The situation gets turned on it’s head when it’s an experimental procedure, though. “Insurance wouldn’t pay for x because it was experimental!” is an all too frequent complaint (it’s even the entire catalyst for the show Leverage).

Well, why do you think they don’t pay for it? Not only is it always insanely expensive, but it’s also got a 40% chance of success according to the doctor who wants to perform it (who is incentivized to keep his stats up) and it’s not endorsed by anyone... and that is a huge liability.

So I suppose my point here is that, for the armchair physicians online, every chance there is to save $1k there’s a chance to spend $100k. If you remove regulation you’re not just accomplishing savings on one thing, you’re opening up a pandora’s box of expense on another.

I don't understand your argument at all. Of course it's worth it that this device exists. It works. And it only exists because we've spent money on development and acquisition. This is exactly when higher spending on healthcare is beneficial. Contrast with Bangladesh, where they can't afford these devices and as a consequence many more infants die (or they have to hack together inferior replacements from shampoo bottles that don't work as well).