Like only counting dollars is a bad way to run a society.
How would you show that on your balance sheet?
Absolutely. But one measure everyone understands is money, and you can convert a lot of situations into money. Poor health = missed work, missed rent payments, drugs needed etc. It’s not a nice measure, but it works.
Universal healthcare actually means a downgrade in the experience for these people, which is one of the reasons why they don't want it. Yea, they might want to make sure that people don't get sent to the poor house just because they came down with some random disease, but god forbid they have to wait their turn behind some plebe in the doctors office.
But it also means a much higher cost. I know these people are wealthy, but they are getting fleeced. Many (all?) socialised systems also have a private system along side, so the wealthy can avoid the great unwashed.
It's not really very interesting to discuss the bad position at any length, except maybe as a launching point into some more interesting adjacent discussion.
That wasn't the point I was trying to make. Everyone arguing against me is trying to claim that and then say it's a dumb position.
Try arguing with my actual point in the future.
I'll grant you I could have stated it more clearly. My bad. I also clarified, yet this assertion lives on.
Whatever.
We pay a lot more per capita than any of those other places, but the ratio of what we pay per capita to what a given other first world country pays per capita has been pretty steady long term.
> Does spending on prevention save the country money over all? A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests the answer is no. The budget office modeled how a policy to reduce smoking through higher cigarette taxes might affect federal spending. It found that such a tax would cause many people to quit smoking — the desired result. In the short term, less smoking would lead to decreased spending because of reductions in health care spending for those who had smoked.
> In the long run, all of those people living longer would lead to increases in spending in many programs, including health care. The more people who quit smoking, the higher the deficit from health care — barely offset by the revenue from taxing cigarettes.
Well darn, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.
> But money doesn’t have to be saved to make something worthwhile. Prevention improves outcomes. It makes people healthier. It improves quality of life. It often does so for a very reasonable price.
An important point to make.
> There are many good arguments for increasing our focus on prevention. Almost all have to do with improving quality, though, not reducing spending. We would do well to admit that and move forward.
> Sometimes good things cost money.
This is a value judgement, one I happen to agree with. Thank you for sharing this article.