> Consider the case where some business could sell you a product or service that might add years to your life. How much is that worth?

My gym membership is EUR 19.95, what's that got to do with anything? :)

> how much is your health worth to you?

Whatever percentage of my income currently goes into my health insurance over here in Germany. That's paying towards my health and the health of those unable pay in right now (or ever, I don't care, it's not their fault most of the time and could just as well be me). I plan on getting private health insurance to get better level of care for myself because I can financially afford it, that doesn't imply that those unable to should feel entitled when they seek treatment imho.

The opposite of the US system is neither free, nor massively discounted. You're just overpaying on stuff much of the rest of the world managed to put in more effective systems that do not put massive strain on the population. If you don't mind a different perspective here: Framing that as entitlement always seemed odd to me since I don't get why some medical corporation should be held in higher regard than the population of the country that provides them with a market in the first place.

> Why is it somehow unfair or immoral if someone buys such a product or service, without considering their ability to pay, and bankrupts themself?

Because those people suffer, in the worst case die, in the best case put other costs on society as a whole? We generally moved on from exiling the ill in most firsts world countries, which is what happens if society does not (at least minimally) provide for those that cannot afford to do so themselves.

There's a basic level that every human on earth deserves, especially in a bountiful country like the USA. If you break an arm, get food poisoning, or catch a virus, I think you should be able to get good treatment for free.

I don't think we should offer advanced and highly specialized treatments for free. It's just crazy that there's so much wealth here, but you hear plenty of stories of peoples' lives being seriously damaged by an accidental ambulance trip or hospital billing horror-story.

I've seen this type of argument by a few people who are against state medical care (not saying you're one of those in particular).

The product or service that extends your life is essentially not critical to survival or even just your status quo health-wise. From an economic perspective, this is a price elastic situation so charge as you like (i.e. basically according to supply/demand).

The situation that is actually the problem (and way more common, of course) is that if I'm in a life threatening situation I don't have the option to chose a particular product or service, that's price inelastic and not beholden to supply/demand. So you're comparing apples to oranges from an economic viewpoint, especially when we're talking about something as critical as healthcare.

For what it's worth, there are some UK parties, where if they got into power I suspect they would nationalise such a product/service for the betterment of everybody.