People in the EU are fine with brand names because they aren’t drastically more expensive than generics, even at US generic prices.

If I go to the pharmacy I’ll generally get generics, if available, because the insurance is going to give the pharmacist a kickback for finding an option that’s below list price. They’ll also ask doctors annoying questions if they write a product instead of a drug name (Aspirin instead of ASA / acetylsalicylic acid) on a prescription.

In fact if they didn’t do that I’d happily vote for people who’d institute such policies when the next board elections are up.

That the government pays for expensive treatments because, in the long run, it actually costs less for them to do so, than to hold the patient liable.

…that’s the economical equation. The legal equation though is that my insurance is required to pay for everything medically necessary, and that might very much be more expensive than not treating me. Health insurance doesn’t pay welfare for people with, say, severe but manageable OCD: Unemployable yet not in need of assisted living, incurring no more medical costs than the average person. Yet if a cure were available they’d have to cover it.

The economical equation comes into play when paying for or subsidising stuff from fitness apps to whole holiday retreats which are just a scheme to make you take a nutrition and cooking course and similar things.