Back to the original topic, an analysis that concludes that some people will die either way, is simply a realistic analysis.

Yes, but that doesn't refute the case-by-case ummm... case, that we're looking at a deadweight loss of human life in this particular instance. If you don't hold that the economy is Pareto-optimal, then there are improvements we can feasibly make without suddenly causing shortages of medicine.

(How could I possibly know? My country was like this. And the people here lived on average shorter than our evil neighbors. The medicine was completely free of charge, you just couldn't get it, because there was not enough made.)

That means that your country wasn't ruled well. On the other hand if you live in a country like Germany you do have access to all medicine that"s proven to work in clinical trials.

When it comes to drugs the expensive part is research, marketing and other things that aren"t about the production costs of the actual drug.

Ah, I may have been overly abstract or generalized.

I agree with your assessment of the situation. What I would like to see is novel approaches at making it so that resource shortages that can be eliminated are eliminated. Cliché example: We are mere years away, barring opposition from invested parties and given continued funding and enthusiasm, from a fully automated transport and logistics infrastructure. AKA self-driven cars & trucks. (please leave argumentation of those two premises for another discussion - a Greater Wish or the circumstances I discussed in the grandparent would make those premises true for the purposes of this discussion)

Current wisdom is that these things should be left alone and "let the free market sort these things out" - which means, essentially, that we are to let shortages keep happening, because the margins of the free market will keep producing availability issues and shortages even on things where we can match supply to demand with positive net value after taking into account resources diverted from elsewhere (raw materials and human work time are the only relevant ones here once you trim the fat and all humans are fed, I believe).

So to come back to the virtual example of the million dollars, what I'd like to see is less people asking "How do we decide who to heal, cure and provide treatment for?" and more people asking "How do we dramatically increase the abstract availability and supply of medical resources and is there some way to do this without draining human resources from other industries?"

To craft a silly image, imagine an automated cold & flu treatment machine that looks like an ATM, is placed strategically to cover as many people as possible, does some basic automated symptom assessments to make sure it's cold & flu, and provides a printout and some dosage of medication.

Once the setup is done, all that's left is raw materials and human work to maintain the system, the human work is of a non-expert kind so not currently in any kind of shortage, and not planned to be given advances in automation, and the raw materials would be in the same ballpark as that already being consumed. An overall net gain, and the supply becomes directly tied to demand and only capped by raw materials, which in this example I'm led to believe are far more ample than what is needed to meet demand. An ideal scenario, disregarding the ridiculous feasibility issues with this scheme.

All this to say: There's too much Utopia/Reality dualistic thinking, where there are either No Resource Shortages or Limited Resources Which Require Free Markets, and nothing in between. Sure, eventually when you trim enough fat everything comes down to a few key raw resources, which could be abstracted into "money" if you tried really really hard, but those are, in most practical cases I've thought of, not the bottleneck.

Then we weren't looking for a solution to this problem statement, or we failed.

The problem statement I wish were posed is: Currently, there is an attribution of (e.g.) medical resources, where wealthier people have priority and every application of medical resources prevents the application of important resources in some other place, medical or otherwise. Can we change this situation around so that the opportunity cost of any given life-changing attribution of (e.g.) medical resources will always be lower than the returns of this attribution (e.g. productivity of the healed person)?

Naturally, this is intended to be a comprehensive "opportunity cost" calculation where "killing off all elders so that the overall medical opportunity cost of healing young persons becomes lower" is an appropriately taxed option. Still an option, perhaps a repugnant one, but at least one that is properly appraised. If there's currently no known good way to appraise this, then perhaps that might be a good first step?

You're leaving out the possibility of needing to shuffle through a number of doctors to get a competent diagnosis. It's a fairly frequent problem in the US. I don't know how common it is in Germany.

Do you have a source that describes how US millionaires go through 10 doctors to get a correct diagnosis? I think most of the time in Germany what stopping people from going to more doctors isn't financial but the fact that they trust a doctor.

Typo: I think you mean disadvantages.

Fixed.