There's another interesting policy question. Insurance, flat out, can't pay for everything. So, given that they have a pool of money, do you allocate that toward the least sick people? That's probably a better approach to more total years of survival. ensure the healthiest 50% (or whatever) get excellent care, and let the rest go. Alternatively, do you triage and spend the the money on people who have a slim chance of survival, making the heroic rescue day after day?

I find that policy decision horrifying. I honestly have no idea how they pick. But it's pretty obvious, somebody getting chemo means 100 other people aren't getting, for example, cholesterol medication.

I'll agree it's just an equation. but man, i'd love to see those tables showing years of human life saved based on condition and treatment. Just to add a touch more cynicism, should those years be weighted based on economic productivity? Would we be better off with 10 more years of Steve Jobs or 10 more years of Grandma? My gut says Grandma, but... it's just an equation.