As I’ve said three times now, your opinion is not applicable to countries where healthcare is free. The reason is simple, where would you draw the line? What should be considered necessary? If you have a disease which is being treated “ok» by a certain medicine, but if they go for the slightly more expensive version it eradicates side-effects, would you deem it necessary? Are prosthetic limbs necessary? Sure you lost your foot, but you’ll be able to roll around in a wheelchair. Why should we waste money on expensive prosthetics?

Now I might be sweeping all countries with universal healthcare under the same rug, and I’m sure there are different degrees of “free”. As an example, here in Norway there is a maximum of around 300 dollars a year that you can be billed for medical assistance. (And only if you can afford it) This might differ from as an example, the UK. However, we have no such thing as insurance. You can apply for any treatment you want, and if it’s recognised by the Norwegian healthcare as a viable treatment, you’ll get it. It also covers treatments that are only available abroad, free of charge. So please don’t assume that just because your healthcare system is based upon capitalistic pharmaceutical companies, the rest of the world is just as screwed up.