Dear Tom:
--Thank you for a well thought out and reasoned response. You may have, however, have put the cat among the pigeons, with your statement about not wanting to loot companies. The looters are not going to like that one. I am glad to hear that private healthcare is still available in the UK. Bonus! It is under threat in the US, at least with regard to private insurance plans. The "Single Payer" plan is the eventual goal, and Insurance Companies are already being told what they must cover.
--You stated "But you have to take into the account is it OK to give someone false hope? For example, say it gives them a good life for a year. They might expect, perhaps even demand that it continue. It is manipulation of the highest order. But it is a sticky situation, very difficult to decide. And $300k/yr is outrageous. I understand drugs cost quite a bit of money to develop, but that pricing is ridiculous."
--The young lady no doubt is probably thinking that another year or so false hope, is probably is just the thing, if the drug can be obtained at no cost. Note that the drug is useful only to 5% of Cystic Fibrosis sufferers who have a certain gene mutation. The company in question may, perhaps foolishly, have decided to develop this drug for a rather limited customer base, at a cost of perhaps billions, and hence the high price. Eventually the drug will be available as a generic, as with many, at first expensive, life saving drugs. Kill the Goose, and no more golden eggs.
--I agree with you about the role of government in providing a fair playing field, in order to promote competition. Competition is what eventually brings things to market at fair prices. You cannot very well keep selling your green peppers at the farmers market for 2 dollars, when the guy in the next stall is selling them for for 1. Unfortunately governments rarely undertake regulation merely to promote competition, and redistrubutionist "Social Policy" creeps in, obviating the fair competition principle. Often governments force insurance companies to cover things. This allows the governments to put the costs of these programs, somewhere other than the budget, where taxpayers could see them.
--You also said "As for rich people, everyone should pay their share to keep society running and people more able to pay more should do so."
--"Their share" always turns out to be more and more. Lets just see how France does with that one. Perhaps you are correct, also perhaps not.
"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
Ronald Reagan 1911 - 2004
Best Regards
Clear Ether