Cancer, for example, has many treatment options available. So does a heart attack.
Besides, emergency conditions (being transported to the hospital in dire condition in an ambulance) are not at all where the vast bulk of health care is.
Besides, emergency conditions (being transported to the hospital in dire condition in an ambulance) are not at all where the vast bulk of health care is.
is there one that's cheap? Can i buy an aspirin pill for cancer?
A substitute is not the same as options - a substitute implies lower cost but does the same job. Chicken is a substitute for beef (which is generally more expensive). Therefore, beef cannot become _too_ much more expensive than chicken, as people will just opt to buy the chicken.
But if you have cancer, and each treatment still costs thousands per visit/session, then they are not substitutes.
1. radiation
2. chemo
3. surgery
4. some combination of the above
All have their pluses and minuses. Sometimes people with terminal cancer opt for no treatment, as they'd rather enjoy a shorter time than have a painful longer time.
The notion there is no choice is simply incorrect.
Usually these treatment options would be weighed by a board of experts from the different medical fields involved, taking into account the individual patient's constraints.
I don't really see how you come to the conclusion that there is much of a choice for a cancer patient. It's not like you can tell the tumor board "I want surgery" when that's not a clinically viable option. And it's also not like any of these options is particularly affordable - any of them will easily bankrupt someone living from paycheck to paycheck. Heck, the MRI scan alone can.
It's still pretty binary between "get reasonable treatment costing tens of thousands or die", as the other poster pointed out.
Because I know several people who've had dire cancers, and they all had choices and made choices among the treatment options.