Like rotten.com, they pride themselves on it.
Routine procedures are one thing. Doing a c-section during a difficult pregnancy. For me, getting IV antibiotics when my stupid parotid gland swelled up. People taking antibiotics to avoid dying from pneumonia. There are treatments for cancer and AIDS that can give people a lot more time than we had ever hoped.
Those kinds of procedures are one thing. Three million dollars of other people's money is an entirely different story. I'm not saying that she doesn't deserve it, I'm saying that if I was in their position I would have done things differently.
Well, the thing is, almost no one pays full price for their medical care - it's almost always someone else's money. Even if you have insurance, the whole point is that a group of people pay in to benefit the percentage that need help, and occasionally use the service as well.
The thing is, this is one extreme case but to deny this one extreme case benefits of medicaid (I assume that's the payor?) would also imply that it's OK to, for instance, cap medicare and let old people die, or people in long term care from brain injuries.
Once you start, where do you stop? And who is smart enough to decide where to draw the line?
I don't really disagree with your point - that quality-of-life issues are an important consideration, as are the source of the money - but it's a tough problem to solve.