Heck, why not go ahead and remove tobacco subsidies!
I find it's like solving global warming like painting a roof white, or working from home - extremely cheap and obvious ways to change things. That governments don't choose these options is likely because their goal is power, not progress.
Removing subsidies, lowering regulation, legalizing pot, etc., would all be revenue generators and add to the public good.
Except for the part that they don't work. For example, painting your roof white saves energy in some climates but not others.
> That governments don't choose these options is likely because their goal is power, not progress.
That's half correct. The goal is power but progress isn't something that govt opposes, it's something that doesn't matter either way.
Uh, the last three aren't levels of health at all. Further, you neglect "How much stress is in your life, how much exercise do you get, how well do you eat, how many infectious diseases are you exposed to, and how many dangerous activities do you engage in". These are factors that can sometimes determine how likely you are to need specific health care in the future - ie, whether you remain healthy.
But this shows how far the current debate about "health care" is from the question of society encouraging general health and well-being.
Plus read the article! It offer some analogies for this situation.
We've been arguing that increasing the percentage of those with a certain level of health care coverage insurance would be good for aggregate health.
My intuition is that removing corn subsidies would have a greater effect - and the aggregate health of the world would drastically increase if you consider the African sugar farmer who can't sell to western markets because of regulations and subsidies. Ohh, and it would make money, not cost money.