people who cannot even afford to buy a pair of glasses? We can probably buy glasses for 300 people for the cost of one of these expensive pills. What about the children who need vaccinations, healthy food, and an excellent education? There is a lot of work still needed just on that basic stuff, which in my opinion should take precedence over diseases of the elderly and exotic cures that cost as much as a luxury car or a small house. Some choices have to be made.
