[jammies]

Y'know, I have to agree with Azure and DFF here - you're making a linkage that simply doesn't fly. While I agree that spending money on destroying and then rebuilding Iraq isn't the most sensible use of billions and billions of dollars, it's not an either/or situation where that money WOULD have gone to health care otherwise. Nor is it likely that putting more money into US health care would solve much of anything - it's not that they don't spend the money (they spend more per capita than anyone else, and by a fair margin), it's that they spend the money inefficiently, and disproportionately on the wealthy compared to the poor.

And while we're on the subject, there are good reasons for insurance companies - be they government or private - not to cover treatments of astronomical cost. If they did, the pharma companies would be inclined to make many other new drugs much more expensive than they are now, because they would be able to take advantage of the willingness to pay of the eventual "customer", the insurance regime. Which would either cost everyone plenty of money or reduce dollars spent on health care elsewhere; either way, not the best solution either.