You're not addressing the content of the post at all.

I disagree and assert that you are neglecting the context.

It doesn't say that nothing is worth more than a life.

No, it doesn't. That is the plausible implicit assumption that could make the claim in question logically follow and also the kind of thing that is often the right thing to say for social reasons even if your actual decision making is not determined by it. A political significant organisation should include money in the decision making but probably not mention this in a press release.

It says, very specifically, that 5 years of anxiety, plus less than one year of soreness, is not worth more than a life. And I agree.

It very specifically leaves off financial cost. I very clearly included this in my answer above and with good reason. Choosing to leave out the financial element is significant when doing so leads to absurd accusations like "they say 2>1". If you take a look at the claim I reject it is that not agreeing with a preferred decision is a 'cognitive dysfunction', not a mere disagreement of preferences.

I don't address the post in general and now that Phil has removed the distracting paragraph I probably agree with most of the points he raises.