Let me interject view of many here in the U.S. as we await the full implementation of a national health insurance law generally known as 'ObamaCare'. One of the major concerns as the full actuation of the law is imminent, is the costs involved.
The law was drafted with the misguided and (in my opinion) uninformed belief that the participation by the young and healthy, who don't require much in the way of health services, would pay enough to contain costs for the more aged among us who do require those services.
Well, hue what, the younger citizens say a resigning "no" to enrollment since they believe the are invulnerable as well as don't want to pay the often times high rates for the coverage demanded by the law in the first place.
What does this have to do with the original question? Simply, one would wonder if costs to the system aren't a factor in supplying a procedure that, on the surface and according to what I read of Sqad's interpretation of the quandary. Kinda comes down to (as cold as it may seem) return on investment, which we are all concerned with here, now, in the U.S.