Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Is it? I don't see the big stretch or leap of faith required to assert that more productive and healthy people is better for society as a whole than less. Obviously that's simplifying it substantially but that's pretty much what it boils down to if you're strictly looking at it pragmatically, without even getting into the morality at play when societies of plenty refuse to care for their own.
|
Okay, now I'm confused. The options I put forward on the basis of a $1,233 billion federal health care budget weren't "more productive and healthy people, or less", it's better government health care for relatively few, or lower-quality health care for many. Either way you're going to have people whose health outcomes are worse and deleterious to society - how do you spend your money?